I. Introduction

1. On several occasions GFCM members¹ have stated that the Council needs to agree on a medium and long term work programme. This document presents the GFCM Secretariat�s suggestion for such a work programme in capture fisheries and aquaculture. It further discusses the adequacy of GFCM�s institutional structure and identifies the nature of resources needed to execute the programme.

2. The purpose of the paper is not to identify in detail the individual activities of a work programme. Rather it attempts to describe what could be its main components and to present the criteria used to identify and prioritise them.

3. The GFCM Council, in the course of its Twenty-second Session in October 1997, is expected to discuss amendments to the GFCM Agreement and to its Rules of Procedure². It is also to consider a proposal for the creation of an autonomous budget and a scale of contributions for its allocation amongst members³. The links between these proposals and the programme of work suggested for the medium and long term are indicated in this document.

4. The work program as described below is based on the assumption that the proposed amendments will be accepted and that an autonomous budget will be created.

II. Management of capture fisheries.

5. In the recent past both the value and the volume of Mediterranean capture fisheries have continued to grow. This has been of concern to the GFCM as simultaneously fishing effort, and the resulting fishing mortality, for most resources have been at levels generally considered to be too high. Such situations have been noted in fisheries for large pelagics, demersals and small pelagics, although within these broad categories developments have not been uniform.

6. Table 1 summarises the major issues facing managers responsible for capture fisheries in the Mediterranean. There are obviously a number of other issues affecting fisheries, particularly those related to the degradation of the marine environment. The table, however, focuses on only those which are directly related to fishery activities.

Table 1: Main issues in capture fisheries of concern to GFCM

7. What will be the medium and long-term future for Mediterranean capture fisheries? The incentives for fishermen to maintain a fishing effort on large pelagics is likely to grow and continue to be greater than the resource can withstand. The need to impose effective limitation of effort will thus remain.

8. What will happen to fisheries for demersals? It is evident that most stocks of demersal fish and molluscs which in the past have provided increased production, possibly through increased nutrients supply, may no longer support increased effort. In fact, recent data on these fisheries support this assumption. In most of these fisheries a scheme for limiting effort is needed.

9. What will happen to fisheries for small pelagics? As in other parts of the world, there seems to be no strong reason to expect in the next 5 to 10 years that fishing effort on small pelagics will increase to the extent that mangers would have to control effort. The exception to this rule is provided by anchovy the stocks of which in some parts of the Mediterranean have declined to levels lower than desirable. The Secretariat is of the view that there is now the opportunity to apply elements of the precautionary approach to these resources and thereby avoid future problems, particularly of an economic and social nature.

10. Fishers and those drawing a livelihood from associated industries and activities in GFCM member countries will also have to deal with competition for resources from other users of the coastal zone. Some demands will arise from urban, touristic and industrial use of the coastal zone; others from exploitation by sport fishermen. These interest groups are all likely to demand the right to exploit and/or observe marine life in a manner that may only be satisfied if commercial fishermen reduce or otherwise modify their fishing.

Prospects for GFCM fisheries management in the light of past experience

Table 2: The nature and scope of recent GFCM Council recommendations and decisions intended to deal with fishery management issues

12. As illustrated in the above table GFCM has so far directed most of its concerted action towards determining the status of marine resources and understanding the influence exerted on them by fishing and other human activities. In particular GFCM has worked to: (1) improve international collaboration in research and policies; (2) improve the exchange of information amongst members; (3) determine the potential of marine resources; (4) promote the adoption of traditional, technical management measures (restrictions on mesh size, etc.) in order to improve yield per recruit. To date GFCM has not systematically reviewed the extent to which its recommendations have been adopted by members.

13. At its meeting in Alicante, Spain, the Council de facto assigned priority to management of transboundary⁴ resources and highly migratory stocks, and in particular to demersal stocks. This decision has subsequently been reinforced by the declarations of two Diplomatic Conferences on Fisheries Management in the Mediterranean⁵. GFCM has indicated its intention to regulate fishing through direct control of the fishing effort⁶. This is to be done primarily through adjustments to fleet capacity, backed as necessary by appropriate technical measures such as closed areas, closed seasons and limitations on the use of fishing gear.

