COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Rome, Italy, 24-28 February 2003
WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2002 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FISHERIES
The aim of this paper is to present the main fisheries and aquaculture-related outcomes of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002, examine their implications on the Programme of Work of the Fisheries Department and stimulate discussions on the potential and appropriate follow-up actions. The World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 agreed to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Plan extensively treated issues related to fisheries. Emphasis was implicitly placed on marine fisheries but the Plan also stressed the importance of aquaculture development and small-scale fisheries. The role of FAO was expressly recognized and reference made to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its related international plans of actions and guidelines. The Plan ratified and built on commitments defined in Agenda 21 as well as the decisions adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries taking into account achievements already reached in their implementation. Specific deadlines were agreed on five issues: Development and Implementation of National and Regional Plans of Action to put into effect the IPOA-IUU Fishing (2004); Development and Implementation of National and Regional Plans of Action to put into effect the IPOA-Capacity (2005); Application of Ecosystem Approach (2010); Restoration of Depleted Stocks (2015); and Establishment of "representative networks" of Marine Protected Areas (2012). The Plan identified a number of actions in the area of institutional policies that would bolster its implementation, and highlighted the strengthening of national and regional capacity in marine science and management, as required action. There were no references to fisheries trade issues or to the financial resources required to facilitate the implementation of the fisheries components of the Plan.
1. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg, South Africa, August 2002) was held to conduct a review ten years onwards from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). In so doing the WSSD evaluated achievements and progress since the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It identified areas of Agenda 21 where further efforts are required to implement it and where new challenges and opportunities have arisen.
2. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development included a renewed political commitment to the twenty-seven Rio Principles and Agenda 21. Among other things, it welcomed stronger regional groupings and alliances that have promoted or would promote regional cooperation, improved international co-operation and sustainable development. It committed to pay special attention to the development needs of Small Island Developing States and the Least Developed Countries, and reaffirmed the vital role of indigenous peoples in sustainable development. It recognized that sustainable development requires a long-term perspective and broad-based participation in policy formulation, decision-making and implementation at all levels. Moreover, it agreed that there is a need for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability within a transparent and stable regulatory environment.
3. The WSSD also adopted the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (`the Plan'), which addressed five priority areas: Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity (WEHAB). This plan specifies `Type 1 Outcomes' to which all participants at the Summit agreed. In addition, the WSSD addressed `Type 2 Outcomes'1 which are initiatives between two or more partners (governments, academia, industry, civil society) aimed at addressing particular sustainable development issues, often with cross-cutting links to several areas in Agenda 21.
GENERAL CONTENTS OF THE PLAN
4. The structure of the Plan makes general reference to poverty eradication2 (Chapter II); changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production (Chapter III); and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development (Chapter IV). It then sets these within the framework of sustainable development, making particular mention of this core issue in relation to a globalizing world (Chapter V) and health (Chapter VI). The Plan then goes on to frame identifiable plans for Small Island Developing States (Chapter VII), Africa and other regional initiatives (Chapter VIII). It concludes with frameworks for the means of implementation (Chapter IX) and institutional frameworks (Chapter X), including the roles of UN bodies, regional organisations and national institutions that will be required to put the Plan into effect.
SUMMARY OF FISHERIES ISSUES IN THE PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
5. The Plan treats issues related to fisheries extensively, mainly in the section dealing with "Oceans, Seas, Islands and Coastal Areas" (Chapter IV, Paragraphs 29-34) but also in other sections concerning poverty eradication, small island developing States, development of national policies and plans in Africa, and promotion of programmes to enhance efficient use of water resources. Although more emphasis is placed on marine fisheries and no specific reference is made to inland fisheries, the Plan stresses the importance of aquaculture development and small-scale fisheries.
6. The section of the Plan which deals mainly with fisheries (Chapter IV, Paragraphs 29-34) contains several statements concerning the general requirement to strengthen coordination and cooperation, in particular:
· to strengthen donor coordination and the capacities of developing countries;
· to improve scientific understanding and address critical uncertainties; and
· to promote multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral management at all levels.
These statements mostly reflect those already made in both the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and in Agenda 21; they continue to inform and guide the entire mandate and work programme of the Fisheries Department.
7. The Plan calls generally for implementation of the principles contained in the Rio Declaration and of Agenda 21, particularly principles 5, 7, 10, 11, 15 and 16. It repeatedly refers to principle 7, which stresses the "common but differentiated responsibilities" of States as to their contribution to global environmental degradation. In relation to fisheries, it highlights and calls for action by States on three general themes, in which FAO has been involved both instrumentally and programmatically: international instruments; consultation and coordination; and implementation of time-bound specified goals.
