67. Excluding the constitutional and financial implications associated with giving the FAO Regional Fishery Bodies a comprehensive and clear mandate for the conservation and management of the fisheries of the high seas or strengthening them, there are other considerations which will have to be taken into account while deciding the future role of these bodies.
68. The first consideration is that the main objective of the Organization should be to help these bodies to reach an independent status, i.e., to give the overall responsibility of these bodies to their members. The member States of these bodies should, therefore, be responsible for the activities of these bodies and the bodies should be accountable to their members. An independent regional or sub-regional fishery body with its secretariat and technical support unit located in the region or sub-region has the advantage of accessing the political will of its members as well as being able to identify and react quickly to the general and particular fisheries needs of the region or sub-region and its members.
69. The second consideration is to maintain the impartiality of the FAO Fishery Bodies as long as they remain within the framework of the Organization. The non-political nature of these bodies has been instrumental in providing a platform for dialogue and cooperation among their members. In some areas, notably parts of the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Western Central Atlantic, fisheries cooperation may not continue among some members if FAO were to withdraw its direct involvement in the fisheries of these areas.
70. The third consideration is that FAO Regional Fishery Bodies have had different mandates and have performed different functions according to the needs of the regions and the extent of support they have received form their members. Consequently, any restructuring of these bodies should reflect on the realistic objectives and functions to be assigned to these bodies in the future.
71. The final consideration is that even without a mandate to manage fisheries of the high Seas, any FAO body which continues to have an advisory role must be financed adequately and receive active support from its members in order to perform its functions and achieve its objectives. They should be able to hold their regular sessions and carry out their intersessional activities. Of the present FAO regional fishery bodies, some are potentially management bodies and are ready to undertake management functions either as independent fisheries management organizations or as management bodies operating under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution (IOTC model). These are GFCM, CECAF, the Gulfs Committee of IOFC and APFIC Committee on Marine Fisheries.
72. The following suggested options for each FAO Regional Fishery Body have been drawn up taking into account of relevant factors discussed so far in this document. In addition, a more detailed analysis of the possible fishery management scenario and a model institutional arrangements for future fisheries management of the CECAF area is presented. This will serve as a model for similar studies to be undertaken on other FAO regional fishery bodies. The options proposed in this document are not by any means exhaustive but they indicate the practical directions these bodies may be expected to take in the very near future.
73. GFCM was established by an Agreement concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution in 1949. The Agreement establishing the Council entered into force in 1952. The area of competence of the Council is the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and connecting waters (FAO Statistical Area 37). Membership of the Council is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. Members of the United Nations, any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted by a two-thirds majority of the Council's members. GFCM is financed and administered by the Organization. Under Article III of the Agreement establishing GFCM, the purpose of the Council is to promote the development, conservation, rational management and best utilization of living marine resources in its area of competence. It has the mandate to formulate and recommend measures for the conservation and management which includes regulating fishing methods and fishing gear, presenting the minimum size for individuals of specified species, establishing open and closed fishing seasons and areas, and regulating the amount of total catch and fishing effort and their allocation among its members. The recommendations are adopted by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting and are subject to objecting procedure.
The Council has the following subsidiary bodies:
(i) GFCM Executive Committee
(ii) GFCM Committee on Fisheries Management
(iii) Working Party on Fisheries Economics and Statistics
(iv) GFCM Committee on Aquaculture
74. Coastal States in the Mediterranean have not declared extended fisheries jurisdiction and therefore the Mediterranean for the most part remains a high seas area. With the exception of Greece (6 miles), Syria (35 miles) and Algeria (32-52 miles), all other States bordering the Mediterranean Sea have 12 miles territorial sea. In some areas of the Mediterranean Sea, the continental shelf extends far beyond 12 miles and stocks occurring on the shelf are therefore accessible to fishermen form outside the region. Demersal straddling stocks are found in the Gulf of Lions and the Gulf of Gabes and pelagic straddling stocks exist probably in most parts of the Mediterranean Sea. There is also the question of tuna which is currently managed by the Council and is also within the mandate of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Thus the unique fisheries aspects in the Mediterranean makes it a prime candidate for adopting the Provisions of the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. This cannot be done easily by a body which is financially and administratively dependent on FAO and is ultimately responsible to the Organization.
75. The countries bordering the Black Sea (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation) are currently negotiating to establish a Commission for the conservation and management of the living resources of the Black Sea. With the establishment of a new fishery body for the Black Sea, the Council will have a reduced area of competence as well as a possible reduction in its membership.