14. For GFCM and its members to succeed in such efforts it is believed that the following actions should be undertaken by members:

1. acquire the needed knowledge of: highly migratory stocks; stocks within the areas of their own jurisdiction, and, the activities of their fishers and of vessels flying their flag, as well as of other fishers authorised to operate in such areas;
2. share information and knowledge related to the exploitation and status of highly migratory and transboundary fish stocks, as well as information concerning international fleets operating close to their areas of jurisdiction;
3. agree on optimal levels of fishing effort/mortality and on an equitable allocation or sharing of fishing opportunities such that a sustainable fishing effort is achieved on the concerned fish stocks;
4. design rules intended to ensure exploitation of stocks at agreed levels; and,
5. enforce these same rules.

In this sequence of activities, GFCM members have a role as a regional group but also acting on their own. The GFCM Secretariat could assist the members concerned, through its statutory bodies as appropriate, in some of the essential tasks embodied in activities 2, 3 and 4. It will not be in position to carry out activities 1 and 5, and these will fall almost exclusively on members concerned in their individual capacities. GFCM�s contribution would be normative - not operational. This fact is important to note as activities 1 and 5 for most fisheries are the most costly⁷.

15. GFCM member countries have not completed the above sequence of activities for any of the Mediterranean fisheries. Work has progressed most for large pelagics (and in particular for bluefin tuna), and least, probably, for small pelagics.

16. The challenge confronting GFCM is to complete this sequence of activities for as many of the Mediterranean fisheries as possible. Cross-border partnership arrangements amongst national fishery management authorities may help GFCM overcome this challenge.

17. The activities listed in paragraph 14 constitute a chain or cycle⁸ which is not complete unless all the links, or steps, are in place and, preferably, executed in an integrated manner. Effectiveness and efficiency demand that the work is managed in a holistic manner so that any marginal, or extra, effort may contribute to strengthen the weakest link in the chain.

A work programme: strategies, criteria and context

18. In parallel with activities designed to close the "fishery management cycle" for a number specific fisheries, GFCM could undertake programmes which will be of benefit for the management of more than one fishery. These include activities for:

• harmonising laws and regulations on joint⁹ or similar fisheries, and facilitating agreements on joint fisheries management;
• promoting joint research activities and exchange of data with and among fisheries and non-fishery research organisations with interest in the Mediterranean;
• harmonising methodologies for statistical data collection, analysis and reporting; and,
• upgrading national capacities in the above tasks.

19. The essential question for the work programme is: in which order shall tasks be undertaken and by what dates should they be completed? Amongst the approaches which could be used to determine the order two of the most obvious are: to tackle specific fisheries or supporting activities according to what is feasible with least additional costs, or to do first that which limits potential future damage (and consequent economic/environmental losses) most. Both have probably been applied - although not in a very explicit or quantified manner - in past deliberations of the Council, and the outcomes are likely to have been modified by the requirements for a fair distribution of GFCM activities amongst members.

20. This document proposes a ranking of groups of activities, later in the document referred to as components, to be included in the medium term work programme. This ranking builds upon the Secretariat�s understanding of the Council�s view of the priorities.

21. The GFCM Secretariat sees the medium term as including three biennia. What can be achieved depends on the resources assigned to complete the work. As indicated above (paragraph 14) GFCM fisheries management is in effect a collective effort amongst GFCM Members, where a large part of the effort is national and the remainder are activities carried out by GFCM�s statutory bodies supported and co-ordinated by the GFCM secretariat.

22. Lastly, Members should recall that in managing Mediterranean fisheries on behalf of its members, GFCM will be confronted with a set of characteristics which are not those usually encountered by international fishery commissions when addressing high seas fisheries. There are four of particular importance: (i) the predominance of small scale, coastal, multi-species fisheries on high value species; (ii) a strong impact of land-based pollution and of environmental degradation on fisheries; (iii) a wide range in technical capacities, and in the social and economic conditions prevailing in the economies surrounding the Mediterranean; and, (iv) the fact that in most parts of the Mediterranean EEZs are not declared.