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
8. This issue is addressed at two levels, namely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and specific agreements and plans.
9. With respect to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Plan reiterates its central and over-arching character and thus the fact that it is the key international instrument regarding marine fisheries, and calls on its ratification and implementation:
"States to ratify or accede to and implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides the overall legal framework for ocean activities." (Para. 29 (a))
10. With regard to specific agreements and plans, the WSSD Plan of Implementation makes particular reference to the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, both of which were anticipated in Agenda 21, and exhorts States to:
(i) "Ratify or accede to and effectively implement the relevant United Nations and, where appropriate, associated regional fisheries agreements or arrangements, noting in particular:
· the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions 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 Stocks3; and
· the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, 1993."4 (Para. 30 (b))
In relation to the regional agreements, it must be noted that in several cases Contracting Parties are now reviewing and strengthening constitutional and institutional arrangements . Some of these arrangements are under the auspices of FAO.
(ii) "Implement the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, taking note of the special requirements of developing countries as noted in its article 5, and the relevant Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) international plans of action and technical guidelines." (Para 30 (c))
Two elements of this provision deserve to be highlighted: the deliberate reference to the particular situation of developing countries; and the recognition of the progress that has been made, since the acceptance of the Code, in defining international plans of action on specific issues and in the preparation by FAO of a series of technical guidelines.
(iii) "Implement the RAMSAR Convention, including its joint work programme with the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the programme of action called for by the International Coral Reef Initiative to strengthen joint management plans and international networking for wetland ecosystems in coastal zones, including coral reefs, mangroves, seaweed beds and tidal mud flats." (Para 31 (e))
Of particular importance in this provision is the recognition of the need for action in relation to coastal ecosystems, the high vulnerability of which is becoming increasingly recognised.
TIME-BOUND SPECIFIED GOALS
11. The Plan identifies a number of goals that should be undertaken by specific dates. Many of these are being addressed in the FAO Fisheries Department's work programme. They have been reproduced here sequentially, although they are variously placed in the Plan's text.
(i) "Establish by 2004 a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional assessments." (Para 34 (b))
A global report and assessment of the marine environment that includes socio-economic aspects will have significant input on the use of the environment by fisheries. FAO is already producing such information in the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), including reporting on regional assessments. The exercise called for in the Plan would be greatly facilitated and enhanced by the adoption of the Draft Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries, as well as through Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS), Fisheries Resources Management Systems (FIRMS) and the UN Atlas.
(ii) "Urgently develop and implement national and, where appropriate, regional plans of action, to put into effect the FAO international plans of action, in particular:
· The International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity by 2005; and
· The International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing by 2004." (Para 30 (d))
In addition to reiterating the call for the development and implementation of national and regional plans of action as specified in the IPOAs (including the IPOA Seabirds and the IPOA Sharks), the Plan reiterates the deadlines for the IPOA Fishing Capacity and the IPOA IUU Fishing, as agreed by COFI at its Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Sessions, respectively, when these IPOAs were adopted.
(iii) "Encourage the application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach, noting the Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem and decision 5/6 of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity." (Para 29 (d))
Significantly, a somewhat longer deadline has been set for the general application of the ecosystem approach (to responsible fisheries). At least three issues need to be addressed in the intervening period: 1) further development of the nature and implications of the approach itself, including the scientific, data and analytical requirements; 2) the development of conservation and management measures fitting to the approach; and 3) the introduction of appropriate regulatory mechanisms that, not only will be new to fishers, but also will have socio-economic consequences5.
(iv) "Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012 and time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds and periods, proper coastal land use; and watershed planning and the integration of marine and coastal areas management into key sectors." (Para 31 (c))
In this provision, it is important to note the call for the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) as an approach to fisheries management. The establishment of the MPAs, however, must fulfill two conditions: to be consistent with international law; and to be based on scientific information. In most cases such information will have to be developed. The Plan stipulates a ten-year timeframe for the establishment of "representative networks". This might be interpreted to mean groups of linked MPAs that include representative ecosystem and stock types. Most likely this approach will have to be assessed to evaluate its use as an additional tool for conservation and management.
(v) "Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015." (Para 30 (a))
The timeframe for this call for all stocks to be restored to MSY "not later than 2015" no doubt reflects the understanding that the time needed to achieve this reference point may vary considerably, depending on the degree of depletion and the stocks involved, as well as a number of other relevant factors including the state of the respective ecosystems.
