Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page



APPENDIX 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

ALLEN, ROBIN
Director
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC)
8604 La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037-1508, USA
Tel: +1 858 546 7033
Fax: +1 858 546 7133
E-mail: rallen@iattc.org
(IATTC nominee)

ALLISON, CHERRY
Computing Manager,
International Whaling Commission,
The Red House,
135 Station Road, Impington,
Cambridge, CB4 9NP, UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 233971
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 232876
E-mail: CherryOffice@IWCoffice.org
(IWC nominee)

CROSS, DAVID
Head of Sector "Fisheries"
Directorate for Agriculture, Fisheries,
Structural Funds and Environment Statistics,
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
Bâtiment Jean Monnet, BP 1907
Luxembourg, Grand Duchy
Tel: +352 4301 37249
Fax: +352 4301 30049
E-mail: david.cross@cec.eu.int
(EU/Eurostat nominee)

DE GRAAF, GERTJAN
FishCode - STF Project
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39065705
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: gertjan.degraaf@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

FISCHER, JOHANNE
Executive Secretary
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO)
P.O. Box 638, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada B2Y 3Y9
Tel: +1 902 468 6582
Fax: +1 902 468 5538
E-mail: jfischer@nafo.int
(NAFO nominee)

GRAINGER, RICHARD
CWP Secretary
Chief
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054828
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: richard.grainger@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

HENRARD, MICHEL
Senior Administrator
Directorate for Agriculture, Fisheries,
Structural Funds and Environment Statistics,
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
Bâtiment Jean Monnet, BP 1907
Luxembourg, Grand Duchy
Tel: +352 4301 33744
Fax: +352 4301 30049
E-mail: michel.henrard@cec.eu.int
(EU/Eurostat nominee)

KEBE, PAPA
Head of Department of Statistics
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Corazón de María 8,
Madrid 28002, Spain
Tel: +34 91 4165600
Fax: +34 91 4152612
E-mail: papa.kebe@iccat.es
(ICCAT nominee)

LASSEN, HANS
Head of Advisory Programme
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46
Copenhagen V
Denmark
Tel: +45 3338 6700
Fax: +45 33934215
E-mail: hans@ices.dk
(ICES nominee)

LOWTHER, ALAN
Fishery Statistician (Aquaculture)
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39065705
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: alan.lowther@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

RAMM, DAVID
Data Manager
Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR)
PO Box 213, North Hobart 7002
Australia
Tel: +61 3 62310556
Fax: +61 3 62349965
E-mail: david@ccamlr.org
(CCAMLR nominee)

SMITH, ANDREW
FAO Consultant
5 Seatown Pl.
Cairnbulg
Fraserburgh AB43 8WP
UK
Tel: + 44 1346 582980
E-mail: andrewrsmith1@hotmail.com
(FAO nominee)

SCHMIDT, CARL-CHRISTIAN
Head of Fisheries Division
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
2, rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
Tel: + 33 1 45 249560
Fax: + 33 1 45 306121
E-mail:
Carl-Christian.SCHMIDT@oecd.org
(OECD nominee)

TACONET, MARC
Fishery Information Officer
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 5705 3799
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: marc.taconet@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

VANNUCCINI, STEFANIA
Fishery Statistician (Commodities)
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO
00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054949
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: stefania.vannuccini@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

VAZQUEZ, ANTONIO
Vice Chairman of the Scientific Council of
NAFO and Chair of STACREC
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC
Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo
Spain
Tel: + 34 986 231930 Ex.242
Fax: + 34 986 292763
E-mail: avazquez@iim.csic.es
(NAFO nominee)

WESTLUND, LENA
FAO Consultant
Badhusvägen 13
132 37 Saltsjö-Boo
Sweden
Tel/Fax: + 46 (0) 8 570 287 50
Mobile: +46 (0) 708 54 88 13
E-mail: lena.westlund@swipnet.se
(FAO nominee)

WONGSANGA, POUCHAMARN
Information Program Coordinator
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center (SEAFDEC)
Suraswadi Building, Department of
Fisheries Compound
Kasetsart University
Main Campus Chatuchak
Bangkok, Thailand
Tel: +662 940 6326 to 29
Fax: +662 940 6336
E-mail: pouch@seafdec.org
(SEAFDEC nominee)

APPENDIX 2

AGENDA

  1. Opening and welcome, practical arrangements
  2. Adoption of Agenda
  3. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
  4. Review of membership
  5. Progress since CWP-20

a. Progress report from each member organization
b. Review of the development of FIGIS and FIRMS [for information]
c. CWP’s advocacy role
d. Review of progress with recommendations from CWP-20
e. FISHSTAT

  1. Vessel size measurement for statistical purposes (Vessel length, Loa, Lp-p,)
  2. Aquaculture statistics
  3. Fishery Data Quality Indicators
  4. Recommendations relating to CWP from the FAO Expert Consultation on Data Formats and Procedures for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (Bergen, Norway, 25 - 27 October 2004).
  5. Report of the Workshop 28 February - 1 March on: Implementation of the Strategy - STF
  6. Arrangements for CWP-22 (Time and Venue)
  7. Any other business
  8. Adoption of Report of CWP-21
  9. Closing of the meeting

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

CWP-21/A

Secretariat

General Announcement

CWP-21/B

Secretariat

Provisional Agenda

CWP-21/C

Secretariat

Provisional Annotated Agenda and Timetable

CWP-21/D

Secretariat

Provisional List of Documents

CWP-21/E

Secretariat

Provisional List of Participants

CWP-21/F

Secretariat

CWP Sessions: Dates, venues, etc.

CWP-21/G

Secretariat

List of Acronyms

Documents from the Secretariat addressing agenda items 3-5

CWP-21/1

Secretariat

Report of the Twentieth Session of the CWP. Victoria, Seychelles. 21 - 24 January 2003

CWP-21/2

Secretariat

Report of the CWP-ISM. Rome, Italy. 3 and 5 February 2004

CWP-21/3

Secretariat

Changes in Membership of the CWP

CWP-21/4

Secretariat

Review of Recommendations from CWP-20

CWP-21/5

Secretariat

Recommendations relating to CWP from the FAO

CWP-21/6

Secretariat

Report of the Workshop 28 February - 1 March 2005 on: Implementation of the Strategy - STF

CWP-21/7

Secretariat

Fisheries Data Quality Indicators: Review of progress

Documents from Participating Organizations addressing agenda items 6-18

CWP-21/CCAMLR

Paper from CCAMLR

CWP-21/CCSBT

Paper from CCSBT

CWP-21/Eurostat

Paper from Eurostat

CWP-21/FAO

Paper from FAO

CWP-21/IATTC

Paper from IATTC

CWP-21/ICCAT

Paper from ICCAT

CWP-21/ICES

Paper from ICES

CWP-21/IWC

Paper from IWC

CWP-21/NAFO

Paper from NAFO

CWP-21/OECD

Paper from OECD

CWP-21/SEAFDEC

Paper from SEAFDEC

CWP-21/SPC

Paper from SPC

CWP-21 Information Documents

CWP-21/Inf.1

Bergen Report: Expert Consultation on Data Formats and Procedures for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. Bergen, 25 - 27 October 2004

CWP-21/Inf.2

Definition of Vessel Length Overall

APPENDIX 4

NEW DIVISIONS OF AREA 27

Figure A. Overview of the revised divisions and subdivisions. The changes concern the introduction of the NEAFC convention areas I, II and III as separate divisions and a split of the Baltic Sea Subdivision 28 in an open part and in the Gulf of Riga. Details of the boundaries around the Azores are disputed and may be revised.

Figure B. Subdivisions in the Baltic Sea. Note that the former Division IIId is now defunct.

Figure C. Details of divisions and subdivisions of the eastern parts of the Northeast Atlantic.

APPENDIX 5

CWP STATEMENT TO COFI 2005

Statement to Agenda item 4. Code of Conduct discussion.