76. The membership of the Council consists of a number of very important fishing nations which could meet all scientific and technical requirements of the Council. At its Twenty-First Session (Alicante, Spain, May 1995), the Council called for strengthening of GFCM and proposed voluntary contributions from members to supplement the regular budget provided by FAO. It must be pointed out that in the light of serious financial cuts in the budget of the Fisheries Department, the present level of support for the Council through the Regular Programme of FAO may not be possible to maintain. For a body to function properly and effectively a firm financial commitment by its members is of paramount importance. In addition, other FAO regional fishery bodies such as WECAFC, CECAF, and IOFC serving less developed areas, are in greater needs of the Organization's financial, technical and scientific support.
77. As a result of the decentralization policy, all of FAO regional fishery bodies are, or shortly will be, located on Regional Offices of the Organization or located in a member country. Possibilities of the GFCM Secretariat being located in a member country to host the Secretariat outside the Organization need to be investigated. This could reduce the Organization's expenditure for hosting GFCM as well as demonstrate the rationale regarding its policy on decentralization.
a) Amendments of the Present Agreement
78. FAO, in consultation with member countries of GFCM, could amend the present Agreement. The amendments could include provisions for strengthening GFCM, providing for an autonomous budget and greater administrative independence. The changes could re-establish GFCM on the same footing as IOTC. The new GFCM might still fall short of being able to meet all the requirements of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
b) To Establish an Independent Commission
79. Under this option, members of the Council could terminate the Agreement establishing GFCM in accordance with the Provision of Article XIV of the Agreement. Under the aegis of FAO or other arrangements, GFCM members could agree on a new treaty for the establishment of a new intergovernmental fishery organization for the conservation and management of the fisheries resources of the Mediterranean Sea. GFCM could remain operational until the new body is in place. Cooperation between FAO and the new fishery body could, thereafter, be determined in accordance with the Provisions of Article XIII of the Organization's Constitution. The new independent body could be in a position to fully implement the Provisions of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
80. APFIC was established by an Agreement concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution in 1948. The area of competence of the Commission is broadly defined as the "Indo-Pacific area" although in 1990 the Commission agreed that in practice it would give priority to marine fishery resources in the FAO Statistical Area 71. Membership of the Commission is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. Other States that are Members of the Untied Nations, any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted as members by a two-thirds majority of the Commission's membership. APFIC is financed and administered by the Organization. Article IV of the Agreement establishing APFIC provides a broad mandate for the Commission in respect of the management of the fisheries. The purpose of the Commission includes the promotion and the full and proper utilization of living aquatic resources by the development and management of fishing and culture operations. Its function in respect of management is to formulate and recommend measures and to initiate and carry out programmes or projects to conserve and manage resources. The Commission has the following subsidiary bodies:
(i) Executive Committee
(ii) APFIC Committee on Marine Fisheries
(iii) APFIC Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Committee
(iv) Joint Working Party on Fish Technology and Marketing
(v) Joint Working Party on Fishery Statistics and Economics
(vi) Working Party on Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries
(vii) Working Party on Marine Fisheries
81. Following the recommendation of the Eighteenth Session of COFI (Rome, April 1989), the Commission established an Ad hoc Committee (Twenty-third Session, May 1990) to draw up a report reviewing the structure, functions and responsibilities of IPFC and its subsidiary bodies. The report of the Ad hoc Committee was considered by the IPFC Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the South China Sea (CDMSCS) at its Seventh Session held in Kowloon, Hong Kong, in July 1991. The Committee also had the report of its own Working Group on the Structure, Functions and Responsibilities of CDMSCS. It decided that (i) the Commission should not be disbanded but be restructured, (ii) the membership of the Commission should be enlarged, (iii) IPFC should have an autonomous budget, and (iv) the work of CDMSCS should be strengthened.
82. At its Twenty-fourth Session (Bangkok, Thailand, 23 November - 4 December 1993), the Commission, taking into account the report of the Ad hoc Committee, the views of the CDMSCS and the report of the IPFC Executive Committee, decided to adopt a number of changes concerning its structure, functions and responsibilities. These included (i) changing the name of the Commission to Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC), (ii) establishing an Inland Fishery and Aquaculture Committee, (iii) disbanding the Special Committee on Management of Indo-Pacific Tuna and the Standing Committee on Resource Research and Development (SCORRAD), and (iv) concentrating on the development and management of the marine fisheries in the South China Sea. The Commission did not address some of the fundamental issues concerning its own future. The functions and responsibilities of the two Committees are very distinct from one another. They are geographically separated and the functions envisaged for the Marine Fisheries Committee have no bearing on the functions of the Committee for Inland Fishery and Aquaculture. These bodies can exist and function independently pursuing their own separate mandates. This means that there is little justification for the existence of the Commission itself as well as that of its Executive Committee since there will be practically nothing for either of them to do.
