1. The Committee on Fisheries held its Twenty-third Session in Rome from 15 to 19 February 1999.

2. The Session was attended by 100 members of the Committee, by observers from 7 other FAO Member Nations, the Holy See, and one non-Member Nation of FAO, by representatives from 2 specialized agencies of the United Nations and by observers from 34 other intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations. A list of delegates and observers is attached at Appendix B.

3. In the absence of Mr William Martin (USA), outgoing Chairman of the Committee, the Session was opened by the First Vice-Chairman, Mr Mike Akyeampong (Ghana). The delegation of the United States of America read a letter from Mr Martin expressing his regret at being unable to attend the Session and sending his best wishes for the work of the Committee.

4. The Session was addressed by Mr David A. Harcharik, Deputy Director-General. The full text of his statement is attached at Appendix D.

5. Several delegations regretted the late distribution in all languages of important documents to be considered by the Committee.

6. Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 1998 ". The Fisheries Department was asked to make available to members of the Committee the data base which made it possible to produce the document.

7. The Agenda and Timetable adopted by the Committee is attached as Appendix A. The documents which were before the Committee are shown in Appendix C.

8. Mr Mike Akyeampong (Ghana) was unanimously elected Chairperson of the Committee and Mr Minoru Morimoto (Japan) was elected First Vice-Chairperson. Mr Juan Alberto Arrus Rokovich (Peru), Mr Osman Mohamed Saeed (Sudan), Mr Giuseppe Ambrosio (Italy), Ms Carolyn Risk (New Zealand) and Mr Ronald Rose (Canada) were elected as other Vice-Chairpersons.

9. The Committee also appointed a Drafting Committee consisting of Australia, Brazil, China, Eritrea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand and the United States of America.

10. The Secretariat introduced document COFI/99/2, which highlighted the significance of inland fish production for food security and rural development and drew attention to key challenges. The need for integrated resources management (IRM) was stressed and possible measures, policies and instruments of integration for sustainable inland fish production were described.

11. The Committee stressed the increasingly important role of inland capture fisheries and aquaculture in fish production and in human nutrition and poverty alleviation in many rural areas. The Committee also emphasized the need to combat adverse impacts on the environment and evaluate and monitor possible environmental risks related to introduction of new or genetically modified species and to devise systems for avoiding growing competition for resources in the sector (recreational v. commercial fishing). It drew attention to the important roles in this regard of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

12. The Committee acknowledged that IRM could contribute to the enhancement of inland fish production through integrated aquaculture-agriculture farming systems and integrated utilization of small and medium size water bodies.

13. The Committee recognized that cooperation between fishers, government agencies and other stakeholders needed to be enhanced and that the "polluter pays principle" should be applied to protect fishery resources. A number of countries suggested that experiences in integrated coastal zone management might be useful in the development of general land use plans covering inland aquatic environments.

14. The opportunities for further international cooperation on sustainable aquaculture and inland fisheries were stressed by many countries. In this respect, mention was made of the role of the Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL), activities of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) and the FAO/NACA/International Office of Epizootics (OIE) Regional Programme on Fish Quarantine and Health Certification. The Committee recognized the importance of women in aquaculture development and encouraged the sharing of experience between members of different regions. The Committee acknowledged the need to strengthen institutional arrangements to support the inland fishery and aquaculture. Several countries requested FAO to provide further assistance, particularly through the field programme, to support sustainable inland fish production.

15. The Secretariat informed the Committee of its priorities and on-going programme concerning inland fisheries, in particular, cooperation with the FAO Agriculture, Forestry and Sustainable Development Departments.

16. The Secretariat introduced document COFI/99/3 and invited the Committee to discuss their experiences in implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries at national and regional level and to provide guidance on the information to be requested in the future from governments on their progress and activities in implementation.

17. The Committee emphasized that the Code is an important basic instrument to facilitate sustainable utilization of global fishery resources and hence to contribute to food security and well-being of people. Many countries informed the Committee further on their experiences in implementing the Code.

18. Several countries also reported on problems in implementation and it was suggested by some that progress had been slow. Although some countries reported that they had translated the Code into their national languages, concern was expressed at the need for greater efforts to disseminate the Code to all those involved in fisheries. FAO was asked to assist in this regard through provision of suitable materials and through organizing regional and national workshops. Attention was drawn to the large number of illiterate fishers in many countries and it was suggested that suitable vehicles should be developed, such as audio-visual material, for informing such people of the Code and its objectives.

