1. As Gulland¹ pointed out, regional and global organizations have been influential in the success or failure of many fisheries, and fishery problems have been more prominent in international affairs than the relatively modest share of fisheries in most national economies would suggest. He identified the most urgent requirement for international collaboration as the need for conservation and management of stocks harvested by several countries, but also stressed that the technical quality of advice for management can benefit from international review. This is the reason why Iceland, for example, seeks advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for some of the stocks confined to its national juristiction.

2. There are increasing demands for objective, unbiased, peer reviewed and transparent information on the status and trends of fisheries and fishery resources. Driving forces behind such demands include increasing adoption of the precautionary approach to fisheries management as embodied in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement² and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as well as eco-labelling issues.

3. In 1979, a working party of the FAO Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research (ACMRR)³ identified the following distinct steps necessary for the effective management of a fishery, which still hold true today:

1. Setting of objectives
2. Definition of boundaries
3. Collection of data
4. Transformation of data into information
5. Formulation of action
6. Execution of policies
7. Evaluation

This paper addresses steps (c) and (d), particularly in the international context.

4. It is important to stress at the outset that the fishery status and trends reporting referred to throughout this paper concerns the cooperative collation at the global level of national and regional data, ensuring that they conform to international norms and standards, and the production of global assessments of the state of world fisheries based on these. It definitely does not include a reappraisal of the national and regional stock assessments. Therefore the global reporting referred to here does not replicate the work of national and regional institutions, but rather complements it by providing a global overview.

5. The First Session of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR, Rome, 25-28 November 1997) identified research topics that need to be emphasized in the future in order to fill critical scientific gaps. One such area was fishery status and trends reporting. ACFR recognized that there is a "high demand for such information from policy makers, environmentalists who are increasingly concerned about fisheries, and the public". However, the Committee believed that current fishery status and trends reporting by FAO relied too heavily on traditional catch and trade statistics, whereas "there is a critical need for data relevant to fleet capacity, participation in fisheries, economic performance and distribution". Another critical element of the identified research need concerning statistics and status and trends was for the "design of quality criteria and quality assurance protocols". As planning for a Living Marine Resources module of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) gathers momentum, ACFR advised that it was particularly important that FAO prepare itself with a scientifically based plan for improving data collection and assessments of status and trends of fisheries using a multifaceted approach which could benefit from more formal processes to involve regional fishery bodies (both FAO and non-FAO) and individual experts. ACFR stated that a "multifaceted approach is needed including:

1. An evaluation of the types of data and assessments that are needed by researchers and policy makers;
2. Development of data collection mechanisms and design of a data management system;
3. Establish national commitment to provide data; and
4. Make arrangement for involvement of regional fishery bodies, and non-FAO experts in a consensus seeking process for conducting assessments of status and trends."

6. As a mechanism to provide leadership on this, ACFR further proposed as a priority the establishment by FAO of a Working Party on Status and Trends of Fisheries, the scope of which "should include:

1. An evaluation of data needs for status and trends reporting, and for other research needs, including data on fleet capacity, participation in fisheries, economic performance and distribution.
2. Consideration of data collection mechanisms and design of data management systems.
3. Proposals for arrangements for involvement of regional bodies, and non-FAO experts in a consensus seeking process for conducting assessments of status and trends.
4. Consideration of the relationship between FAO data collection and assessments of trends, and the Living Marine Resources module of the Global Ocean Observing System."

7. GOOS was called for by the Second World Climate Conference in 1990 and UNCED in 1992 to support sustainable development of the seas and oceans and to provide the oceanographic data needed by the Global Climate Observing System. It was initiated by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) in 1991 and subsequently gained additional sponsors. GOOS will undertake long-term, multi-disciplinary monitoring of the seas and oceans as a basis for (a) providing ocean data for reliable assessments and predictions of the present and future states of marine environments in support of their health and sustainable use, and (b) contributing to the prediction of climate change and variability. One of the five component modules of GOOS is that on Living Marine Resources (LMR) which will deal with harvesting and conservation of living resources of the oceans and coastal seas. It is intended that GOOS-LMR will provide a framework and specification for "an adequate package of observations and research to understand and forecast major changes in the abundance and/or production of critical living marine resources over time scales of years to decades and beyond arising from changes in the carrying capacity and/or health of the ocean".