83. At present, there are nine fishery bodies in the Pacific Ocean. These are Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (I-ATTC), International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement (CEPTFA), Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Organization (OAPO), South Pacific Permanent Commission (SPPC), South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (SPFFA), Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), and North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). In addition, there are a number of regional organizations which also deal with fisheries including Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC), Marketing Information and Advisory Services for Fish Products in the Asia/Pacific Region (INFOFISH), Asia/Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and Pacific Economic Cooperation (PECC). The region as a whole is well covered by these bodies except for the management of the resources of the South China Sea which is the responsibility of APFIC.
a) Amendments to the Agreements Establishing APFIC
84. Under this option, APFIC will remain as an Article XIV body with an autonomous budget, more management powers and greater flexibility. It could have the following subsidiary bodies:
(i) The IOFC Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal could become a subsidiary body of APFIC. This would provide greater conservation and management powers enjoyed by bodies operating under Article XIV.
(ii) The Committee on Marine Fisheries would remain as a subsidiary body of APFIC with greater management and administrative powers.
b) Terminating the Agreement Establishing APFIC and Promoting the Committee on Marine Fisheries to a Commission under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution
85. The Commission and the Executive Committee of APFIC do not appear to serve a useful purpose. Consideration could therefore be given to terminate the Agreement. FAO, in consultation with the countries concerned could consider the establishment of a new Commission for the Conservation and management of the main resources of the South China Sea and the Eastern Indian Ocean (Area 51) under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution. The new commission could have autonomous budget and management powers similar to those provided in the Agreement establishing IOTC could be given to the new commission.
c) Establishing an Independent Commission to Replace the Committee on Marine Fisheries
86. Under the aegis of FAO or other arrangements a new international treaty could be negotiated by the Countries of the South China Sea. The treaty could establish an independent commission to deal effectively with the conservation and management of the fisheries resources in the South China Sea.
d) The Future Arrangements for the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Committee
87. In 1994, the total fish supply from inland resources in Asia reached 15,279,042 tons (77.5% of total inland production). Thus the importance of inland fisheries in the region is obvious. Like other FAO inland fishery bodies, this Committee could be restructured and strengthened to perform effective advisory functions. This could be done by establishing this Committee as a commission under Article VI of the FAO Constitution.
88. IOFC was established by the Council in 1967 under Article VI-1 of the FAO Constitution. The area of competence of the Commission is the Indian Ocean and its adjacent seas (FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57), excluding the Antarctic area. Membership in the commission is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. The commission and its subsidiary bodies are financed and administered by FAO. The Commission's terms of reference as set out in paragraph 2 of its Statutes are:
(i) To promote, assist and coordinate national programmes over the entire field of fishery development and conservation;
(ii) to promote research and development activities in the area through international sources, and in particular international aid programmes, and
(iii) to examine management problems with particular reference, because of the need to take action, to those relating to the management of offshore resources.
The Commission has four subsidiary bodies:
(i) Committee for the Indian Ocean Tunas;
(ii) Committee for the Development and Management of the Fishery Resources of the Gulfs (the Gulfs Committee);
(iii) Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean (SWIO); and
(iv) Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal (BOB).
89. The recent developments concerning high seas fisheries have made it clear that regional and subregional fishery organizations should play a more active and effective role in the conservation and management of the resources of the high seas. These bodies should have proper mandate and firm commitments by their members in order to function effectively. The IOFC and its subsidiaries have an advisory role which is not appropriate for dealing with management issues. If there is a need for conservation and management of the high seas fisheries in the Indian Ocean, the present institutional arrangements will have to be fundamentally changed.
90. FAO has responded positively to the need of the region by establishing the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) which will deal with the tuna and tuna like species on a regional basis which is necessary for the conservation and management of the tuna stocks. This has two implications on the functions of IOFC. First, the IOFC Committee for the Indian Ocean Tuna will be abolished. Secondly, the membership of the Commission will be substantially affected since many present members joined the Commission for its involvement with tuna fishing. With the abolition of the Committee for the Indian Ocean Tunas the remaining three Committees are, subject to minor adjustments to their geographical coverage, well placed to serve the countries bordering the Indian Ocean on a subregional basis. The adjustments could provide for proper conservation and management of the resources of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea which so far have been only nominally covered by the Commission.