Components of a GFCM medium and long term work programme for fisheries management

23. The components of the work programme will be discussed by type of fishery and by category of supportive action. It should be noted that the work programme includes only those activities which will be funded through the GFCM budget. Thus, Members retain the obligation to collect basic data (in particular on catches and effort) and for enforcing agreed management rules. The GFCM activities to be undertaken as a priority are discussed in detail in the proposed programme of work and budget for the 1998/99 biennium¹⁰.

24. The priorities for dealing with large pelagics (highly migratory species) are to enforce binding decisions already taken and then to expand management to other species as needed, e.g. swordfish and albacore. The implementation of the Alicante Resolutions relating to bluefin tuna require that GFCM:

• establish a joint list¹¹ of fishing vessels of 15 m OAL, or longer, operating in international waters (Members initiative) and make it accessible¹² to fishery managers in all member countries (GFCM Secretariat initiative);
• develop (GFCM Secretariat initiative) and agree on a monitoring scheme for fishing vessels; and
• enforce the regulations (action with Members).

25. Fisheries for demersal species are widespread and of considerable economic importance. It is undertaken both by industrial vessels¹³ and by a large number of small vessels¹⁴ . There is basic knowledge of the status of some of the key stocks (hake, mullet, sea-breams, shrimps) while relatively little is known about many smaller stocks, which jointly make up a large share of the Mediterranean demersal resource. Also knowledge is scanty about the social and economic situation of the fishers. However, it is unlikely that sub-region wide management measures - which most likely must include effort limitations - can be agreed and enforced without detailed knowledge of likely consequences on fishers. For some of the stocks there is also a deficiency in biological information.

26. For large, distinct stocks, the effort management approach will have a solid foundation when the status of stocks and effort of fishing fleets are monitored on a stock by stock basis. Also, the information such monitoring provides on "indicator species" will be useful for management of multispecies assemblages. However, for large, distinct stocks, management via effort control means that the emphasis in data collection will shift away from fish stocks towards the fishing unit and its technical performance.

27. For smaller species, particularly those exploited by coastal, small-scale fisheries, the approach will have to be area-based, treating the species assemblage as the management target. It is suggested that work continues on the fisheries in the Gulf of Lions, the Adriatic, the Sicily Channel, the Gulf of Gabes, the Aegean sea and the Levant. In order to progress towards effort control in demersal fisheries in these regions, it would seem essential for the GFCM to:

• confirm the status of the stocks of the concerned species with representatives of all nations and fisher communities who are exploiting them;
• promote the analyses of economic and social aspects of the demersal fisheries conducted in the regions identified above;
• negotiate allocation of access rights to the shared stocks (or shares of the total fleet capacity¹⁵ fishing those same stocks); and,
• develop and agree rules for enforcing agreed levels of fishing capacity.

28. In regard to under- or unexploited small pelagic species, GFCM will probably agree to controlled growth of these fisheries as well as their management. However, in order to so, GFCM will need more information on the economic and social situation of those fishers who now exploit these species, as well as of the potential markets for increased catches. Also more information is needed on the stability and resilience of these resources; their interactions with demersal resources (through predator-prey relationships), and, on their oscillations in abundance and species replacements. As mentioned earlier, despite the lower level of emergency in the management of these species, the Secretariat would recommend that some action be taken to ensure that precautionary management rules are designed and implemented. In cases where pelagic species are exploited jointly with demersal species, as in the Gulf of Lions, such management measures will have to address both types of species.