8. A meeting of the GOOS-LMR Panel (Paris, 17-20 March 1998) directed the following request to FAO:

"A number of national and regional bodies collect and analyze fishery statistics and make fishery assessments. An aggregation of these analyses would be invaluable in assessing population changes in the upper trophic levels of marine ecosystems. The panel therefore requests FAO, the global centre for fishery statistics, to identify on a global scale the existing fishery analyses that could contribute to the desired meta assessment and advise on how it could best be organized and carried out."

9. Articles 61 and 119 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 UN Convention) require that scientific information and data relevant to the conservation of fish stocks in EEZs and on the high seas be contributed and exchanged on a regular basis through competent international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, and with participation by all States concerned.

10. Agenda 21 adopted by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development declares that States, with the support of international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, should cooperate to promote enhanced collection of data necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources, exchange of data and information for fisheries assessment, development and sharing of analytical and predictive tools and monitoring and assessment programmes.

11. The 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement⁴ requires Parties to exchange information on vessels authorized by them to fish on the high seas, and obliges FAO to facilitate this information exchange. FAO has developed a prototype database, the High Seas Vessels Authorization Record (HSVAR), for this purpose. So far two States (Canada and the United States) have provided such vessel authorization data and over 600 vessel records are in the database.

12. The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement specifies clearly the roles and responsibilities for regional fisheries bodies and flag States in the collection and exchange of data necessary to meet stock assessment requirements and support management objectives for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Annex I of the Agreement, titled Standard Requirements for the Collection and Sharing of Data, provides an important specification of the minimum data requirements for the conservation of fish stocks. Article 48 of the Agreement specifies that the Annexes to the Agreement may be revised from time to time by States Parties based on scientific and technical considerations, and so these requirements can be amended as the need arises. Article 7 of the Agreement contains specific provisions concerning data exchange:

"1. Data collected by flag States must be shared with other flag States and relevant coastal States through appropriate subregional and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements. Such organizations or arrangements shall compile data and make them available in a timely manner and in agreed format to all interested States under the terms and conditions established by that organization or arrangement, while maintaining confidentiality of non-aggregated data, and should, to the extent feasible, develop database systems which provide efficient access to data.

2. At the global level, collection and dissemination of data should be effected through the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Where a subregional or regional organization fisheries management organization or arrangement does not exist, that organization may also do the same at the subregional or regional level by arrangement with the States concerned."

13. The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries stresses the essential need for reliable data as a basis for effective fishery management and policy making. Paragraphs 7.4.1 - 7.4.7 deal with data gathering and management advice and the responsibilities of States and subregional or regional fisheries management organisations in relation to these. Paragraph 4.1 states that FAO will monitor the application and implementation of the Code and its effects on fisheries and that all States and relevant international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, should actively cooperate with FAO in this.

14. As part of its programme of promoting implementation of the Code, FAO has proposed to potential donor countries an Interregional Programme of Assistance to Developing Countries. One sub-programme is concerned with Upgrading Capabilities for Reporting on Fishery Statistics and it comprises three activities:

• Design of a generic catch and effort data collection and reporting system for use by distant water fishing nations and coastal States fishing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.
• Bringing existing statistical systems into conformity with the agreed system through a series of workshops conducted with or by regional fisheries bodies.
• Establish a reporting system that will allow rapid transfer of data between countries, regional fisheries bodies and FAO.

Donor funding is being sought for the Programme, and has already been secured for some other components.

15. The Fisheries Department has been requested to report to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and to the United Nations General Assembly on the implementation of the Code, and feedback from regional fisheries organizations will be an important component of this.

16. FAO reports regularly to the UN General Assembly also on developments in fisheries management worldwide, and particularly with some specific issues such as large scale pelagic driftnetting. A more comprehensive global appraisal of the status and trends of fisheries would provide a sounder basis upon which to base the reports to the General Assembly.

17. In addition to the responsibilities of States and regional fishery organizations in relation to the collection and exchange of data and information as specified in the above-mentioned international agreements and initiatives, States often have obligations to provide fishery data and information to organizations to which they belong. For example, Article XI.2 of the FAO Constitution obliges Member Nations to "communicate regularly to the Director-General statistical, technical and other information published or otherwise issued by, or readily available to, the government" and that the "Director-General shall indicate from time to time the nature of the information which would be most useful to the Organization and the form in which this information might be supplied". Most regional fishery organizations have similar requirements for their members.