Mr Chairman, distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

I am Johanne Fischer, Executive Secretary of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. I speak to you as vice-chair of and on behalf of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics, CWP, that is composed of 15 intergovernmental organizations with FAO providing the Secretariat. At CWP’s Twenty-first session held last week in Copenhagen participants asked that two matters related to the implementation of the Code of Conduct be conveyed to COFI.

First, CWP considered the Role of Regional Fishery Bodies, in the implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in cooperation with the FishCode - STF Project. The following recommendations resulted from this discussion:

  1. The FishCode - STF Project and FAO should assist RFBs in increasing the awareness of the importance of the implementation of the STF Strategy.
  2. The FishCode - STF Project and FAO, together with the RFBs, should stress the importance of and promote actions on transparent and complete national data collection of fisheries.
  3. The FishCode - STF Project should cooperate with RFBs on the carrying out of inventories of data collection systems and status of stocks, in particular in supporting their contribution to FIRMS.
  4. The FishCode - STF Project should seek collaboration with interested RFBs for the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. All RFBs may assist with the identification of expertise for technical assistance.
  5. The FishCode - STF Project should consider developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the CWP handbook on fisheries statistical standards.

Secondly, the FAO Expert Consultation on MCS Data Formats and Procedures in 2004, also mentioned by Norway yesterday, made a number of recommendations to CWP. These were carefully considered and addressed, and we refer to the last CWP report for details. Here, we wish to point out that the Experts’ recommendation on data formats and procedures for MCS was partly outside the CWP mandate and therefore it was decided to invite the inter-agency IMCS Network to cooperate with CWP on this matter.

The FAO Expert Consultation also suggested that CWP enter into a dialogue with the developers of the North Atlantic Format for electronic fishing vessel communications. In response, CWP has set up a Working Group to draft a discussion paper.

Thank you for your attention.

APPENDIX 6

SUMMARY MINUTES
of
FIRMS STEERING COMMITTEE - SESSION 2
Copenhagen, 25 - 26 February 2005

The Second Session of the FIRMS Steering Committee (FSC2) took place on 25 and 26 February 2005 in the ICES building, Copenhagen. The FIRMS Secretariat, five Partner agencies (IATTC, ICES, ICCAT, SEAFDEC, and NAFO), and one observer agency (CCAMLR) were represented.

Two new Partners, NAFO and SEAFDEC, signed the agreement during the inter-session thus bringing the current FIRMS Partnership to eight members. CCAMLR and Eurostat are in the final stages of signing the FIRMS Partnership Arrangement.

It was noticed that these new Partners intend to provide more information on fisheries and their management than the initial set of FIRMS signatories.

On the subject of new possible Partners, it was decided that WCPFC, NEAFC, NASCO and IWC will be invited to become members of FIRMS. The nature of FIRMS, its progress status and its openness to any RFB requesting to become a FIRMS Partner will be items which will be presented during the next RFB meeting in Rome.

FIRMS Steering Committee - Session 2 (FSC2) has adopted the first version of its Information Management Policy. This policy provides for rules and principles governing the sharing of information within the FIRMS system. It is understood to be a living document which FSC will regularly revise. The item "Mechanisms for effective development and validation of Metadata standards" was added, and will probably be extended at the next FSC meeting. Among the mechanisms it is expected to delegate responsibility to interested FIRMS groups to propose standards for specific FIRMS subjects.

The FIRMS Partners and Secretariat progress reports have been considered. The inventory of Marine resources and Stocks of existing FIRMS Partners are nearly complete and are currently loaded in the FIGIS database. The inventory of fisheries is close to completion. Table 1 presents summary statistics of these inventories. Three training sessions were delivered during the inter-session, and others are planned in the forthcoming session. The requirements for the FIRMS web-based module were discussed and the software is currently under design with an objective to have an operational version by the end of 2005. This software will build on the new version of FIGIS released in February 2005, which has improved performance and is easier to maintain. Prototype tools were tested for streamlining information flow from Partners word source documents to FIRMS xml formats. A draft FIRMS home page is now available to Partners for review before publication. FSC2 validated some of the standards proposed by the Secretariat, such as stocks and fisheries naming conventions and primary attributes, or standards for bibliographic citations for FIRMS fact sheets.

The Steering Committee discussed a strategy for promoting the development of a global network for reporting on fisheries and stocks status and trends. The agreed road map includes the invitation to other RFBs to join, the development of a proofed product, the promotion of FIRMS as one implementing mechanism of the Strategy - STF, and once FIRMS is operational, an invitation to national agencies to contribute.

FSC 3 will be held in conjunction with the CWP’s 2006 intersessional meeting. During the intersession, the technical group will pursue the review of the successive mock-ups and draft web-pages proposed by the Secretariat, extend the inventory of fisheries where applicable, and will probably hold a training and feedback meeting in Rome at the end of 2005. The FSC members will review and try to validate high level definitions required for FIRMS.

Hans Lassen and Victor Restrepo were elected Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively for the coming intersession.

Table 1a: Progress status of the stocks of fisheries inventory of FIRMS partners

Institution acronym

Target of the inventory

Marine resources

Fisheries

Number

Progress status

Number

Progress status

CCSBT

Global southern Bluefin tuna fishery

1

OK

3

OK

FAO - GLOBAL

High level resources

42

OK



FAO -CECAF

Eastern Central Atlantic marine resources and fisheries

228

OK

343

OK

FAO -GFCM

Shared stocks of interest in the Mediterranean Sea

50

OK

-

to be done

FAO -RECOFI

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden marine resources and fisheries

341

OK

165

OK

FAO -WECAF

Western and Central Atlantic marine resources and fisheries

243

In progress

289

in progress

IATTC

Tunas and tuna-like species in the eastern Pacific

15

OK

-

to be done

IATTC/SPC

Tunas and tuna-like species in the Pacific

8

OK

-

to be done

ICCAT

Tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic

22

OK

-

not planned

ICES

Main marine fish resources in the North Atlantic

141

OK

-

to be done

IOTC

Tunas and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean

16

OK

-

not planned

NAFO

Marine fish resources in the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO)

14

OK

-

to be done

SEAFDEC

South East Asia shark fisheries

-

Not planned

42

in progress

Table 1b: Progress status of the stocks of fisheries inventory of FIRMS observers

Institution acronym

Target of the inventory

Marine resources

Fisheries

Number

Progress status

Number

Progress status

CCAMLR

Main marine resources and fisheries in the Antarctic Ocean

36

In progress

41

in progress

Eurostat

EU fisheries (socio-economic data on national fleets)

-

-

-

?

SPC

Tunas and tuna-like species in the South Pacific

14

OK

15

OK

APPENDIX 7

REPORT OF THE RFB - STF WORKSHOP

The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries
(RFB - STF Workshop)

Copenhagen, Denmark, 28 February - 1 March 2005

Introduction

1. In 2003 the Twentieth Session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) discussed the possible role of CWP and Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. The CWP had participated in the Technical Consultation on Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in March 2002 and RFBs were involved in the development of the Strategy - STF. The meeting agreed that CWP should support the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the framework of its mandate. At the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004, it was agreed to organize the RFB-STF Workshop to discuss in more detail the roles of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

2 In order to assist the implementation of the Strategy - STF, a multilateral project was formulated under the FAO FishCode Programme, the FishCode - STF Project. The Project became operational in November 2004. A major objective of the project is to support the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

3. The FAO/CWP workshop on the role of Regional Fishery Bodies and the CWP in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (Strategy - STF) was hosted by ICES on 28 February - 1 March 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The objective of the workshop was to identify the roles that RFBs and CWP could play in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. It was expected that a general framework for the participation and cooperation of RFBs would be outlined and that specific areas for partnership activities undertaken by the RFBs would be identified.

4. The workshop was attended by ten participants from RFBs and FAO. The list of participants is included in Annex A and the Workshop working paper in Annex B to this Report.