29. In respect of harmonisation of laws and regulations the medium term programme of GFCM might include:

• the collection and exchange of information on relevant national legislation;
• the provision of advice and assistance to governments for the adjustments of national legislation;
• promotion of adherence to and implementation of the provisions of the Compliance Agreement and the UN Fish stocks agreement; and,
• regional adaptation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

30. The promotion of joint research programmes through institutional co-operation should have three main objectives: to develop consensus on joint fishery management measures; to increase cost efficiency in research and to ensure that information of value for fisheries collected/analysed by other research organisations be made available for fisheries management purposes. The medium term program may include the following:

• development of a joint research programme (possibly in a contractual format) for fishery research institutions in GFCM member countries (Secretariat initiative);
• normalisation of joint analysis and decision-making with ICCAT for tunas and billfish in the Mediterranean (Secretariat activity)
• agreements on information exchange with: the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, the Mediterranean Action Plan; and, with the International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (ICSEM); (Secretariat activity);

31. In respect of generation and standardisation of data and information by member countries for GFCM needs, the following would seem to be the priority actions to be undertaken in the medium term:

• formulation and agreement on minimum technical standards (initiative with GFCM Working Party on Economic and Statistics);
• establishing the register (database) for fishing vessels;
• development of a digital Atlas for Mediterranean fisheries.

Breakdown of the work programme in medium term and long-term.

32. As stated above the breakdown of the work programme into activities to be undertaken in the medium term and activities to be undertaken in the long-run is essentially a function of the availability of staff and budgets.

33. The proposed breakdown is given in Table 3. It is supported by a basic assumption that members who do not already maintain records of catch and effort (both in quantitative and value terms) for priority fisheries¹⁶ will endeavour to do so as soon as possible.

Table 3: GFCM�s medium and long term work programmes in fisheries management; a proposal by the GFCM secretariat¹⁷.

III. Development and management of aquaculture

Issues in Mediterranean aquaculture

34. Aquaculture is a traditional activity in the Mediterranean basin, although it is not evenly distributed. Three countries account for over 80% of the production volumes and values. However, in recent years, the number of countries with substantial aquaculture production has increased. There is no reason to expect drastic changes in this scenario during the coming five to ten years. However, freshwater aquaculture, like capture fisheries, will be exposed to a growing competition from non-Mediterranean suppliers.

35. The following major trends appear from an analysis of the evolution of aquaculture production volume and value in the GFCM area:

• the supply of freshwater finfish species, and production techniques are rather stable;
• there is a relative saturation of mussels production and to a lesser extent of oysters, and a fast rise of new relative high value species like scallops and clams; and,
• in connection with the fast rise of the production of cultured seabass/ seabream there has been a rapid decrease in the retail price of these two rather high value species previously available only from capture fishery supplies.

36. The future of aquaculture in the GFCM member countries will be significantly influenced by the need to safeguard environment, to develop and stabilise markets, to maintain and upgrade product quality standards, and to improve the information flow and the institutional set-up.

GFCM strategy for management and development

37. The overall objective of the GFCM aquaculture networks is to promote sustainable forms of aquaculture in the Mediterranean, bearing in mind environmental quality and product quality as top priorities. Emphasis will be put on : ensuring a synergy of action between networks, produce guidelines for planning and producers sector, maintain a constant monitoring of the situation, improve the efficiency of production systems, and enhance market development. The activities organised by the networks will be directed towards this end and include: information exchange, workshops, exchange of scientists, joint training and research programmes, establishment of common databases.

38. The three thematic networks, TECAM, SELAM and EAM, will receive support from the SIPAM network, which should work with them for the creation of specialised databases serving their specialised working groups for which a common approach to their work has been established. At present for the TECAM network these groups are: Diversification, Nutrition, Diseases, Genetics and Technology. For the SELAM network the groups so far established are: Economics, Marketing, and Planning. For EAM the more limited number of activities undertaken restrict the real groups to one on Site Selection for Aquaculture and another on Aquaculture and Coastal Lagoons.

39. The networks activities are for the time being implemented by pooling financial resources between the institution operating the network, FAO Fishery Department�s Regular Programme and the national institutions which are hosting the events, but funding contributed by CIHEAM and FAO is limited and with the evolution of the networks the demands of the various groups are expected to grow considerably, beyond the limits of presently available financial resource.