18. It is clear that the obligations of States and international fishery organizations in relation to the collection and exchange of fishery data and information have been clearly stated in numerous international agreements and initiatives. In addition, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the Code of Conduct embrace the precautionary approach, which requires that fishery managers must be cautious when data are lacking or uncertain, potentially providing a powerful incentive for the collection and reporting of reliable data.

19. The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) comprises representatives of inter-governmental organizations which have a competence in fishery statistics. FAO provides the Secretariat. CWP has as its purpose to (a) keep under continuous review the requirements for fishery statistics for research, policy-making and management, (b) agree on standard concepts, definitions, classifications and methodologies for the collection and collation of fishery statistics, and (c) make proposals for the coordination and streamlining of statistical activities amongst relevant intergovernmental organizations.

20. CWP, supported by the participating organizations, has served since 1960 as the premier international and inter-organization forum for recommending common definitions, classifications and standards for the collection of fishery statistics. It has developed common procedures for statistics collection which have streamlined the collation process and reduced the burden on national fishery statistical offices. It has provided technical advice on fishery statistical matters to participating organizations and has facilitated the preparation of methodological and reference documents. In the process it has shaped the statistical programmes of all participating organizations to some extent, and those of FAO in particular, while leaving organizations complete autonomy in their areas of responsibility. By integrating and coordinating the statistical programmes among organizations, CWP made possible the standardization and streamlining of reporting through procedures and concepts which have served as models throughout the world.

21. CWP was reconstituted in 1995 so as to allow it to better respond to the increasing demands for reliable fishery statistics such as those resulting from the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 Compliance Agreement and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

22. One example of the influence of CWP was in having the specifications of fishery data requirements contained in Annex 1 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement form an integral and binding part of the Agreement, the first time such detailed data requirements had been specified in an international agreement. According to Doulman⁵, there was considerable discussion at the UN Conference as to what standing the annexes of the draft Agreement should have, with some delegations arguing that they should not be binding. Referring to the CWP text submitted to the Conference, Doulman states "This strong and unambiguous support from the world’s major fishery bodies indicated clearly the need for the specification of minimum standards in the draft Agreement". It was agreed finally that Annexes 1 and 2 would be an integral part of the Agreement, and thus be binding. Article 48 of the Agreement specifies that the Annexes to the Agreement may be revised from time to time by States Parties based on scientific and technical considerations, such as those in CWP.

23. The participating organizations of the CWP are:

• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR);


• Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT);


• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), also on behalf of FAO regional fishery bodies;


• International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT);


• International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES);


• International Whaling Commission (IWC);


• North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO);


• Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO);


• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);


• Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC);


• Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat).

24. A summary of the data collated and held by some regional fishery organizations is provided in Annex 1.

25. There is, therefore, in CWP an operational inter-agency mechanism in place for coordination of fishery statistical programmes and activities and the exchange of data, which should be utilized in support of any enhanced fishery status and trends reporting undertaken cooperatively by FAO, regional fishery organizations and other institutions such as proposed by ACFR. Indeed the provisional agenda for the Eighteenth Session of CWP during 6-9 July 1999 contains an item on exchange and dissemination of information and statistics by CWP’s participating organizations, including data management and dissemination policies sharing of data through possible live linkages amongst the organizations’ databases. That CWP Session will be immediately preceded by a working group meeting which will consider data requirements in relation to application of the precautionary approach in tuna management in preparation for an Expert Consultation to be held in 2000.

26. All regional fishery organizations undertake reviews, in one form or another, of the fisheries or fishery resources which fall within their competence. All provide some descriptions of the fisheries and their changes, often in textual form (e.g. with descriptions of fleets, fishing gears and operations) but also in terms of time series of catches of various species and effort (or catch per unit effort) by fleet or gear, all by statistical area. In some cases these are supplemented with data on by-catches of non-target species (including birds, turtles and mammals) and/or discarded catches. In cases where catch quota management is in operation, reports often show both officially-reported landings as well as the best estimates of landings (i.e. including misreported or non-reported landings). In addition, recommended total allowable catches (TACs) for previous years as well as the TACs actually agreed are sometimes shown (e.g. ICES) and these can be useful in identifying the degree to which the objectives are met and, in some cases, the appropriateness of the management advice itself. IATTC also describes interactions between fisheries. Some fishery status reports also describe the oceanographic environment (e.g. NAFO, IATTC and CCAMLR) in which the fishery takes place. In addition, CCAMLR incorporates ecosystem considerations.