5. The agenda of the workshop as adopted is given in Annex C and included a short presentation on the Strategy - STF and the FAO FishCode - STF Project by the Project Technical Manager followed by discussions on the activities of the participating RFBs on their work programmes and areas of common interest with the Strategy - STF. Other agenda items were the identification of possible partnership activities and requirements with regard to their implementation arrangements and a discussion on the needs for capacity building in RFBs

The Workshop

Discussions

6. In his presentation, the FishCode - STF Technical Manager summarized the current priority activities of the Project, i.e. inventories of data collection systems and of the status of fish stocks, the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries, and capacity building focusing on developing countries and regions. It was explained, however, that although the FishCode - STF Project focuses on developing countries, the STF Strategy is global in scope.

7. The RFB representatives made brief statements advising the workshop of their activities relevant to the STF-Strategy and the work of the FishCode - STF Project. It was noted that all organizations were involved in various aspects of improving data and information but that reference was rarely formally made to the STF-Strategy.

8. The workshop discussed the importance of how data are collected and how the use of different sources often gives different sets of data. Most RFBs rely on official national data collected by their member states and other scientific sources. These national data are compiled and sometimes, based on assessments and the results from complementary surveys, corrected for scientific purposes by RFBs. This results in the existence of different data sets that are not always comparable or compatible. The need for transparency in data handling was noted but the workshop did not discuss further how to resolve the issue. However, it was suggested that FAO and the FishCode - STF Project could assist in increasing the awareness in RFB member states about the STF-Strategy and the importance of good quality data and information.

9. The importance of developing monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries and the current lack of reliable data on the activities of the sector was highlighted by the workshop. Among those RFBs present at the workshop, IATTC, ICCAT and SEAFDEC expressed interest in cooperation with the FishCode - STF Project on the implementation of this important issue of the Strategy - STF. It was also expected that other RFBs not present would be interested in the subject matter.

10. The workshop noted that there are different concerns and issues in data-rich and data-poor organizations. It was also recognized that different methodologies for data collection and handling need to be used in different situations and in different environments. Hence, with regard to the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries, particularly in a developing country context, it was felt that it would not always be advisable to transfer technology directly from existing data collection systems. Nevertheless, also RFBs not directly concerned with these aspects of small-scale fisheries felt that expertise may be available within their science networks and offered to assist in identifying such expertise.

11. The meeting discussed the three proposals for partnership activities presented in the working paper prepared for the workshop (see Annex B). With regard to the first proposal - Inventory of existing fishery data collection systems, fishery resources and fisheries and incorporation of results into FIGIS - the workshop welcomed the cooperation. The meeting noted that all RFBs present already contribute to this work by their participation in FIRMS.

12. On the proposal Development of criteria, methods and processes for ensuring the quality and security of information on status and trends, it was agreed that the FishCode STF Project should look into the possibility of developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the "CWP Handbook on fishery statistical standards". It was felt that CWP would welcome such an initiative and that the establishment of working groups of experts could be considered once a more specific proposal for the activity has been elaborated.

13. With regard to expanding the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries to include economic, social and environmental aspects and allow for the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management, it was found that many RFBs work towards implementing an eco-system approach without considering all aspects as defined in the FAO guidelines. Only certain CWP member agencies collect socio-economic data, e.g. Eurostat, GFCM, OECD and SEAFDEC. It was also noted that the focus of the FishCode - STF Project is on data-poor situations where an CWP-21 approach may be difficult to implement.

14. On the issue of how RFBs and FishCode - STF Project partnership activities should be organized, the workshop concluded that a flexible approach should be followed and that arrangements should be made on a case-by-case basis. While RFBs have to follow internal decision structures and protocols, no particular requirements were identified with regard to institutional arrangements. It was also noted that cooperation between the FishCode STF Project and RFBs could take place through the already existing institutional arrangement that the CWP provides.

15. The workshop agreed with the priorities established by the FishCode - STF Project that project activities should focus on areas where the needs are the most urgent, i.e. data-poor situations in developing countries.

Conclusions and recommendations

16. The following recommendations were given with regard to future partnership activities:

17. The participants of the Workshop expressed gratitude and appreciation to ICES for hosting this Workshop.

Annex A

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

List of Participants

ALLEN, ROBIN
Director
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC)
8604 La Jolla Shores Drive
Tel: +1 858 546 7033
Fax: +1 858 546 7133
E-mail: rallen@iattc.org
(IATTC Nominee)

DE GRAAF, GERTJAN
FishCode - STF project
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 0657054129
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: Gertjan.deGraaf@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

FISCHER, JOHANNE
Executive Secretary
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO)
2 Morris Drive, P.O. Box 638
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada B2Y3Y9
Tel: +1 902 468 6582
Fax: +1 902 468 5538
Email: jfischer@nafo.int
(NAFO nominee)

GRAINGER, RICHARD
CWP Secretary
Chief
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054828
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: richard.grainger@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

KEBE, PAPA
System Analyst
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Corazón de María 8,
Madrid 28002, Spain
Tel: +34 91 4165600
Fax: +34 91 4152612
E-mail: papa.kebe@iccat.es
(ICCAT nominee)

LASSEN, HANS
Head of Advisory Programme
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46
Copenhagen V,Denmark
Tel: +45 3338 6700
Fax: +45 33934215
E-mail: hans@ices.dk
(ICES nominee)

RAMM, DAVID
Data Manager
Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR), PO Box 213,
North Hobart 7002, Australia
Tel: +61 3 62310556
Fax: +61 3 62349965
E-mail: david@ccamlr.org
(CCAMLR nominee)

TACONET, MARC
Fisheries Information Officer
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 57053799
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: Marc.Taconet@fao.org
(FAO nominee)

VAZQUEZ, ANTONIO
Vice Chairman of the Scientific Council of
NAFO and Chair of STACREC
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC
Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo
Spain
Tel: + 34 986 231930 Ex.242
Fax: +
E-mail: avazquez@iim.csic.es
(NAFO nominee)

WESTLUND, LENA
Badhusvägen 13
132 37 Saltsjö-Boo
Sweden
Tel/Fax: + 46 (0) 8 570 287 50
Mobile: +46 (0) 708 54 88 13
E-mail: lena.westlund@swipnet.se
(FAO nominee)

WONGSANGA, POUCHAMARN
Policy and Program Coordinator
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Centre (SEAFDEC)
Suraswadi Building, Department of
Fisheries Compound, Kasetsart University
Main Campus Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand
Tel: + 662 9406326
Fax: + 662 9406336
E-mail: pouch@seafdec.org
(SEAFDEC nominee)

Annex B

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies and the CWP in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (Strategy - STF)

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

FishCode - STF Project Working Document 2005/1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Responsible fisheries management has become a main concern to policy and decision makers recognising the increasing threats to CWP-21 diversity and productivity and to the sustainable contribution of aquatic resources to the nutritional, economic and social well-being of the world’s growing population. To give guidance to policy-makers, the "Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries" (CCRF) was developed by FAO and adopted by its Member States in 1995. Together with its Technical Guidelines and related International Plans of Action (IPOAs), the CCRF has become a widely accepted global standard defining principles and methods for developing and managing fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable manner. In order to facilitate the implementation of the CCRF, FAO Fisheries Department set up a special programme for global partnerships promoting responsible fisheries: FishCode. The programme serves as a means through which partnership initiatives supporting the CCRF can be implemented drawing on the know-how and experience of FAO.

Guiding principles, however, are not enough for achieving responsible fisheries management. Sound decisions have to be based on accurate and relevant information and knowledge of fisheries and fishery resources. Based on recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR), a proposal was developed to improve the way fishery status and trends information is assembled and disseminated. The proposal was discussed in an FAO Technical Consultation in 2002 and the "Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries" (Strategy - STF) was adopted by the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2003.