91. The IOFC, like other FAO regional fishery bodies, has not been able to hold its sessions regularly. The financial constraints on the Organization in recent years have caused the delay or even cancelation of regular sessions and the implementation of its recommendations. The Commission has held three sessions in the past ten years (1985,1989,1994). For a body to be effective, it needs to hold it sessions regularly and be able to carry out its programmes of work.
92. The participation of the members at regular sessions of the Commission has been very poor. At its last session (Mombasa, Kenya, November 1994) only fourteen out of forty five members attended; not enough to provide a quorum necessary for making decisions. Non-FAO fishery organizations whose budgets are met by members' contributions and have more specific functions enjoy a better participation and support by their members. It is, therefore, imperative that any restructuring of the Commission should include proper support and commitments, including financial commitment, by the members.
93. With the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission to manage tuna and tuna-like species throughout the Indian Ocean, one of the main region-wide tasks of the IOFC, operating through its Committee on the Management of Indian Ocean Tuna, would be removed. There are a few other highly migratory or transboundary fish stocks but the range of migration of such stocks is too poorly known at present to allow for the establishment of a Commission. Other fish stocks in the Indian Ocean are more localized, with fisheries based on those stocks demonstrating diverse conditions in the various localities. It would appear more logical to look more to the strengthening of fisheries management at the sub-region level. The IOFC Committees (Committee for the Development and Management of the Fishery Resources of the Gulfs, Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean, and Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal), subject to minor adjustments to their geographical coverage, are well placed to serve the countries bordering the Indian Ocean on a subregional basis. The adjustments could provide for proper conservation and management of the resources of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea which so far have been only nominally covered by IOFC.
a) Transforming the Existing Three Committees of IOFC into New Commissions under Article XIV with New Management Mandates, Autonomous Budgets and New Areas of Competence
94. Agreements could be concluded under Article XIV to establish fishery commissions to replace the three subsidiary committees. The structure of constructive agreements under Article XIV is preferred because of the possibility of enhanced powers and flexibility that go with it.
(i) Fishery Commission for the Eastern Indian Ocean
95. This commission could replace the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal. Its area of competence could be extended but would correspond mainly to that of the FAO Statistical Area 57. In order to be effective, it could be endowed with management power and an autonomous budget. Full participation and support by the countries in the sub-region would be essential if conservation and management measures are to be adopted and implemented at the sub-regional level. It would
appear that the region is homogeneous enough to provide such support. Another alternative is to set up a new BOB committee as a subsidiary body of APFIC.
(ii) Fishery Commission for the North West Indian Ocean
96. At present, the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea fall under the area of competence of IOFC. With the exception of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman whose fisheries are covered by the Gulfs Committee, there is no sub-regional mechanism in place to deal with the other areas. In addition, the biological characteristics of the fisheries of the Persian Gulf have little in common with those of the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Sea. Similarly, the Red Sea has its own distinct biological characteristics. The fisheries of the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Aden however have much in common with those of the Arabian Sea.
97. A commission for the North West Indian Ocean could thus be established to deal with the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. The commission could have three geographical subsidiary bodies dealing with the fisheries of the three specific areas - the Persian Gulf, the Gulfs of Oman and Aden and the Arabian Sea and lastly the Red Sea. The management decisions of the three Sub-commissions would be taken by their members and not by the commission. The area of competence would correspond to the northern part of FAO Statistical Area 51.
(iii) Fishery Commission for the South West Indian Ocean
98. The present SWIO Committee appears to be well placed to become a commission under Article XIV with management power and an autonomous budget. Its area of competence would correspond to the southern part of the FAO Statistical Area 51. The region comprises countries which have many similar problems and aspirations. There are, at present, a number of other organizations promoting collaboration in this area, e.g. Organization for Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Cooperation (IOMAC) and the Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO). Most countries are also members of economic groupings e.g. the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) while a few belong to the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). Such economic groupings could in the future provide the nucleus for injecting the political will required for management decisions.
b) Independent Commissions
99. The Director-General of FAO in consultation with the member countries of the IOFC three Committees, convenes conferences of plenipotentiaries with a view to establishing independent fishery Commissions for the three sub-regions. Cooperation between FAO and the new bodies will be agreed according to the provisions of Article XIII of the FAO Constitution.
c) Future Role of IOFC
100. Even if the fisheries management function is devolved to new and strengthened commissions at the sub-regional levels, there may still be a role for the IOFC to play at a region-wide level in the area of research and data collection and dissemination. The Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Cooperation (IOMAC) is another ocean-wide body but its mandate and activities extend beyond fisheries. Thus, in the interest of the region as a whole consideration should therefore be given to redefining the mandate of the IOFC. It may be feasible to reconstitute the Commission as an Indian Ocean Marine Fisheries Research Committee under Article VI.2 of the FAO Constitution as an organization whose functions would be of purely scientific and technical nature. The purpose of such a body would be to promote and coordinate marine scientific research in order to advance scientific knowledge of the region and its living resources, to promote the collection and exchange of information related to marine scientific research in the area concerned, and to cooperate closely with fisheries and fisheries related organizations in the region. Its membership could consist of Coastal States and distant water fishing nations. In view of the lack of adequate information on the resources and their interaction in the Indian Ocean, the existence of such a body seems to be desirable to supplement the information that would be acquired by the regional bodies.