40. The SIPAM network is assisted by the Government of Tunisia which host the regional centre and covers its running expenses, but additional resources could help in improving programming and in speeding up the collection of data and the establishment of the national networks as well as facilitate the linkage of the remaining countries to the system.

41. Funding support for the networks on a permanent basis through GFCM could allow a fuller development of a programme of work in which more events and a larger participation in them could be assured. The capability for implementation is proven for the TECAM and SELAM networks, but a definition of the future of the EAM network in terms of partnership would be timely.

42. In order to promote responsible aquaculture development, the GFCM work programme should include the adaptation of the relevant part (Article 9) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to aquaculture in the Mediterranean. In order to facilitate this process it would seem to be of particular importance that those responsible for aquaculture in the public administration are familiar and up-to-date with the conditions confronting the aquaculture producers in subject matters such as:

• under TECAM: biological and technical aspects (disease, biodiversity concerns, product quality, etc.);
• under EAM: environmental aspects (impact of effluents, eco-system integrity, red tides, etc.); and,
• Under SELAM: socio-economic and legal aspects (laws and regulations; social and economic impacts of aquaculture; farm operations, marketing and planning of public sector activities and public sector policy implementation; etc.).

IV. Implications of the proposed medium-term work programme in fisheries and aquaculture for the institutional structure of GFCM

43. In order for the GFCM to reach its objectives in fisheries management, the Council�s institutional structure, rules of procedure, financial and human resources should ideally permit members, yearly²⁰ , to:

1. analyse and agree on the situation of stocks supporting joint fisheries as well as on the economic and social situation of fishers exploiting them;
2. establish the annual, sustainable harvest of joint fisheries;
3. devise/amend rules which will lead fishers to regulate their fishing practice and effort in a manner which means that the global harvest of concerned stocks remains within established limits;
4. devise/amend joint procedures/protocols for monitoring; and,
5. enforce those same rules.

44. The Council will be requested at its current session to consider modifications of the GFCM Agreement and its rules of procedure²¹. Many of these modifications reflect earlier decisions of the Council. Table 4 shows the roles/functions which each of the organs or subsidiary bodies of GFCM would be called upon to carry out once the amendments have been adopted.

45. Devising rules for management (activity 3) and procedures for their enforcement (4) are not done anew each year. Once these rules have been established, they will be reviewed and possibly modified at intervals of several years. The establishment of common rules for management implies, however, that there is a large amount of work to be done at the start of the management of any fishery.

46. Moreover, scrutiny of Table 3 will reveal that, as the Council moves into effort limitation on demersal fisheries, the amount of work will increase almost by the same proportion as will the number of fisheries involved. The Scientific Committee will be called upon to support and monitor the work of a growing number of expert consultations in stock assessment. In addition, working parties most likely will have to monitor and assess implications of fishing capacity, fishing power and intensity of fishing. As a result, the work load of Committee members will grow considerably.

47. The work load of the Committee on Management will grow similarly. It will have to endorse the conclusions and recommendations forwarded by the Scientific Committee. The Committee will in turn pass on its conclusions for consideration by the Council in session.

48. It may be useful, in order to facilitate the work of the Committee on Management and of the Scientific Committee, that their composition and working methods be reviewed. The review should probably aim to have only part of the members active at any one time, that is, not to call on all members of the committees to attend all meetings. Such an arrangement may be acceptable as presumably members are most concerned with the fisheries in their particular sub-region.

49. The role of the Secretariat is one of facilitator. It works directly with all the levels of the Council. It should handle the logistic aspects of meetings and joint activities in such a manner that the information needed for, and logistical support required in, meetings are available.

50. In order for the GFCM to reach its objectives in aquaculture²²,it will need to consider how to put the activities of the networks on a more secure footing in the long run. At the moment the networks are supported through assorted adhoc arrangements which provide little long-term guarantee for their continuation. Resources are needed to keep the networks operating - until now provided by the Secretariat and by extrabudgetary funding of partner institutions - and to carry out activities other than information exchange.