The Strategy - STF is a voluntary instrument that applies to all States and entities. Its overall objective is to provide a framework for the improvement of knowledge and understanding of fishery status and trends as a basis for fisheries policy-making and sustainable management. The Strategy - STF will be implemented through agreements between States, directly or through Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) and arrangements, and FAO.

COFI at its Twenty-fifth Session recognized the need for extra-budgetary support for implementation of the Strategy - STF and accordingly endorsed a proposal to develop a multilateral project under the FAO FishCode Programme as a means to accomplish this. Three Members have so far committed funds in support of the FishCode - STF Project and its first component - "Development of Inventories, Methodologies and Operational Guidelines" - became operational in November 2004.

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and RFBs participated in the Technical Consultation in 2002. RFBs also contributed to the development of the Strategy - STF. At the Twentieth CWP Session in 2003, it was agreed that CWP would be prepared to facilitate the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the areas of its mandate. This agreement was confirmed at the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004. It was also agreed that a workshop should be held in conjunction with the next CWP Session in the beginning of March 2005 to discuss the role of RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy. Accordingly, a Workshop on "The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries" (RFB-STF Workshop) is being held in Copenhagen on 28 February - 1 March 2005.

Context and outline of the present report

The present report has been prepared for the RFB-STF Workshop, hosted by ICES in Copenhagen on 28 February - 1 March 2005. The purpose of the report is to serve as a background and reference document, giving a general overview of the role of RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF, and as a discussion document with regard to possible collaboration between the FishCode - STF Project and the RFBs.

After this introductory chapter, the context and contents of the Strategy - STF are presented in chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the RFBs and their role in fisheries management and conservation. Chapter 4 discusses possible roles for the RFBs in implementing the Strategy - STF and suggests issues for discussion in the RFB-STF Workshop. Concluding remarks are found in Chapter 5 and a bibliography in Chapter 6.

A list of RFBs is included as an appendix to the Report of the 21 Session of the CWP.

Expected outcome of the RFB-STF Workshop

The objective of the RFB-STF Workshop is to identify the roles that RFBs and CWP could play in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. It is expected that a general framework for the participation and cooperation of RFBs will be outlined and that specific areas for partnership activities undertaken by the RFBs will be identified.

The outcome of the Workshop will be presented to the Twenty-first CWP Session held immediately after the Workshop on 1 - 4 March 2005.

IMPROVING INFORMATION ON STATUS AND TRENDS

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and FishCode

The CCRF is a voluntary instrument setting out principles and standards for responsible practices with regard to effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources within the context of a sustainable CWP-21 and biodiversity. It covers fishing operations, processing and trade of fish and fishery products as well as aquaculture, fisheries research and fisheries under coastal area management. The CCRF is global in scope and is directed to all those concerned with the aquatic environment in relation to fisheries and aquaculture.

Within the framework of the CCRF, four IPOAs have been agreed upon[7]. The Strategy - STF is another voluntary instrument within the CCRF framework. Moreover, the "Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas" (Compliance Agreement), adopted by the twenty-seventh session of the FAO Conference, forms an integral part of the CCRF.

The implementation of the CCRF is a complex and demanding task that takes place at several levels: global, regional, subregional and national. The FAO Fisheries Department promotes implementation and acts as a catalyst. A number of Technical Guidelines have been developed by the Department to support the implementation. Already when adopting the CCRF, the FAO Conference recommended that provisions should be made for "providing advice to developing countries in implementing the CCRF and for the elaboration of an Interregional Assistance Programme for external assistance aimed at supporting implementation of the CCRF"[8]. Accordingly, the FAO FishCode Programme was established as a special programme of global partnerships for responsible fisheries. The overall objective is to "to raise the economic, social and nutritional benefits obtained from the fisheries and aquaculture, especially in developing countries, through the adoption of responsible development, management and conservation practices, including improved institutional and legal arrangements."[9]

The FishCode Programme is mainly funded through contributions from partner governments and organizations in combination with FAO Regular Programme resources. Its coordination unit is situated in FAO headquarters. FishCode components cover a wide range of activities related to the CCRF implementation, including the Strategy - STF Project.

The Strategy - STF

The need for good information on status and trends of fisheries is stated in the CCRF and in other international instruments concerning fisheries. Accurate and appropriate knowledge of fisheries and fishery resources, including socio-economic aspects, is a prerequisite for sound policy-making and responsible fisheries management and governance.

The Strategy - STF applies to the assembly and dissemination of information on fishery status and trends at the national, regional and global levels while data collection for research needs are established by other international fisheries instruments. Nevertheless, the Strategy - STF is expected to strengthen research indirectly through capacity building in developing countries.

The main focus of the Strategy - STF is fishery resources and the primary fisheries sector. It covers all capture fisheries in inland and marine waters and all types of fishing operations. However, it does not apply to aquaculture because of the different requirements of the sector.

The Strategy - STF was developed within the context of the CCRF and its main objective is "to provide a framework for the improvement of knowledge and understanding of fishery status and trends as a basis for fisheries policy making and management"[10]. Within the Strategy - STF, high priority is given to capacity building and the provision of technical assistance to developing countries. Furthermore, the particular requirements of the small-scale fisheries sector are emphasized because of its importance to food security and poverty reduction. The Strategy - STF supports the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation agreed on at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) by contributing better information for monitoring the time-bound goals set for fisheries, i.e. regarding the implementation of the IPOAs on IUU fishing and capacity, restoration of depleted stocks, application of an CWP-21 approach, and the establishment of "representative networks" of marine protected areas[11].

The Strategy - STF will be implemented by working cooperatively through agreements between States, RFBs and FAO. These arrangements will be established at different geographical levels and coordinated with the assistance of FAO. Whenever possible, use should be made of existing organizations for cooperation.

The Strategy - STF provides a list of required actions for the achievement of its objective. These actions cover different issues and considerations and can be summarized as follows:

The FishCode - STF Project

In order to assist the implementation of the Strategy - STF, a multilateral project was formulated under the FAO FishCode Programme, the FishCode - STF Project. The Project became operational in November 2004. The development objective of the Project is the same as for the FishCode Programme, i.e. increased economic, social and nutritional benefits obtained from fisheries, through the adoption of responsible fisheries management and resource conservation policies and practices.

The Project will support the implementation of the Strategy - STF globally but places special emphasis on capacity-building in developing countries and regions. The direct beneficiaries will be national fisheries statistical units, research institutes and fishery administrations who will have their capacities strengthened and enhanced in addition to having access to better information on status and trends. It is also expected that national and international actors at regional and global levels will benefit from improved information and, in some cases, capacity building.

The Project will implement the Strategy - STF through agreements between States, directly or through RFBs, and FAO. While the Project will work primarily with national administrations, it will also seek cooperation with other actors and bodies, e.g.:

Six guiding principles have been defined for the implementation arrangements:

The Project will address the "Required actions" described in the Strategy - STF document, i.e.:

The FishCode - STF Project is designed to be implemented in two overlapping phases. The first component, "Development of inventories, methodologies and operational guidelines", focuses on the normative framework. The second component, "Field training and implementation", will use the first phase outputs, e.g. inventories and methodologies, and will include capacity building in developing countries.

The first component has a duration of four years and became operational in November 2004. In addition to the workshop for which this document has been prepared, the activities planned for the first two years include[15]:

Activities foreseen for the second half of Component 1 include pilot studies and support to research initiatives for the testing of new approaches, development of indicators for sustainable development, establishment of protocols for the inputs to FIGIS and for exchange of information.