101. In transforming the existing three IOFC Committees into commissions under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution, the Organization would not have any financial responsibility towards these bodies since the new commissions would have their own autonomous budgets. However, if a region-wide body is established by FAO to promote and coordinate marine scientific research in order to advance scientific knowledge of the region, the cost will not be substantial.
102. The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) was established under Article VI-2 of the FAO Constitution in 1967 to replace the Regional Fisheries Commission for Western Africa (RFCWA). The Statutes of CECAF define its area of competence as the Eastern-Central Atlantic between Cape Spartel and the Congo River. This area mostly coincides with FAO Statistical Area 34. The membership of CECAF consists of Members whose territories border the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Spartel to the mouth of the Congo River and those Member Nations and Associate Members fishing or conducting research in the area. At present, all the coastal countries of the area covered by CECAF are members of the Committee. Other members of CECAF are Cuba, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, (Rep. of), Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the USA.
103. The continental shelf off this area is fairly narrow and most catches are taken inside 200 miles. The highly migratory species in the area are tune and tuna-like species and possibly oceanic sharks. Only oceanic horse mackerel (Trachurus picturatus) is known to migrate between the coast of Sahara and the offshore seamounts possibly reaching the Cape Verde Islands. This pelagic straddling stock is exploited by Eastern Europe fleets and by coastal countries. The main shared stocks in CECAF region are Sardinella aurita, Trachurus trachurus, Scomber japonicus, Cephalopods/Cuttlefish, small pelagics, demersal resources, Sardinella maderensis, and Trachurus trecae. Of these, Scomber japonicus, Trachurus trachurus and Trachurus trecae do straddle between the EEZs and the high Seas.
104. The Committee has four subsidiary bodies:
(i) Sub-Committee on Management of Resources within the Limits of National Jurisdiction
(ii) Sub-Committee on Fishery Development
(iii) Working Party on Resources Evaluation
(iv) Working Party on Fishery Statistics
The Terms of Reference of CECAF, as amended in 1992, include:
(a) to keep under review the state of these resources and of the industries based on them;
(b) to promote the collection, interchange, dissemination and analysis or study of statistical socio-economic, biological and environmental data and other marine fishery information;
(c) to establish the scientific basis for regulatory measures leading to the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, to formulate such measures through subsidiary bodies, as required, and to make appropriate recommendations for the adoption and implementation of these measures;
(d) to encourage, recommend and coordinate training and extension activities in all aspects of marine fisheries; and
(e) to assist Member Governments in formulating programmes to be implemented through international aid sources to achieve the objectives described in (a), (b), (c), (d) above.
105. CECAF has been very successful in achieving the objectives for which it had been set up by FAO in 1967. With the help of "CECAF Projects", funded by UNDP from 1973 to 1985 and other donors since then, the Committee has carried out many activities in the fields of collecting statistics, assessing resources, management principles, training and regional cooperation. It has played an important role in coordinating the management of fisheries in West Africa and has created an awareness on the part of senior officials as to the economic importance of fisheries. These activities and the promotion of the development of international collaboration have been instrumental to the development of management structures as well as the establishment of some research centres in the region.
106. CECAF, through extensive activities related to its advisory functions, has become the only organization capable of providing scientific advice and technical support to its members and other fishery organizations in the region. Its important role in the coordination of the fishery activities of its members and those of the fishery bodies in the region is well acknowledged by its members and those organizations. In 1992, the terms of reference of CECAF were amended in order to give the Committee more power in respect of the Conservation and management of the resources of the region. The function of the Committee concerning the conservation and management of the high Seas resources is still of an advisory nature. In the past, CECAF has recommended a number of management measures which have been implemented by its members.