27. Apart from descriptions of the fisheries, status reports from several regional organizations describe the results of research (e.g. fish tagging exercises), experimental surveys of resource biomass and its age/size structure (e.g. fishing surveys, acoustic surveys), routing biological monitoring of catches for such attributes as species composition, length, weight, sex and maturity distributions, changes in which often exert a major influence on the status of stocks.

28. For stocks for which assessments are undertaken, regional fishery organizations often report these in a systematic way, typically showing trends in landings, recruitment of young fish to the fishery, fishing mortality and stock biomass. These four indicators are generally also shown for any short term forecasts which are provided for different assumptions as well as for any long term forecasts or steady state analyses (e.g. yield per recruit analysis or surplus production models) which can be useful for developing management strategies. It is common practice in these cases to assess the state of the resource and level of exploitation in relation to selected target and limit reference points. In the most sophisticated analyses, indications of uncertainty and risk associated with various scenarios are also given.

29. Some status reports also include firm management advice and even agreed management measures, not only in relation to controlling overall fishing mortality but also for technical measures for other purposes (e.g. protection of juveniles). Finally and importantly, status reports usually contain recommendations on how fishery data need to be improved and on what additional research needs to be undertaken.

30. FAO draws heavily on the status reports of regional fishery organizations, as well as those of national institutions and peer-reviewed publications, in order to provide global reviews which are intended to describe trends, issues and the general status of fisheries in all regions of the world, rather than design and implement specific management measures which is the purpose of regional fishery organizations and national authorities. FAO’s reviews are particularly important in alerting regional fishery organizations, national policy makers and advisors, industry, NGOs and the public to the global fishery situation and global issues which can and do have effects at the regional and national levels. For example, excess fishing capacity is a global issue for which surplus capacity in one region can easily be exported to cause problems in another. Policy makers and fishery managers must be kept well informed and up to date on such issues. The mandate of FAO to "collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information" is enshrined in Article I of its Constitution. FAO has a long experience in collecting, processing and interpreting data and information from national statistical offices, regional fishery bodies, centres of excellence, publications and industry and its dissemination. Data are processed by technical divisions, where they are analysed and interpreted for redistribution through reports, yearbooks, diskettes, CD-ROMs and on-line data bases as well as through the Internet. FAO also publishes every two years a World Review of the State of Fishery Resources (marine, inland, and aquaculture) as well as a review of the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). These publications will soon be complemented by the fisheries component of the FAO Digital Atlas for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. These outputs are discussed and reviewed in a general way by the FAO Committee on Fisheries, which meets every two years and is the main and only specific forum for the discussion of world fishery issues.

31. Ideally such reviews should be based on the most up-to-date assessments and utilize all the information potentially available. However, as assessments are not always published in a timely fashion and do not cover all types of resources everywhere; the task is daunting. The FAO review of the state of marine resources could certainly be improved, but FAO’s staff resources are very limited and even at present the preparation of the trends and status reviews draws heavily on expertise outside FAO. A more comprehensive review based on inputs from more information sources and a more extensive peer review mechanism, as ACFR proposes, can only be achieved through closer partnerships between FAO, regional fishery organizations, national institutions and centres of excellence. A further essential requirement would be a formal commitment by countries to provide more complete and more timely data and information. Regional fishery oganization partners and national partners would need to be convinced of the benefits to them of any such partnership. They should also be assured that their position as data owners would be solidly protected with guarantees that they would have complete control over their information, including ensuring an appropriate degree of confidentiality where necessary.

32. The benefits to the regional and national partners would be that their information would:

• Help countries fulfil their obligations to international agreements;
• Improve transparency at the regional and global levels;
• Improve monitoring of shared, straddling and highly migratory stocks;
• Facilitate monitoring of implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;
• Demonstrate government and regional commitment to responsible fisheries;
• Allow comparisons of approaches taken by different countries or regions, including comparison of assessment and management approaches and results; and
• Facilitate coordination amongst regional fishery bodies (e.g., for tuna in the Pacific).