Box 1: FishCode STF Project Components

Component 1: Development of inventories, methodologies and operational guidelines

This component covers the creation of methodological descriptions of fishery statistical and data collection systems used by all countries and regional fisheries bodies. At the same time it will provide an overview of fish stocks and/or fisheries management units, whether monitored or not, by country and/or region. The aim of this exercise, to be executed mainly by correspondence and through questionnaires and regional workshops, is to obtain a complete picture of all systems in use and all stocks or management units monitored, so as to identify gaps in monitoring and above all to assess the quality of the systems used. The main inventory will cover data systems on all aspects of fisheries, including data on fleets, employment, processing, consumption, trade and sociological and economic aspects. This will also facilitate an evaluation of data collection and handling practices by country, the flows of data from national to regional and global levels and hence of the data as published by regional fisheries bodies and FAO. Finally, it will form the basis for improvements and identification of training needs in developing countries to be addressed under Component 2.

The implementation of this component will take the following considerations into account.

  • There is a need to develop data collection systems that are better suited to cover small-scale fisheries and multispecies fisheries and for the development of criteria and methods for ensuring information quality and security.

  • Routine data collection on economic and social aspects of fisheries is often neglected and consequently managers find themselves deprived of the data necessary to take decisions in cases of conflicts between different types of fisheries, the protection of labour forces engaged in existing fisheries against new arrivals, etc. The Project will investigate requirements and develop systems for the collection of such data.

  • Computerized systems facilitate the exchange of data and information and thus the setting up of large data banks such as the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS). The Project will develop arrangements for the provision and exchange of information and assist in making improvements to the inputs to FIGIS, including the expansion of the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries.

  • Ideally fisheries should be managed based on CWP-21 considerations. However, CWP-21 management requires huge amounts of data. The Project will investigate the data requirements and practical solutions for such management systems.

Component 2: Field training and implementation at national and regional levels

The aim of Component 2 is to improve substantially the quality of collection and processing of fisheries statistics and other data and information on capture fisheries in selected developing countries with important inland or marine fisheries. This would lead to better data for fisheries management at national level and, in cases of stocks shared between neighbouring countries, at regional level as well. Improvements in reporting to FAO and other agencies would be an important additional benefit.

Component 2 covers capacity building at all levels, and implementation of improved or new statistical and other data collection and processing systems in selected countries. There is also a need for improved interaction between fishery statisticians, fisheries analysts, socio-economists and fish stock assessment experts. The Project should facilitate this interaction.

Activities under Component 2 will be field-oriented and distributed over Africa, the Americas and Asia. The beneficiary States will be selected from developing countries with substantial capture fisheries, either inland or marine, that have a potential of becoming an example for other countries in similar situations.

Source: Text from Project Document (FAO, undated).

REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES (RFBs) AND THE STRATEGY - STF

Overview of RFBs and their role in conservation and fisheries management

Almost 40 Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs)[16] and arrangements are at present in existence in different parts of the world. Their combined area of competence covers parts of all oceans and a large part of the world’s inland waters. Some are specific for a group of species or a fishery and others for a geographical area, or a combination thereof. FAO has assisted in the establishment of about a quarter of the total number of RFBs while others are the result of independent initiatives. A list of RFBs is included in Appendix I.

The RFBs vary in scope with regard to species, fisheries and geographic areas. They also vary considerably when it comes to mandate, functions, decision-making powers and procedures. However, a general shift in the roles of RFBs has been noted during the last few decades. In the early days, the mandates and functions of RFBs were based on the concept of abundant resources and free access to fishing grounds. RFBs served as fora for discussion and the main functions included cooperative research and database development and analysis. In the second half of the twentieth century, when more intensive management measures were prompted by the realization that some fish stocks were fished at or beyond their sustainable yields, RFBs became involved in the setting of catch quotas and joint inspection schemes. These functions were, however, limited by the mandates usually given to RFBs by their members; RFBs had advisory and research roles rather than decision-making and enforcement powers with regard to fisheries management. The importance of the measures in a global context was also limited due to the still relatively low number of RFBs[17].

The situation started to change when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was agreed on and adopted in 1982. The Convention envisaged several new functions and activities to be undertaken by RFBs regarding high sea stocks and fishing, advice to coastal states, dispute settlement and marine mammal protection. This prompted RFBs to review their mandates and a number of new RFBs were established. However, RFBs still generally remained without fisheries management authority.

Since the mid-1990s, several important international fisheries instruments containing key provisions relevant to the participation of RFBs in their implementation have been introduced, i.e. the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement[18], the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement[19] and in 1995 the CCRF. The CCRF has later been supplemented with a number of IPOAs. The IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU) in 2001 refers particularly to RFBs.[20] There are also other international conventions calling for increased regional cooperation such as the WSSD Plan of Implementation.[21]

The provisions relating to the role of RFBs in these more recent fisheries instruments indicate recognition by the international community that cooperation among states is essential for ensuring a sustainable utilization of aquatic resources and that RFBs should be given increased decision making power and authority. Recognising that, in most cases, the present fisheries management systems have failed to be effective, the concept of "fisheries governance" has emerged. Fisheries governance is a broader concept than conservation and management, or sustainable development. It represents a participative, inclusive and flexible approach and recognizes the global network in which governments, institutions and stakeholders interact. In this system, RFBs serve as a gateway between the global and national levels of fisheries governance.[22]

Sound regional governance depends on effective inputs from member states and organizations. There has to be a political willingness of member states to participate openly and to delegate authority to the regional bodies. The RFBs, and their members, also have to have the capacity to meet financial and technical obligations[23]. While constraints exist - in varying degrees - many RFBs contribute to governance in a number of areas. In a questionnaire survey, RFBs were asked about activities and priorities of their organizations. The answers showed that some of the most important issues were those surrounding responsible fisheries management, the CWP-21 approach, bycatch and IUU fishing.[24]

FAO has hosted three meetings of RFBs; in 1999, 2001 and 2003. These meetings have given an opportunity to discuss and coordinate issues of concern to RFBs. For example, the need to improve information on status and trends was discussed in the early meetings and the RFBs participated in the development of the Strategy - STF. Constraints with regard to availability of relevant information and accurate data and statistics constitute major concerns in many RFBs. In addition to the generally increased demand on the RFBs related to their evolving role in fisheries governance - increasing their need for capacity building and access to information and data - several of the issues covered by the Strategy - STF are directly relevant to the activities of many RFBs, e.g. the application of the CWP-21 approach to fisheries management and collaboration with FIGIS-FIRMS.

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP)

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) was initially established in 1959 to improve the collection and reporting on fishery statistics in the North Atlantic area. However, in 1995 it was modified and reconstituted due to increasing demands for reliable fishery statistics and its scope was widened to include all parts of the world. The terms of reference of the CWP include to review requirements for fishery statistics, to agree standards concepts, definitions, classifications and methodologies, and to make recommendations and coordinate activities with regard to collection and dissemination of fishery statistics[25].

The CWP consists of experts nominated by intergovernmental organizations having competence in fishery statistics. FAO, several RFBs and other organizations concerned with fishery statistics, e.g Eurostat and OECD, are members of the CWP. The CWP participates in the FAO-RFBs meetings mentioned above.

In the Twentieth CWP Session in 2003[26], the possible role of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF was discussed. The CWP had participated in Technical Consultation on Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in March 2002 and RFBs were involved in the development of the Strategy - STF. The meeting agreed that CWP should support the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the framework of its mandate. At the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004, it was agreed to organize the RFB-STF Workshop to discuss in more detail the roles of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

The objectives of the Strategy are similar to those of the CWP and several elements of the Strategy - STF are of direct concern to the CWP, e.g:

POSSIBLE ROLES OF RFBs AND THE CWP IN IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY

Summary of the context and framework for cooperation

As noted in the discussion above, there are several elements of the Strategy - STF that are of direct interest to RFBs and the CWP. Some RFBs and the CWP are already carrying out activities related to actions proposed by the Strategy - STF, e.g.:

In the Strategy - STF, the possibility for States to participate in the implementation of the Strategy - STF through their membership in RFBs is directly mentioned in several of the proposals for required actions, i.e.:

However, the participation of RFBs is not limited to the above areas of activities. The overall approach of the Strategy - STF and the FishCode - STF Project is participatory and its guidelines indicate that RFBs and the CWP should contribute, within the limits of their mandates, to the implementation of the Strategy - STF. Moreover, RFBs - particularly in regions of developing countries - are mentioned as potential beneficiaries of the envisaged capacity building exercises. This approach is consistent with the overall development of fisheries governance and the recognition of the importance of increased regional and global cooperation by policy-makers in national, regional and international institutions and organizations.