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
12. In addressing "Consultation and Coordination", the Plan of Implementation emphasizes the need to:
(a) "Establish an effective, transparent and regular inter-agency coordination mechanism on ocean and coastal issues within the United Nations system." (Para 29 (c))
This call for action within the UN system is placed high on the list of actions identified in the Plan. In recognising in this manner that no single UN organization encompasses all ocean and coastal issues and that a mechanism for coordination between agencies is needed, it takes great care to emphasize that such mechanism must be "effective, transparent and regular". Although no timeframe is specified, this mechanism might well need to be in place so as to contribute to the next report by the Commission on Sustainable Development to the Secretary-General, or to the next Global Programme of Action conference in 2006. It is most likely that all UN agencies will have to participate in this mechanism, although it may be anticipated that their level of contribution and involvement will vary according to their specific mandate and the nature and scope of their activities.
(b) "Take note of the work of the open-ended informal consultative process established by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 54/33 in order to facilitate the annual review by the Assembly of developments in ocean affairs and the upcoming review of its effectiveness and utility to be held at its fifty-seventh session under the terms of the above-mentioned resolution." (Para 29 (h))
The FAO Fisheries Department has been effectively contributing to this process which allows for a systematic review of ocean affairs at the highest level of consultation. It may be expected that the inter-agency coordination mechanism referred to above will provide future input on both ocean and coastal issues.
(c) "Strengthen regional cooperation and coordination between the relevant regional organizations and programmes, the UNEP regional seas programmes, regional fisheries management organizations and other regional science, health and development organizations." (Para 29 (f))
This provision recognizes the need to continue to strengthen coordination and cooperation between all international organizations and programmes dealing with regional coastal, marine and ocean affairs, among them the regional fisheries management organizations, with which FAO is closely involved6.
OTHER IDENTIFIED ISSUES
13. The section of the Plan which deals mainly with fisheries also makes reference to a number of other issues that have direct relevance to the Fisheries Department's work programme, inter alia:
· the elimination of subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity;
· support for the sustainable development of aquaculture, including small-scale aquaculture;
· protection of the marine environment from land-based activities;
· building capacity in marine science, information and management; and
· improving livelihoods and reducing poverty in coastal and inland communities, as appropriate, using the core tools of the sustainable livelihoods approach and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
14. In another section of Chapter IV, the Plan contains some reference to freshwater resources in paragraph 38 (c) and (d), on the one hand calls for:
"Increase understanding of the sustainable use, protection and management of water resources to advance long-term sustainability of freshwater, coastal and marine environments." (Para 38 (c))
while, on the other hand, exhorting the international community to:
"Promote programmes to enhance in a sustainable manner the productivity of land and the efficient use of water resources in agriculture, forestry, wetlands, artisanal fisheries and aquaculture, especially through indigenous and local community-based approaches." (Para 38 (d))
15. Chapter VII, Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States makes particular note of the importance of fisheries to these States, and calls on the international community to:
"Further implement sustainable fisheries management and improve financial returns from fisheries by supporting and strengthening relevant regional fisheries management organizations, as appropriate, such as the recently established Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism and such agreements as the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean." (Para 52 (b))
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMUNITY
16. In reaffirming that Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 "provides the programme of action for achieving the sustainable development of oceans, coastal areas and seas" and expressing the commitment to its implementation, the Johannesburg Plan subsumes all the elements contained in that Chapter, including some which have been successfully implemented or are on-going, such as, inter alia:
· the UN Fish Stocks Agreement7;
· the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF);
· amending the constitutions and mandates of FAO regional fishery bodies and seeking coordination with non-FAO bodies8;
· improving statistical and information systems, including geographical information systems (FIGIS and the Atlas of the Oceans);
· establishment of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research9.
17. In building further on these achievements the following tasks would need to be highlighted: :
· Continued development of national, subregional and regional policies, and strategies to identify and seek ways of addressing pressing issues in aquaculture;
· Effective promotion of small-scale fisheries and community-based management;
· Increased involvement in promoting strategies for improved international cooperation, in particular capacity building in fisheries management in developing countries.
18. It is anticipated that FAO would continue to play a key facilitating role in support of national, regional and international efforts towards implementation of the Plan targets. This role should encompass, inter alia:
· providing neutral fora for various fisheries, environment and development stakeholder groups to develop appropriate implementation strategies and operationalize the Plan targets based on best available scientific evidence and knowledge;
· establishing and maintaining a knowledge base and network of scientists, managers, resource users, etc. on the WSSD targets and implementation issues;
· developing and providing methodological guidance on implementation tools including high resolution spatial mapping of resources and resource uses, social and economic impact assessments, economic valuation, habitat conservation techniques and enhancement strategies, and others;
· promoting the conduct of cross-disciplinary case studies;
· providing training and other forms of human capacity-building;
· assisting with institutional, regulatory and legislative changes that might be needed at national, regional and international levels.