33. A formal partnership agreement would probably be required for this to be successful. FAO already has experience of partnerships among organizations and institutions at all of these levels. One such example is the Aquatic Sciences and Fishery Abstracts (ASFA) Partnership Agreement which successfully involves partners in the maintenance and development of the premier bibliographic database for fisheries and aquatic sciences. The ASFA Partnership currently comprises three UN organizations (FAO, IOC, UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALAS)), four international organizations (International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), ICES, World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Pacific Islands Marine Resources Information System (PIMRIS)), 24 national input centres and a private sector publisher (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts).

34. The international legal framework of fisheries has been substantially improved by the entry into force of the 1982 UN Convention, as well as by UNCED and its Agenda 21, the FAO Compliance Agreement, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, etc. However, the web of intersecting provisions they contain substantially complicates their simultaneous implementation and greatly increases the need for better, more integrated and more accessible information. The present context is characterised by:

• a multiplication of instruments and institutions addressing fishery resources;
• globalisation of concerns regarding their conservation and sustainable use;
• the importance of the social, economic and ecological stakes involved; and
• the multiplication of sources of information potentially accessible by interested parties.

35. Globalization of trade in fish and fishery products as envisaged in the principles, rights and obligations of the WTO Agreement involves further liberalisation through elimination of barriers and distortions such as duties, quotas and non-tariff barriers and opening up of access to resources and markets. The innovations and initiatives of the processing industry, product development and trade promotion will decide the future use of under-utilised species which may rapidly become over-utilized. Substitution of one species by another can quickly impact upon the state of a previously modestly exploited resource. The impact of quality requirements, together with pressures to guarantee regular supplies of raw material for further processing or for high value sales as fresh produce may encourage an even stronger targeting of specific species or resources.

36. As a consequence of perceived (or real) mismanagement of fisheries production activities and despite some limited potential still available for development and improved contribution to food security, world-wide concern about the state of fishery resources and some of their non-sustainable uses has grown since UNCED, amplified by the new attention given to conservation of biological diversity. This concern has led to questioning the performance of present production and management systems and to a number of proposals for improvements, including the involvement of consumers in the fisheries management process through eco-certification and eco-labelling mechanisms, though there is still much uncertainty about the possible avenues and degree of objectivity of such mechanisms.

37. The lag time involved in the provision of information by all institutions (national, regional and global) has the unfortunate effect that positive changes in fisheries are not reported in a timely fashion and that analyses (particularly by the media and INGOs) tend to be based on out-of-date information. The contrast between the slow speed at which the scientific objective information is collected and distributed and the very high speed at which media-based information spreads, has unfortunate consequences for the image of fisheries and the transition towards better fisheries systems.

38. The risk of misinformation is therefore very high and the need for clear, verifiable information, based on the best scientific evidence available (required by the 1982 UN Convention) on the state of world resources, their environments and exploitation systems has become critical. This is demonstrated by the increasing frequency of requests to FAO for information and by the impact achieved by such information at global, regional and national levels, as reflected in the media and debates in regional organizations, specialized conferences and at the UN General Assembly. In particular, scientifically-based, wholly objective information is required in order to:

• guide governments on their actions towards improved sustainability and food security;
• allow proper monitoring of implementation of the 1982 UN Convention, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other relevant international instruments (e.g. the 1995 Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security); and
• provide accurate information to all FAO Members, partners, and clients (including the public at large and consumers).

39. The present system of information dissemination by FAO has the advantage of being global, covering resources and fisheries with biological, technological, trade and social and economic information, and providing screened and referenced information, controlled by FAO expert staff. It is in conformity with agreed principles of sustainable use as enshrined in the 1982 UN Convention, the Code of Conduct and other internationally agreed instruments, and aims explicitly at the long-term maintenance of the resources, the ecosystem and the fishing industry. It remains under FAO Members’ control through COFI and has a long-term viability as part of the FAO Regular Programme.

40. The present system has, however, a number of shortcomings which need to be addressed if regional and national expectations and future challenges are to be met:

• There is no real-time or even continuous dedicated process of updating of the information (except for statistics), with the risk that the information presented may not always be the best scientific information available. The data acquisition needs to be improved, and this can only be achieved by involving regional and national partners directly in a quasi-real time acquisition and distribution system which could easily be developed using Internet technology.
• The quality of resource assessments is very variable, due to dependence on sources of information which often have very limited resources: As a consequence, the specifications of the information compiled and re-distributed should be recorded and the source clearly indicated, and these specifications should be subjected to peer review.
• Some elements of information collected by FAO and regional fishery organizations which are not widely available and remain on inaccessible files, could be useful if made available provided they are not confidential.
• The information is aggregated at national level and not by water bodies, ecosystems or drainage basins or even stocks, so the geographical entities on which the fisheries and aquaculture are managed and developed have to be specified.
• Various data sets are not entirely digitised (e.g. information on resource distribution) and are not interconnected, impeding total visibility of the information available and interactive use of such information by FAO Members, partners and clients.