In Southeast Asia, where activities regarding the statistical system inventory have been started, the FishCode - STF Project is working in partnership with SEAFDEC. For the forthcoming inventories in other regions, partner organizations have not yet been identified but it is the intention of the Project to seek similar arrangements with regional organizations. The mutual advantages of this implementation approach are evident. The Project gains in effectiveness by benefiting from the regional knowledge of the RFB and from the increased efficiency in contacts and communications. The RFB is given an opportunity to enhance its own capacity with regard to assembly and dissemination of status and trends information and also to provide views and inputs into an international process of improving information at national, regional and global levels.

The FishCode - STF Project has only recently become operational and is at the beginning of its first four-year phase for Component 1. Plans and arrangements for its implementation are in the process of being elaborated and established. As seen from the discussion in this document, the arguments for cooperation and a wide participation in the implementation of the Strategy - STF are many and the RFB community is called upon for its support. The RFB-STF Workshop gives an opportunity for potential RFB partners to reflect on their possible roles, to provide inputs and suggest contributions for incorporation into the Project activities and implementation arrangements.

Suggested topics for discussion in RFB-STF Workshop

In order to identify collaboration opportunities and to define possible partnership arrangements for the effective implementation of the Strategy - STF through the FishCode - STF Project, this document suggests a number of issues to be discussed in the RFB-STF Workshop. These issues concern common areas of interest and suggestions for partnership activities, modalities of cooperation and institutional arrangements and needs for capacity building.

1. What are the areas of common interests of the FishCode - STF Project, the RFBs and CWP?

  1. What activities and interests does the CWP have that are relevant to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?
  2. What activities and interests do individual RFBs have that are relevant to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?
  3. Are there areas of interest common to the RFB community as a whole that are of relevance to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?

Workshop participants are invited to report on the work programmes of their organizations.

2. What activities would be suitable for partnership implementation? Suggestions from FishCode - STF Project management include:

  1. Inventory of existing fishery data collection systems, fishery resources and fisheries and incorporation of results into FIGIS.
    The inventory will build on work already carried out by FIGIS-FIRMS. Collaboration with RFBs could be envisaged for the operational aspects of the inventory, including questionnaire surveys and regional workshops, development of protocols and validation of results.
  2. Development of criteria, methods and processes for ensuring the quality and security of information on status and trends.
    The principle of best scientific evidence should apply to information on status and trends in accordance with internationally agreed standards and practices. RFBs, possibly through the CWP, could participate in defining criteria and methods and establishing a process and arrangements for scientific oversight of status and trends information. A working group of appointed experts could be established for this purpose.
  3. Expanding the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries to include economic, social and environmental aspects and allow for the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management.
    Several RFBs are already working on introducing the CWP-21 approach in relation to fisheries management. The Project could work with RFBs on issues related to status and trends information needed for the CWP-21 approach and indicators for sustainable development.

The Workshop is asked to review these proposals and recommend additions, elaborations and amendments.

3. What implementation arrangements should be established for the partnership activities and what institutional aspects need to be considered?
For each proposed partnership activity, it is proposed that the following issues are discussed:

  1. Which RFBs - and other organizations - should participate?
  2. How should the partnership activity be organized, e.g. by the establishment of a working group, bilateral agreements between the participating RFB(s) and the Project for the provision of certain services, organization of workshops, expert consultations, etc.?
  3. Are there formalities and issues with regard to the mandate of the RFB(s) and their relation with Member States that need to be considered in a partnership agreement between the RFB(s) and the Project?
  4. Are there other issues relating to institutional arrangements that need to be taken into consideration?

4. What are the needs for capacity building in RFBs with regard to implementing the Strategy - STF and improving information on status and trends of capture fisheries in general and with regard to the proposed activities for collaboration in particular?

The Workshop is requested to prepare a report on their findings and recommendations to be presented to the Twenty-first CWP Session, starting on 1 March 2005.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Appropriate and accurate information is essential for all policy development and decision-making and the fisheries sector is no exception. While fishery data collection and research have been the subject of various international instruments and initiatives, the assembly and dissemination of status and trends information have received less attention. The preparation and adoption of the Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries is a crucial framework for improving this situation and its implementation will create important benefits to fisheries management and conservation. However, the Strategy - STF will only be effective if widely implemented and all national, regional and global organizations and institutions concerned with the management and use of aquatic resources are urged to support and participate in this work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FAO. 1995. The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics: Its origin, role and structure. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 903. FAO, Rome. 82 p.

FAO. 1999. Report of the Meeting of FAO and Non-FAO Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements. Rome, 11 - 12 February 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 597. Rome, FAO. 53p.

FAO. 2003. World Summit on Sustainable Development 202 and its Implications for Fisheries. COFI/2003/Inf.14. Twenty-fifth Session of FAO Committee on Fisheries. Rome, Italy, 24 - 28 February 2003. FAO, Rome. 12 p.

FAO. 2003b. Report of the third Meeting of Regional Fishery Bodies. Rome, 3 - 4 March 2003. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 703. FAO, Rome. 26 p.

FAO. 2003c. Report of the twentieth session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics. Victoria, Seychelles, 21 - 24 January 2003. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 709. FAO, Rome. 65 p.

FAO. 2003d. Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries. Stratégie visant à améliorer l'information sur la situation et les tendances des pêches de capture. Estrategia para mejorar la información sobre la situación y las tendencias de la pesca de captura. Rome/Roma, FAO. 34p.

FAO. Undated. Project Document FishCode Programme Component: Improving Information on Status and Trends in Fisheries. FAO/Governments Cooperative Programme.

FAO/FIGIS-FIRMS. 2002. Report of the FIGIS-FIRMS Methodological Workshop, 1 - 5 July 2002, Rome, Italy. 11p.

Swan, J. 2003. Summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies concerned with the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 985. Rome, FAO. 114 p.

Swan, J. 2004. Decision-making in Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements: the evolving role of RFBs and international agreement on decision-making processes. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 995. Rome, FAO. 82 p.

Annex C

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

Agenda and Timetable

Monday 28 February 2005

9.30

Opening and welcome
Adoption of Agenda and election of Chair and Rapporteurs

10.00

Presentation of "The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries" by FishCode - STF Project
Questions and clarifications

10.45

Coffee break

11.15

Interventions by participating representatives of RFBs on their work programmes and areas of common interest with the Strategy - STF

12.30

Lunch

13.30

Discussion and identification of possible partnership activities

14.30

Discussion on implementation arrangements for partnership activities

15.30

Discussion on needs for capacity building in RFBs

16.30

Chair’s summary

Tuesday 1 March 2005

9.30

Presentation of draft Workshop report
Comments and clarifications

10.30

Adoption of Workshop report and closing of meeting

APPENDIX 8

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACFR

Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (FAO)

AIDCP

Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IATTC)

APFIC

Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission

ASEAN

Association of Southeast-Asian Nations

ASFA

Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts

ASFIS

Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System

CCAMLR

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCRF

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

CCSBT

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CDS

Catch Documentation Scheme

CECAF

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (FAO Regional Body)

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COFI

Committee on Fisheries (FAO)

CWP

Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics

EEA

European Environmental Agency

EEA

European Economic Area

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

EPO

Eastern Pacific Ocean (IATTC)

EU

European Union

Eurostat

Statistical Office of the European Communities

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFA

South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency

FIDI

Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit (FAO Fisheries Department)

FIGIS

Fisheries Global Information System

FishCode

Programme of Global Partnerships for Responsible Fisheries (FAO)