Specific activities related to time-bound goals
19. Representative network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). MPA-related work has not been a priority area of FAO in the past. While it is known that biodiversity conservation is a major, if not over-riding, objective of MPAs, especially in the context of the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the Jakarta Mandate, it is also recognized that they could have potential impacts on the fisheries sector including eventual social and economic effects on poor fishing communities. Extensive scientific literature exists that clearly documents ecological benefits within MPAs and some evidence of ecological beneficial spill-over effects in the vicinity of MPAs. However, the research has not matured to the point where it can be applied operationally in the design of objective-based ecosystem approaches to fisheries. Nonetheless, the current knowledge is inadequate on both the biodiversity conservation function of MPAs and their function to achieving fisheries management objectives.
20. More research, case studies and pilot experiments should be undertaken in order to gain a better understanding on how MPAs work and how their positive impacts on biodiversity conservation and on sustainable fisheries livelihoods can be assured through judicious design, placement and operation. FAO can play an important role in the development and dissemination of a complete and cohesive body of scientific understanding on the functions and impacts of MPAs, drawing also upon the lessons learned from terrestrial systems. The role played by FAO could encompass the elaboration, or adaptation, of methods and indicators to assess the MPAs' conservation and economic and social performances.
21. It should be recognized that, in establishing representative networks of MPAs, there are allocation implications both within the fisheries sector and between fisheries and other interests. In this regard, decision-making processes should be better informed of these implications. In addition, those involved in the fisheries sector should have a better understanding of both social and ecological objectives to enable them more effectively to participate in the MPA design process.
22. Put into effect the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity by 2005. WSSD 2002 confirmed the particular urgency that had been identified by COFI in its Twenty-third Session for the effective implementation of the IPOA on the management of fishing capacity. There is need to give much greater attention to the establishment of proper incentive systems for fishing capacity to adjust to the appropriate level within a market-based system. A prominent role in this regard would be played by various types of rights-based fisheries management regimes. The challenge of sustainability is to get the incentive structure right for the industry so that overfishing and excess capacity do not develop.
23. Major areas of emphasis concerning the implementation of the fishing capacity IPOA might include:
· identification of the critical elements and features of appropriate incentive regimes for different types of fisheries and situations and taking account of the need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management;
· the definition and assignment of target capacity in the context of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management;
· the economic and social impacts of alternative incentive systems and other regulatory capacity control measures;
· how appropriately to address, especially in developing country situations, the potentially high economic and social transition costs through compensatory measures, international financial assistance and self-financing mechanisms;
· how to ensure that capacity adjustments and adjusting mechanisms operate in support of sustainable livelihoods, poverty reduction and enhanced food security.
These priorities could be addressed through various means including the convening of expert consultations, the conduct of case studies and the elaboration of guidance and training materials including the elaboration of technical guidelines or checklists for the development of national or regional plans of action.
24. Put into Effect the IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing by 2004. FAO has already produced a simplified version of the IPOA-IUU Fishing and corresponding guidelines, as a well as a checklist to assist Members and regional organizations to elaborate national and regional guidelines. There is a strong link between this IPOA and the requirement to obtain timely and accurate data on the rate of harvests of target and non-target fish stocks for resource assessment and monitoring purposes. To address this adequately, every effort should be made to fully utilize various monitoring systems of catch, fish trade and fishing vessels. Forensic techniques and product marking systems might be useful with regard to fish product traceability and catch certification schemes.
25. Encourage the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF). Recognition has been achieved at high level that a more holistic and integrated approach to fisheries management was needed, incorporating to the conventional stock-by-stock and multispecies approaches, fundamental considerations about the ecosystem, its contribution to human well-being and its natural variability or degradation. Following the Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (Reykjavik, Iceland, September-October 2001) FAO has developed guidelines and will closely follow their implementation, revising them as needed. Furthermore, FAO will apply this approach directly through field projects, in West Africa and the Caribbean (where projects do exist) as well as in other areas or countries, on request and as funding is made available.