107. At its Twelfth Session (Accra, Ghana, 27 April-1 May 1992), the Committee's members recognized unanimously that CECAF had played in the past and should continue to play in the future, an invaluable role as the main technical body for cooperation in fisheries management and development in the region. They also expressed their concern at the infrequency of meetings which could undermine the overall efficiency and that quality of the Committee's technical work. It was recognized by the Committee that the general activities of CECAF, as well as any additional activities would have to remain within the Organization's overall budget and programme. CECAF members were also informed that traditional donors were now reluctant to support institutions on a long-term basis and therefore it was imperative for the Committee to consider appropriate arrangements to have adequate support on a more regular basis.
108. At its Thirteenth Session (Dakar, Senegal, 18-20 December 1995), the Committee discussed the decision of COFI (Twenty-first Session, March 1995) concerning the future role of the FAO fishery bodies. It decided that a thorough analysis of the future role of CECAF should be prepared by the Secretariat. This document should be then circulated to all CECAF members by June 1996 in order to enable them to discuss it at the Tenth Session of CECAF Sub-Committee on Management of Resources within the Limits of National Jurisdiction provisionally scheduled for December 1996.
(i) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
109. ICCAT was established by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, signed in Madrid, Spain on 14 May 1966 and entered into force on 21 March 1969. The area covered by the Convention is defined as "all waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent seas". the species covered by the Commission are the tuna and tuna like fishes (The Scombriformes with the exception of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area which are not covered by other international organizations. ICCAT has
regulatory powers and its conservation and management measures are subject to the objection procedure.
(ii) Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries (Commission sous-régionale des pêches) (CSRP)
110. The Convention establishing a Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission was signed at the First Extraordinary Conference of Ministers in charge of fisheries from Cape Verde, the Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal in Dakar, Senegal, on 29 March 1985. Guinea became a member of the Commission in 1987. The Convention does not define the precise area covered by the Commission but references are made to "Sub-Region" and the EEZs of the Contracting parties. The membership of CSRP consists of Cape Verde, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal. The Convention covers all fishery resources within its area of competence. The main objective of the Commission is to harmonize the long-term policies of member States in the preservation, conservation and exploitation of the fisheries resources for the benefit of their respective populations. The Commission consists of the Conference of Ministers, the Coordinating Committee, and the Permanent Secretariat. The Conakry Convention concerning determination of conditions for foreign access to exploitation of the living resources in off-shore areas of CSRP Member States was signed by the Commission's member States in 1989.
(iii) Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (Comité régional des pêches du Golfe de Guinée)(COREP)
111. The Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea was established by the Convention Concerning the Regional Development of Fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea, signed at Libreville, Gabon on 21 June 1984. The area of competence of the Committee is defined as the Central and Southern Gulf of Guinea. The species covered by the Committee are all living resources within its area of competence. The Convention is open for signature and accession to States bordering the Gulf of Guinea. the present members are Congo, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, and Zaire.
112. The main objectives of the Convention inter alia are (i) determine a concerted attitude towards the activities of foreign fishing vessels and give priority to the needs of fishing vessels originating from member countries; (ii) harmonize the national regulations with a view to having a unified regulation fixing the conditions of fishing and the control of fishing operations in the area covered by the Convention, and (iii) collect the maximum scientific, technical and economic data on fishing operations. The organs of the Committee are the Council of Ministers and the Secretariat. The Secretariat is based in Libreville, Gabon. To support the Committee, the EC is funding specific projects established in each of the member countries as well as some sub-regional activities.
(iv) Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation Among African States Bordering the Atlantic
113. A Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperating Among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean was held form 30 March to 1 April 1989 in Rabat, Morocco. The Conference unanimously adopted the Rabat Declaration which referred to the common will of all the States of the region to strengthen and develop their fisheries cooperation namely in the fields of assessment and conservation of fisheries resources as well as the promotion of marine scientific research; development of fisheries production and land infrastructure; marketing of fishing products; enhancement of vocational and technical training; solidarity with land locked and other geographically disadvantaged African States; and all other actions likely to contribute to the development of the fisheries sector in the region. The Regional Convention on Fisheries Cooperation Among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean was adopted at the Second Session of the Ministerial Conference in Dakar, Senegal on 5 July 1991.
114. The objectives of this Convention are: (a) to promote an active and organized cooperation in the area of fisheries management and development in the Region; (b) to take up the challenge of food self-sufficiency through the rational utilization of fishery resources within the context of an integrated approach that would embrace all the components of the fishing sector; (c) to stimulate the national economic sectors through the direct and secondary effects resulting from fishery resources exploitation, bearing in mind the importance of the fisheries sector in the economic, social and nutritional development process of the people of the Region; (d) to enhance, coordinate and harmonize their efforts and capabilities for the purpose of conserving, exploiting, upgrading and marketing fishery resources, considering in particular fish stocks occurring within the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of more than one Party; and (e) to reinforce solidarity with African land-locked States and geographically disadvantaged States of the Region. The institutional framework of the Convention comprises the Conference of Ministers, the Bureau and the Secretariat. The Conference of Ministers is the governing and decision-making body with respect to fisheries cooperation among the Parties. The Bureau is the coordinating organ of the Conference of Ministers and the Secretariat is the executive organ.