41. Conventional monitoring of exploitation based on post factum catch and effort data from official sources and subsequent scientific analysis while effectively demonstrating the past pressure on a resource, can be complemented and enhanced by the collection and analyses of data from trade sources and the processing industry. These may give additional insight into unexpected changes in fishing pressure or in orientation and help explain changes in landings or supply/demand relationships. Access to trade related information would permit the monitoring of currently heavily or overexploited species particularly those of high value where conservation measures exist but where confusion as regards origins may distort assessments and management and encourage irregular activities. It will also serve as a tool to monitor the impact of species substitution and increased market acceptance of under-utilised species and so provide valuable early warning indicators and trend analysis which may help to alert planners and resource managers to potential over exploitation.

42. Considering the ongoing efforts and accomplishments of FAO in establishing principles, criteria and indicators of sustainability for responsible fisheries, the main remaining problems relate to the timeliness and quality of information necessary to ensure effective assessment and monitoring of fisheries sustainability and the development of the related indicators. The 1982 UN Convention provides that management decisions should be based on (or take account of) the best scientific evidence available. As legal frameworks have been strenghened and institutional change is ongoing, demand is growing for upgrading of available information as a contribution to transparency and objectivity and as a means of mitigating or avoiding potential misinformation and manipulation.

43. The FIGIS information system the FAO Fisheries Department is developing with extra-budgetary assistance will facilitate partner participation and assist in better meeting present needs. The main objective of the project is to transform the present non-integrated system of databases and information systems into an integrated world-wide system of information on fishery resources and fishery production systems, increasing the utility and accessibility of the data, using common standards and reference files, accessible through the Internet (and CD-ROMs). This system, which is planned to contribute to GOOS-LMR, will provide a unique source of compiled objective and verifiable global information on fisheries and aquaculture, the resources and their sustainability, aimed at serving the information needs of governments, industry, NGOs, the media, and other potential users (including consumers). More systematic flows of information could be established through FIGIS and its formal network of national and/or regional information centres and subsystems using the Internet as a link and communication system. Particular attention needs to be paid to improving the quality and detail of stock and species status information by developing a more systematic procedure for sharing data and for status and trends reporting which will be conducted in conjunction with regional fishery organizations, national authorities and centres of scientific excellence.

44. There are increasing demands for comprehensive, objective, peer-reviewed information on fisheries trends and status. There are clearly defined responsibilities for States and regional and global fisheries organizations which are in many cases not being adequately met. It is clear that improved status and trends reporting can only come about through a multifaceted approach involving all stakeholders as partners, involving global, regional and national levels and initiatives such as GOOS. This will not be an easy task and obstacles such as the reluctance of some countries to release resource status information which is politically unpopular will have to be overcome. However, successful experiences of other global partnerships indicate that this could be possible. A coordinating mechanism for global and regional fishery statistic programmes can actively contribute to this process. A global fisheries information system which is already under development could provide an appropriate information exchange and dissemination mechanism.

45. What is lacking is a means to assess data and information needs for fishery trends and status reporting, develop the partnerships which will commit partners to sharing information and undertake peer reviews of the status reports based on the comprehensive data set. This issue will be assigned to the Working Party on Status and Trends of Fisheries as proposed by ACFR which FAO plans to convene for four days during October 1999. It will report to the ACFR which will meet in December 1999. Regional fishery bodies will be encouraged to send experts to participate in the Working Party Meeting.

46. The meeting is invited to review the overall approach and suggested mechanisms for improving global reporting on fishery trends and status, particularly in relation to the role of regional fishery bodies and their participation in the proposed ACFR Working Party as a first step. In addition, the meeting is invited to react to the proposal to develop an Internet based cooperative information system on resources and fisheries as part of FIG.

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF DATA COLLATED AND HELD BY REGIONAL FISHERIES AGENCIES

(Source: Report of the Ad-hoc Consultation on the Role of Regional Fishery Agencies in Relation to High Seas Fishery Statistics, La Jolla, USA, 13-16 December 1993)