FISHDAB

Fishery Statistical Database (FAO Fisheries Department)

FIRMS

Fishery Resources Monitoring System

GESAMP

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

GFCM

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (FAO Regional Body)

GRT

Gross Registered Tonnage

GT

Gross Tonnage

HSVAR

High Seas Vessel Authorization Record

IATTC

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ICES

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICSEAF

International Commission for the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries (ceased: 1990)

IOTC

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (FAO Regional Body)

IPOA

International Plan of Action

ISIC

International Standard Classification of All Economic Activities (UN)

ISSCAAP

International Standard Statistical Classification of Aquatic Animals and Plants

ISSCFV

International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Vessels

IUU

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

IWC

International Whaling Commission

NAF

North Atlantic Format for position and catch reporting by VMS

NAFO

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (previously ICNAF - International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries)

NASCO

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

NewCronos

Eurostat Database (previously known as CRONOS)

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OFP

Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC)

RFB

Regional Fishery Body

RFMO

Regional Fisheries Management Organization

SEAFDEC

South-East Asian Fisheries Development Center

SEAFO

South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (currently being formed)

SPC

Secretariat of the Pacific Community

STACREC

Standing Committee on Research Coordination (of Scientific Council of NAFO)

STATLANT

STATistical Programme for the ATLANTic Fisheries (previously STANA)

Strategy - STF

Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries

TAC

Total Allowable Catch

TIS

Trade Information System (CCSBT)

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

VMS

Vessel Monitoring System

WCPO

Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SPC)

WSSD

World Summit on Sustainable Development

APPENDIX 9

LIST OF REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES

ATLANTIC OCEAN AND ADJACENT SEAS

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

AAFC

Atlantic Africa Fisheries Conference

Eastern Atlantic (Namibia- Morocco)

CECAF

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic

Eastern Central Atlantic between Cape Spartel and the Congo River

COREP

Comité régional des pêches du Golfe de Guinée

Central and southern Gulf of Guinea

COFREMAR

Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina/Uruguay Maritime Front

South Atlantic

GFCM

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

Mediterranean, adjacent waters, the Black sea and the Azov Sea

IBSFC

International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission

Baltic Sea and the Belts

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

Atlantic Ocean including the adjacent seas

ICES

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

Atlantic Ocean

NAFO

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

Northwest Atlantic Ocean

NAMMCO

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

North Atlantic

NASCO

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

Atlantic Ocean north of 36°N latitude

NEAFC

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

Northeast Atlantic Ocean

SEAFO

South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization

South East Atlantic Ocean

SRCF (CSRP)

Commission sous-régionale des pêches

N.W. Africa (Mauritania to Guinea including Cape Verde)

WECAFC

Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Western Central Atlantic Ocean

INDIAN OCEAN REGION

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

BOBP-IGO

Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organization

Bay of Bengal

IOTC

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

Indian Ocean and adjacent seas north of the Antarctic Convergence

RECOFI

Regional Commission for Fisheries

The Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman

SWIOFC *)

South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission

South West Indian Ocean

WIOTO

Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization

Western Indian Ocean

*) Not yet established/operational.

PACIFIC OCEAN REGION

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

APFIC

Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission

Indo-Pacific area (including inland waters)

CEPTFA *)

Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement

Eastern Pacific Ocean

CPPS

Permanent South Pacific Commission

South Pacific (East)

FFA

South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency

South Pacific (Central and West)

IATTC

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Eastern Pacific Ocean

IPHC

International Pacific Halibut Commission

North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea

NPAFC

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission

North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas north of 33°N

PICES

North Pacific Marine Science Organization

North Pacific and adjacent Seas

PSC

Pacific Salmon Commission

Northwest Pacific

SPC

Secretariat of the Pacific Community

South Pacific South of the Equator

SEAFDEC

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center

Southeast Asian region

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

WCPFC *)

Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific/Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention

Western and Central Pacific Ocean

*) Not yet established/operational.

INLAND

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

CIFA

Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa

Inland waters of member countries

COPESCAL

Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America

Inland waters of member countries

EIFAC

European Inland Advisory Fisheries Commission

European inland waters

LVFO

Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization

Lake Victoria

MRC

Mekong River Commission

Mekong River Basin

NB. APFIC in the Pacific also covers inland waters.

GLOBAL AND TRANS-OCEAN

ACRONYM

NAME

AREA OF COMPETENCE

CCAMLR

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

Antarctic Ocean

CCSBT

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans where SBT are found

CWP

Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics

All oceans

IWC

International Whaling Commission

All waters in which whaling is carried out and land stations

OLDEPESCA

Latin American Organization for the Development of Fisheries

Oceans bordering Latin America

Source: Swan (2003) and FAO Web site database for RFBs.

APPENDIX 10

ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION FROM CWP-21

The following are extracts (by paragraph) from the body of the Report of the Twenty-first Session of CWP, citing all recommendations and other items requiring action:

71. On the issue of submission of trade document information to RFBs (para. 57), it was agreed that the recommendation should be retained by the CWP-21. ICCAT and IATTC informed the meeting that they do receive export/import information in a summarized form and that work is in process to improve trade reporting. In relation to this matter, CCAMLR, ICCAT and IATTC reported that systems are in place requiring catch documentation for producers to obtain permission to trade products. ICCAT also informed the meeting that the organization will hold a workshop in April 2005 in Tokyo, Japan, to review the statistical monitoring programs. All tuna RFBs are invited to participate in the meeting.

76. As a follow-up to discussions in CWP-20, the question of whether CWP should assume a more active advocacy role was considered again. The agreement in CWP-20 was that while CWP should promote improvements in fishery statistics, a more pro-active approach was not felt to be appropriate. This sentiment was reconfirmed and it was agreed CWP should continue to seize opportunities and use them judicially to exercise influence and give advice as appropriate. It was also agreed that a CWP statement should be prepared for the FAO COFI meeting by the vice-chairperson and that CWP should be represented at COFI and the RFB meetings by the vice-chairperson (see Appendix 5).

77. A project is underway to develop a new version of the FAO FISHSTAT software. A preliminary version of FISHSTAT 3.0 was presented to CWP-20. However, most CWP member users are satisfied with FISHSTAT 2.3 even though the programme has some weaknesses, i.e. problems of installation on new Windows platforms and difficulties when setting up new datasets. If and when a new version is developed, the meeting recommended that the user interface should not be changed substantially and that the new software should be thoroughly tested before being distributed.

78. The meeting was asked about the usefulness of the different functions available in FISHSTAT 2.3. A group of meeting participants reviewed this question in more detail and arrived at the following conclusions:

83. The Workshop was attended by ten participants from RFBs and FAO who made the following recommendations with regard to future partnership activities:

84. CWP accepted the report and agreed that the recommendations in paragraph 83 above should be taken further. The main text of the Workshop report is included in Appendix 7 herein.

87. Another recommendation from the Expert Consultation was the formation of an advisory body for issues in aquaculture data and statistics, much as the CWP functions for capture fisheries. The CWP session discussed the possibilities for such a committee - in particular, whether this could be assumed within the existing CWP mission, or whether a sub-committee of the CWP, or an entirely new body, should be formed. After an informal polling of the members on their interest and relevance to aquaculture, the CWP agreed that for the present time the best solution was to have an interested subgroup of the CWP perform this function.

89. The complexities involved in obtaining accurate statistics for capture-based aquaculture (tuna-farming being the most prominent current example) were discussed. The CWP reaffirmed the concept of separating the capture and aquaculture components of capture-based aquaculture, while acknowledging the difficulties involved in collecting the data. The CWP was informed of the activities of the GFCM/ICCAT Ad Hoc Working Group on Tuna Farming and the development of guidelines to be completed imminently.