115. There are highly migratory species, a few straddling stocks and a number of shared stocks in the CECAF region. While the management of tuna and tuna-like species is the responsibility of ICCAT, there is no fishery body in the region with management advisory mechanism in relation to straddling and shared stocks. The two sub-regional bodies are well placed to execute management measures at sub-regional level. The Western Gulf of Guinea remains without a sub-regional body. The Ministerial Conference has the political power to execute management measures at regional level. The future restructuring of CECAF should take account of the existing bodies in the region. A mechanism by which management issues are properly addressed and management measures are adopted is needed in the region.
a) Transforming the Existing Committee into a Scientific Commission by an Agreement concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution with an Autonomous Budget
116. Under this option, FAO in consultation with the members of the Committee and other fishery organizations in the region, could conclude an agreement under Article XIV of the Organization's Constitution to establish a commission which could be financed entirely by members' contributions. The new body could become purely a scientific and technical commission providing conservation and management advice to its members as well as to the fishery organizations in the region. The functions and activities of the new commission would be very similar to those of ICES in the North Atlantic.
b) Transforming CECAF into a Management Body under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution with an Autonomous Budget
117. An Agreement could be concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution to establish a fishery commission to replace the present Committee. The new commission would be financed by the members and could have management powers similar to those of IOTC.
c) Establishing an Independent Commission to Replace CECAF
118. It would also be possible, if CECAF members so wished, to replace CECAF with an independent fishery commission. In this case, a Conference of Plenipotentiaries would establish a new body under an international agreement. Serious considerations should, however, be given to the existing management bodies in the region and the possible future management functions of the new body. The agreement would provide detail provisions concerning the functions, activities and powers of the new commission.
119. WECAFC was established by the Council under Article VI.1 of the FAO constitution. The area covered by the Commission is all marine waters of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean (FAO Statistical Areas 31 and part of 41). Membership of WECAFC is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. The Commission and its subsidiary bodies are financed and administered by the Organization. The purpose of the Commission is to promote the optimum utilization of the living aquatic resources of the Western Central Atlantic by the proper management and development of the fisheries and fishing operations. The terms of reference of the Commission include:
(a) to keep under review the state of these resources and of the industries based on them;
(b) to promote the collection, interchange, dissemination and analysis or study of statistical socio-economic, biological and environmental data and other marine fishery information;
(c) to establish the scientific basis for regulatory measures leading to the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, to formulate such measures through subsidiary bodies, as required, and to make appropriate recommendations for the adoption and implementation of these measures;
(d) to encourage, recommend and coordinate training and extension activities in all aspects of marine fisheries; and
(e) to assist Member Governments in formulating programmes to be implemented through international aid sources to achieve the objectives described in (a), (b), (c), (d), above.
The Commission's subsidiary bodies are:
(i) Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Lesser Antilles
(ii) Working Party on Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources
(iii) Working Party on Fishery Economics and Planning
120. The area covered by WECAFC is one of the most diverse area in terms of cultural, economical and political structures and backgrounds regarding its members. This diversity is, inevitably, reflected in their policies and approach to fisheries matters. According to FAO, the total amount of fish landed from the Western Central Atlantic (FAO Statistical
Area 31) in 1994 was 2,241,379 mt, including the catches by DWFNs. In 1993, the island nations in the region (with the exception of Cuba) had limited landings while the United States, the Central and Latin American members of WECAFC and the DWFNs with well developed fisheries sector, were the main beneficiaries of the resources of the high seas.
121. Flying fish, dolphin fish, the Atlantic sailfish, the white marlin, the blue marlin and the king mackerel occur as straddling stocks in the Western Central Atlantic. Stock assessment, data collection and other information in the EEZs of many WECAFC members are patchy and incomplete. There is an urgent need for such studies as well as closer collaboration among the Commission's members on these subjects. At present, there is no mechanism through which the requirements of 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks can be implemented in that region. Only in the Lesser Antilles an attempt was made (1986) to examine and identify the shared fishery resources. Further studies to update that work and to assess the shared stocks in other areas covered by WECAFC are badly needed.