51. It is the opinion of the Secretariat that the institutional structure ²³ will permit the Council to embark effectively on its medium-term activities.

Table 4: Role of GFCM organs and subsidiary units/bodies

V. Resource needs for the proposed medium-term programme.

52. The costs which will be incurred if GFCM�s work plan and associated member activities are implemented are composed of salaries, costs for office facilities, meetings and for collecting, storing and analysing data.

53. Salaries are those for a small number of staff of the GFCM Secretariat, as well as, intermittently, for a somewhat larger number of member delegates prior to and in GFCM sessions) and a very large group of scientists and administrators. Of these salaries, it is only those the GFCM Secretariat that are to be paid from the GFCM budget.

54. Costs of GFCM office facilities are those covering use and upkeep of the offices of the GFCM Secretariat.

55. Meeting costs will include travel, meeting room charges, preparation (including translation) of documents, secretarial services during the meeting and simultaneous interpretation. The GFCM budget covers the travel of staff of the Secretariat, of invited experts and of the officers of the Executive Committee. Meeting room charges and the costs of preparing documents, of secretarial services and interpretation are covered for the Council, the Executive Committee and three Technical Committees.

56. Costs of data acquisition and handling. GFCM will pay for the storage, analysis and distribution of data related to industrial fishing in the Mediterranean. Members will bear the costs for the acquisition and handling of other data on capture fisheries. It is suggested that GFCM also pays for the basic intersessional operating costs of the four aquaculture networks.

57. This means that the GFCM budget has a fixed part consisting of the expenditures for staff and office, for producing fisheries statistics and for maintaining aquaculture networks. The variable part of the GFCM costs is composed basically of the costs of meetings. However, as meetings are absolutely essential to reach agreements on controversial issues, GFCM must have a stable, regular budget that in size far exceeds its fixed costs.

Annual requirements of resources

58. The average or typical annual requirements of resources needed to implement the medium term work programme are given below. They reflect the work programme as given in Table 3 and in Section IV on aquaculture.

59. Staff of the Secretariat. The staff will be lead by a Technical Secretary. It is the suggestion of the Secretariat that he/she be supported by three professional and two clerical staff. The professional staff will consist of a fisheries management advisor, a fisheries biologist/statistician and an aquaculture advisor.

60. Number of meetings. Given the annual cycle of fisheries, it seems reasonable that the management of joint fisheries must be reviewed yearly. This means that the Council, including the various Technical Committees and Working Parties, should carry out its activities in a yearly cycle. However, as the management strategy is to control fishing effort, the intensity of direct stock assessment work will diminish and be replaced by monitoring of fishing effort and yields. Therefore not all stock assessment groups will need to meet yearly.

61. Preliminary estimates of the total²⁴ annual expenditures for implementing a medium term work programme as outlined above show that for the period they will average about US $ 1 million. This does not appear to be unreasonable when compared with budgets of other major regional fishery management bodies.

62. The Council will find in document GFCM/XXII/5 a discussion on the next step in regard to its budget. The document also discusses the allocation of the budget between FAO and members of the Council. Further, ways of sharing the budget amongst members is reviewed in document GFCM/XXII/6.

Strategy for increasing resources

63. Perusal of this document makes it clear that it is the Secretariat�s view that an increase in the GFCM�s budget is essential and urgent. The work facing the Council, particularly that linked directly to fisheries management, is such that there is a need to bring together a critical mass of effort over a number of years to solve several intricate issues relating to agreement on fishery management measures. Considering that the Mediterranean fishing and aquaculture industry generates billions of dollars annually, there are substantive arguments in favour of allocating the required budgetary resources.

SUGGESTED ACTION BY THE COUNCIL. The Council is invited to review the proposed medium- and long-term work programmes and in particular to:

• consider the components to be included in the medium-term work programme;
• identify the priorities associated with the components to be included in the medium term work programme;
• discuss the need for elaboration of a more detailed work programme for the priority components; and,
• formulate instructions it wishes to address to the Secretariat in respect of further work on GFCM�s medium and long term work programme.