26. It should be noted that the transition towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is an incremental and progressive process. The need for the setting of operational objectives and the identification of precise measures and indicators to assess performance of EAF and including its impacts on wealth generation and equity, should also be recognized. Bearing in mind that EAF represents a merging of two related but different paradigms - ecosystem management that focuses on ecosystem well-being and fisheries management that focuses more on human well-being, it may be useful to establish a Steering Committee to oversee this initiative.
27. Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield by 2015. There is a complementarity between this WSSD target with the mandates provided in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The conditions of a healthy fish stock are inadequately described through an MSY-related abundance measure. Moreover, economic and social considerations cannot be neglected in decisions concerning the rate and time at which recovery to a healthy stock size can be attained. Furthermore, in view of oceanographic and other environmental factors having a significant influence on stock abundance and restoration in many instances, there is a need for closer collaboration between all agencies and organizations involved in marine affairs, at both national and regional levels.
28. Available experiences indicate that the concerned stocks can be restored successfully, and many within reasonable time frames. This being so, relevant experiences and cases should be carefully examined to analyse the reasons why, or why not, stocks have been successfully restored and the costs and benefits associated with these efforts.
29. Stock enhancement may play a role in recovery strategies. However, confirmed scientific knowledge is required on the genetic and ecological impacts of such measures. Stock enhancement measures are not a substitute for judicious management and reduction of excess harvesting capacities.
30. FAO's contribution to stock maintanance or restoration efforts would include monitoring, human capacity-building, and provision of advice and information, such as:
· continued promotion of the analysis, control, and reduction of fishing capacity where appropriate;
· promotion of, and support to, fisheries and stock assessment, including in the development of decision-support information systems, assessment methodology, models and software and systems of indicators and reference points;
· training and capacity-building in fisheries analysis (including establishment of reference points) and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management and stock-rebuilding strategies;
· global and regional monitoring and reporting on the state of fish stocks in relation to agreed reference points; and
· elaboration and dissemination of related information through FAO publications as well as the Fisheries Global Infomation System (FIGIS) and the UN Atlas of the Oceans.
31. The goals of WSSD 2002 and the promotion of responsible fisheries will be difficult to attain without appropriate human capacity to accommodate the new approaches to fisheries issues and management. There is a need to lay emphasis on building human capacity, not just for science but also for management and among stakeholders. This calls for a new approach based on a more mutual learning process so that information and knowledge can be shared more efficiently and effectively by all involved.
32. Bearing in mind that the Plan of Implementation makes no references to financial resources, it is essential also for such resources to be mobilized - especially those needed to address the time-bound goals. Sound management and sustainable development of fisheries will require more concerted and long-term investments.
1 http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/sustainable_dev/partnership_initiatives.html . There are currently 21 initiatives attached to the `Ocean, Seas, Islands and Coastal Areas' section.
2 The placing of this issue early in the implementation plan is an indication of the continued importance given to this matter by the international community. Poverty eradication has become a priority in small-scale fishing communities.
3 Entered into force on 11 December 2001. As at 8 December 2002, 32 Members of the United Nations had ratified, or acceded, to the Agreement (in order of ratification or accession): Tonga, St Lucia, United States of America, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Norway, Nauru, Bahamas, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Iceland, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Russian Federation, Seychelles, Namibia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Monaco, Canada, Uruguay, Australia, Brazil, Barbados, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Malta, United Kingdom on behalf of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla, and Cyprus.
4 As at 8 December 2002, 23 Members had deposited their instruments of acceptance with the Director-General of FAO: Argentina, Barbados, Benin, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, European Community, Georgia, Japan, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Norway, Peru, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, Seychelles, Sweden, Tanzania, United States of America and Uruguay.
5 See the Draft Guidelines on Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries elaborated at the FAO-organized Expert Consultation at Reykjavik, in September 2002, which are available at this Session. See also COFI/2003/.Inf.13.
6 On the recommendation of the Ninth Session (July 2000) of the UN Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) Sub-Committee on Oceans and Coastal Areas (SOCA), UNEP and FAO jointly developed the publication "Ecosystem-Based Management of Fisheries: Opportunities and Challenges for Coordination between Marine Regional Fishery Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions", UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 175, 2001, 52 pp.
7 The South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO) and the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Commission were recently established to give effect to the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and to put in place regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) where none existed. Many regional fishery bodies are reviewing their mandates to take into account these provisions and other recently adopted instruments.
8 Starting in 1999, a meeting of all regional fishery bodies and arrangements is held within the margins of the FAO Committee on Fisheries. The Third Meeting is planned for 3 and 4 March 2003. Meetings of tuna management regional fishery bodies are also a common feature since 2000.
9 Formerly "Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research" (ACMRR).