122. There is a lack of coordination concerning fisheries activities of the existing organizations in the region. Extensive collaboration between WECAFC and ICCAT, CARICOM, OECS and OLDEPESCA is necessary to focus on common interests in the fisheries of the region in order to identify and promote better conservation and management of the fisheries resources in the region. At its last session (Caracas, Venezuela, November 1995), the Commission's Members discussed the role of WECAFC and requested the Secretariat of the Commission to prepare a comprehensive report on this subject.
123. At the last session of COFI (Rome, March 1995), some delegations requested FAO to consider the reactivation of WECAFC in the interest of more adequately meeting the fishery needs of the member countries, especially those of small island States and developing countries. At its last session (Caracas, Venezuela, November 1995), WECAFC extensively discussed its role and delegates agreed that the decision on the future of WECAFC would have to be made by members at the political level because of the obligations and commitments that might be involved. The Commission recommended that FAO conduct a comprehensive assessment of the situation of fisheries in the region in respect of the future role of the Commission and the prospects for enhancing regional cooperation in the region. Based on a thorough review of the regional and subregional fishery sector, the study should:
- identify the main obstacles to and opportunities for fisheries development, and present the strategic regional and subregional management option;
- identify the main areas for possible cooperation among the countries of the WECAFC region;
- identify organizations, arrangements and mechanisms available to address adequately the cooperation issues identified;
- elaborate possible proposals for the future structure and mandate of WECAFC based on analysis of the identified regional cooperation issues and mechanisms;
- present cost estimates of the functioning of WECAFC for each of the proposals.
a) Restructuring WECAFC under Article VI.1
124. FAO, in consultation with WECAFC members, could revise the terms of reference of the Commission. More emphasis could be placed on stock assessments, data collections and research programmes, particularly in relation to shared stocks, straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. A regional project on shared stocks in the WECAFC region could be prepared by FAO for submission to donor agencies. The Commission could intensify its role to promote cooperation and collaboration on fisheries matters among its members and the existing regional organizations. The work of the Commission could become of a purely scientific and technical nature. Active support by its members is essential while FAO should increase its technical support for the Commission, so it can hold its sessions regularly and carry out its intersessional activities in accordance with its terms of reference.
125. In restructuring WECAFC, the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Lesser Antilles, could be promoted to an Article XIV commission. This commission could have management powers and financed by its members.
b) Transforming WECAFC to a Management Body under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution
126. The second option could be to promote WECAFC to a management body under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution. The new commission could have management powers and be financed by its members. In this case, the Committee for the Lesser Antilles could become a commission under Article XIV as proposed in the preceding paragraph, or remain as a subsidiary body of the new commission.
c) To Establish an Independent Body to Replace WECAFC
127. It would also be possible to replace WECAFC with a new independent fishery commission. FAO should consult the WECAFC members on the possibilities of establishing an independent commission under an international agreement.
IV) Financial Implications to the Organization
128. If WECAFC is to function properly and effectively as an FAO body, the Organization will have to increase its technical and if possible financial support. Thus the technical/scientific support by the Organization will have to be increased in order to enable WECAFC to function properly. Members of WECAFC should also undertake to actively support the Commission and participate in its work.
129. CARPAS was established by a Resolution of the FAO Conference in 1961. The area covered by the Commission is the Southwest Atlantic and inland waters of member States (Part of FAO Statistical Area 41). Membership is restricted to FAO Member Nations which belong to the American Continent and have coasts bordering on the Western Atlantic Ocean South of the Equator. The Commission is financed and administered by FAO. Its terms of reference are to promote fuller use of the marine resources in the Western South Atlantic in accordance with Sound economic and scientific principles; to coordinate studies, research and techniques; and to determine common needs.
The Commission has the following subsidiary bodies:
(i) Working Party on Fisheries Statistics
(ii) Ad Hoc Working Party on Fishery Economic Development in the Southern Atlantic
(iii) Working Party on Biological Research and Evaluation of Fishery Resources
130. CARPAS has not been active since 1974.
a) Reviving the Commission under Article VI.1
131. FAO could consult CARPAS members (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) with a view of reviving this body with new terms of reference and structure under Article VI.1 of the FAO Constitution.
b) Transforming the Commission to an Article XIV Body
132. FAO, in consultation with CARPAS members, could prepare an agreement under Article XIV of the Organization's Constitution for the establishment of a commission for the conservation and management of the region to replace CARPAS. The new body, with autonomous budget, could have management powers similar to those of IOTC.
c) Establishing an Independent Body
133. FAO could initiate consultation with CARPAS members with a view of exploring the possibilities of establishing a new independent fisheries commission to replace CARPAS.