90. Possible use of a "capture-based aquaculture" worksheet to accompany the FISHSTAT AQ was discussed, with the idea that such a worksheet could reinforce the accepted definitions among data providers. It was agreed that activities in this area should be coordinated among the interested organizations. Eurostat informed the CWP meeting concerning of the proposed revision to aquaculture legislation and the attempts to assure compatibility with FAO data collections.

93. CWP agreed to accept the proposal made by IATTC that when length is used, the measurement should be "length overall" (LOA) according to the following definition:

Length overall is defined as the distance measured in metres in a straight line on a line parallel to the design waterline between the foremost point of the bow and the aftermost point of the stern. For the purpose of this definition:

c) the bow is taken to include the watertight hull structure, the forecastle, stem and forward bulkward, if fitted, but not to include bowsprits and safety rail.

d) the stern is taken to include the watertight hull structure, transom, poop, trawl ramp and bulwark, but does not include safety rails, bumkins, propulsion machinery, rudders and steering gear, and divers’ ladders and platforms.

94. On the issue of vessel classifications, FAO presented a new proposal on the outstanding issue of multipurpose vessels based on earlier proposals discussed by the CWP. After discussing several alternatives, CWP agreed to use the following vessel categories:

This is the final step of the revision initiated at CWP-19 and the meeting agreed that the proposal, together with those already endorsed by CWP-19 and CWP-20, become the new International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Vessels (ISSCFV - 2005). This new classification will be updated in the "CWP Handbook of fishery statistical standards", and a parallel revision and reprint of the FAO Fisheries Technical Paper number 267 "Definition and Classification of fishery vessel types" will be required.

100. It was noted by the FAO Expert Consultation that the knowledge of CWP among fisheries experts and officials appears limited and it was recommended that measures should be taken to increase the awareness of CWP (para. 9). The meeting agreed with this conclusion and it was recommended that CWP members should work towards giving CWP more visibility. IATTC also suggested that RBFs that are not yet members should be contacted and invited to join CWP. A comprehensive list of RFBs is provided in Appendix 9.

103. In conclusion, it was agreed that the CWP was not currently in a position to review and possibly recommend NAF as a standard, particularly since the instrument is not yet fully developed. It was also agreed to establish an inter-sessional electronic working group consisting of all CWP members and coordinated by NAFO. The working group was asked to propose possible amendments to the present NAF that would ensure its usefulness for assessment and scientific purposes. The results will be made available to NEAFC Advisory Group and discussed in CWP-22.

104. The recommendation by the FAO Expert Consultation to harmonize fields and codes in vessel databases relates to a similar recommendation made by CWP-20 (para. 69 of document CWP-21/4). Some time ago, FAO circulated a proposal for a common format for vessel records to CWP members but no response has been received so far. The meeting agreed that efforts should continue to achieve a common format and that the recommendation of CWP-20 should be retained.

106. The meeting noted the FAO Expert Consultation’s recommendation that CWP adopt the UN-LOCODE[27] as a standard for identification of fishing ports (para. 13). The meeting agreed that RFBs should study the proposed code system and the matter will be included in the agenda of CWP-22 for further discussion in 2007.

107. With regard to the recommendation on CWP’s involvement in MCS operational matters, i.e. on standards for international exchange of information on vessel authorizations and on definitions of fisheries violations and related codes, the FAO Expert Consultation noted that addressing the recommendation would require a review of the CWP mandate (para. 14). The meeting felt that this was not desirable at the moment and agreed to support the work of other agencies.

109. The meeting discussed various positions that CWP could take with regard to the recommendations. It was felt that CWP should not be directly involved in MCS or legal matters as such but that there are elements of MCS that are of relevance to the work of CWP. Moreover, it was pointed out that, although VMS is currently mainly used for MCS purposes, the system could also be used for generating data for assessment of stocks and fisheries as well as for other scientific purposes. The meeting recognized that, in addition to not falling strictly under the CWP mandate, CWP does not have the technical expertise required for dealing with many of the technical MCS matters. The possibility of cooperating with other organizations on aspects of MCS that do not fall within the current mandate of CWP was discussed. The International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for Fisheries Related Activities (MCS Network)[28] was identified as a possible partner. The meeting agreed that CWP should take the initiative to contact the MCS Network with the aim to conduct a joint workshop during the intersessional period in which the recommendations of the FAO Expert Consultation be reviewed in order to establish if there are recommendations that MCS Network would like to follow up.

111. The document consists of two parts, a review of current issues and programmes, and a section proposing actions for FAO’s continued work. FAO suggested that the review part of the document be published as a FAO Fisheries Circular or similar document. It was pointed out that some time had passed since the draft was prepared and that it may need further revision. It was agreed that OECD and Eurostat would review relevant sections of the document and provide comments to FAO by 1 July 2005 after which the report will be published. FAO was requested to ensure that the date of the preparation of the text clearly appears on the document.

115. The meeting discussed the difficulty of defining quality and how this should be dealt with in the process of developing practical guidelines. ICES explained that the organization has several working groups working on issues related to data quality. The experience is that data quality is context dependent and that the quality requirements depend on the end use of the data, including the objectives of the users. Recognising this, the meeting recommended that FAO reverse the order of the first two phases of the proposed activities:

It was felt that the overall framework and specifications of relevant data quality situations should be discussed in an Expert Consultation before more detailed work was proposed to a working group.

116. FAO aims at having the draft guidelines ready for review by the Twenty-second Session of the CWP in 2007.

119. Referring to a letter received from Eurostat, the meeting discussed the possibility of reducing the duration of the CWP sessions. It was agreed that the Secretariat should aim at holding the CWP Session, the FIRMS Steering Committee meeting and any related workshop during the same week, i.e. in a maximum of five working days. It was also noted that the agenda should include detailed annotations clearly indicating the matters to be discussed. Such annotations will facilitate a better understanding by external parties of the duration of the meeting.

122. The CWP members confirmed that they shared the understanding of the concept of data exchange protocol given in paragraphs 120 - 121 above. It was recommended that this concept as presented here be included in the Fisheries Data Quality indicator development framework (see paragraphs 110 - 116 above).

124. Eurostat pointed out that when modifications are made by RFBs or other agencies to data received from member states on the FISHSTAT or STATLANT questionnaires, it is important to inform the relevant authorities in the member state of the change. An incident with data reported to and modified by FAO was mentioned as an example and Eurostat urged the CWP members to ensure that proper procedures are followed. ICES reported to have similar experiences, also involving problems of data inconsistencies when databases are not updated simultaneously. CWP agreed that such procedures should be followed.


[7] IPOA for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries; IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks; IPOA for the Management of Fishing Capacity; IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.
[8] Twenty-eighth Conference of FAO, Resolution 4/95.
[9] FishCode webpage www.fao.org/fi/projects/fishcode
[10] Strategy - STF paragraph 12.
[11] FishCode webpage "Component Briefs" and FAO, 2003.
[12] Responsible Fisheries for Small Island Developing States, GCP/INT/823/JPN.
[13] GCP/INT/735/UK.
[14] FAO/FIGIS-FIRMS, 2002.
[15] If full funding can be guaranteed.
[16] The following definition is used in FAO (1999): "A regional fishery body refers to a mechanism through which three or more States or international organizations that are parties to an international fishery agreement or arrangement collaboratively engage each other in multilateral management of fishery affairs related to transboundary, straddling, highly or high seas migratory stocks, through the collection and provision of scientific information and data, serving as technical and policy forum, or taking decisions pertaining to the development and conservation, management and responsible utilization of the resources".
[17] Swan, 2004.
[18] Agreement to promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas 1993.
[19] Agreement for the Implementation of the Provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995.
[20] Swan, 2004.
[21] FAO, 2003b.
[22] Swan, 2004.
[23] FAO, 1999.
[24] Swan, 2003.
[25] FAO, 1995.
[26] See FAO, 2003c.
[27] More information on the UN-LOCODES is available on http://www.unece.org/etrades/download/downmain.htm#edifact.
[28] The Web site is http://www.imcsnet.org.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page