19. Many countries expressed appreciation to the Fisheries Department of FAO for its role in promoting the application of the Code. Tribute was also paid to the valuable efforts of donor countries in providing technical and financial support to developing countries, both through bilateral arrangements and, through FAO, to assist them in implementation of the Code. However, the Committee recognised that further assistance was required if meaningful progress was to be made towards implementing the Code. Many countries referred to the financial, technological, human resources and frequently geographical constraints they faced. The greatest needs were identified as being in the areas of training, capacity building and institutional strengthening.

20. A number of States reported that they had accepted the Compliance Agreement and/or ratified the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and called on other States to consider doing the same. Concern was expressed at the small number of countries that had accepted/ratified the two Agreements to date. The importance of the Compliance Agreement as a binding instrument to address the problem of vessels that undermined the effectiveness of internationally agreed conservation measures was emphasized. Some delegates suggested that the Compliance Agreement and the Plan of Action on the Management of Fishing Capacity could be supplemented by additional measures to address these fishing activities. The Committee underlined the important role that the regional fishery management organizations can play in respect of the issues of fishing capacity and illegal fishing activities in high seas.

21. The Committee underlined the need to clarify and simplify the national questionnaires to facilitate reporting on actions to implement the Code and particularly to provide for specific reporting on development of national plans and other actions called for in the three Plans of Action presented for adoption during this Session. A working group to address this matter was suggested by some delegations. Noting the involvement of NGOs in the implementation of the Code and their strong support for it, the inclusion of such social and professional organizations in the national reporting process might be needed.

22. Some countries requested that monitoring of implementation of the Code needed to be result-oriented and attempt to determine not just what was being done but also what problems were being encountered and what major constraints and issues remained. The Committee was informed about the results of a recent conference in Australia, organized in co-operation with FAO on integrated fisheries monitoring, which recommended that FAO should undertake the preparation of guidelines for the integrated monitoring of fisheries within the context of the Code.

23. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the establishment of the Margarita Lizárraga award in recognition of her work in developing and encouraging implementation of the Code, in accordance with the FAO Conference Resolution.

24. The item was introduced on the basis of document COFI/99/5 Part I; the Committee also had at its disposal documents COFI/99/Inf.10, 11, 14 and 18.

25. The Committee commented favourably on FAO’s implementation of the Fisheries Programme in the 1996-1998 period, especially the efforts made to assist countries in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries including its application in conformity with regional specificities. Several delegations noted with concern the decline in funding for field programme activities.

26. The Committee expressed its satisfaction at the outcome of the First Session of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR) and of FAO’s follow-up actions to its recommendations. Discussion by the Committee clarified the role of ACFR as an independent body to advise on FAO’s fishery research programmes and not to provide general fishery policy recommendations.

27. In response to queries by several delegations, the Secretariat explained that the apparent under-spending of appropriations to the Fisheries Department in the biennium 1996/97 was caused by the organization-wide policy of not filling vacancies on a temporary basis in order to accommodate a short fall in real budgetary resources. In terms of effective allocations provided, expenditures on the fisheries programme were in near balance.

28. The Committee strongly recommended that the Council and the Conference should grant a substantially increased share of FAO’s Regular Programme resources to Major Programme 2.3 (Fisheries) in view of the number of urgent tasks which the Fisheries Department was being requested to accomplish by FAO’s Members. Because of the constraints upon funds, it stressed the need for careful prioritization of activities.

29. Some delegations insisted on the need for the work of the Fisheries Department to be financed with resources from the Regular Programme and not be based mainly on extra-budgetary funds.

30. This sub-item was presented by the Secretariat on the basis of document COFI/99/5 Part II, Rev.1.

31. This item was introduced by the Secretariat on the basis of document COFI/99/5 Part III. It was decided to postpone discussion of Part IV to Agenda Item 10. The outcome of the Consultation on the Management of Fishing Capacity, Shark Fisheries and Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, held in Rome in October 1998, was described, with special reference to the three drafts approved by the Consultation for consideration by COFI. One of the drafts had several bracketed phrases indicating the lack of agreement by the Consultation.

32. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the work of the Consultation and adopted:

33. Concerning the management of fishing capacity, the Committee welcomed the results of the Consultation. It agreed that the draft should be entitled "Plan of Action" rather than "Guidelines".

34. The Committee then adopted the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity as presented in Annex G of document COFI/99/5 Part III, with the following clarifications with regard to timeframes:

• Paragraph 7: the bracketed words to be replaced by "preferably by 2003, but not later than 2005"
• Paragraph 9 (ii): the first bracketed figure to be replaced by "2000"; the second by "2002" and the third by "2005"
• Paragraph 13: the bracketed figures to be replaced by "2000"
• Paragraph 14: the bracketed figure to be replaced by "2001"
• Paragraph 21: the bracketed figure to be replaced by "2002".

35. The texts of the three above-mentioned Plans of Action will be published by FAO Fisheries Department.

36. The Committee stressed the importance of holding a technical consultation on the measurement of fishing capacity as soon as possible in 1999. The need to develop simple methods that could be widely applicable in both developed and developing countries was strongly emphasized.

37. The Committee agreed that these Plans of Action are not intended to regulate trade in fish and fishery products which are governed by relative trade agreements.

38. The Committee agreed that the three Plans of Action should be submitted to the FAO Council for endorsement.

39. The Secretariat introduced document COFI/99/7 highlighting the special characteristics of SIDS and emphasizing the importance to them of often vulnerable fishery resources for employment, food and generation of foreign exchange.

40. The Committee commended FAO for its work on responding to the special problems of SIDS and supported the FAO Programme of Fisheries Assistance for Small Island States as outlined in document COFI/99/7. However, while gratefully acknowledging the help given by a number of bilateral donors, concern was expressed that there had not been much progress in securing funding for the Programme.

41. Several delegations requested that aspects of this Programme be considered for funding under the FAO Regular Programme. The Secretariat responded that a number of relevant activities were already being pursued under the Regular Programme, in response to countries or regional organizations, e.g., stock assessment, training in stock assessment, assistance to the Organization for Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) in formulating fishery legislation, assistance on disaster preparedness, workshops on economic planning and marine resource assessment. It stressed, however, that the resources of the Regular Programme did not allow it to undertake all the activities of the Programme itself.

42. The Committee recognized that further international assistance and cooperation will be needed to develop, manage, and conserve fishery resources in order to increase food security and the standard of living of SIDS. Aims of this assistance include, inter alia, diversification of socio-economic opportunities, conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, enterprise development, capacity building, and aquaculture. A number of delegates recommended that an integrated approach addressing all aspects of the development of both capture fisheries and aquaculture in SIDS including public and other sectors should be pursued.

43. The Committee stressed the importance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Kyoto Plan of Action, the International Coral Reef Initiative and Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 in the development of a relevant policy framework for sustainable development of the fisheries of SIDS.

44. Some delegates pointed to the value of the participation and cooperation of SIDS in international fora such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commision (IOTC) and the Conference on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific. Some delegations pointed out the importance of closer collaboration among UN Specialized Agencies and the international donor community to provide assistance to regional indigenous organizations to assist with the implementation of the SIDS Plan of Action. Other delegations suggested that international NGOs could make a useful contribution by collaborating with local NGOs working in SIDS.

45. This item was introduced by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and discussed on the basis of document COFI/99/6 and COFI/99/6 Sup.1. The Committee also had at its disposal documents COFI/99/Inf. 13 and COFI/99/Inf. 16 Part I and Part II.

46. The Committee expressed its satisfaction at the work of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade and the important role played by FAO in the field of fish marketing information, especially through the FISH INFOnetwork, i.e., the network comprising the regional fish market information services: INFOFISH (Asia and Pacific Islands), INFOPECHE (Africa), INFOPESCA (Latin America and Caribbean, INFOSAMAK (Arab countries), INFOYU (China), EASTFISH (Central and Eastern Europe)) and the global FAO network, GLOBEFISH.

47. Many developing countries underlined their concern that changes in the health measures in importing countries could become non-tariff barriers to trade. Other delegations, however, were of the opinion that these measures should be considered as provisions of product safety intended to protect consumers’ health. The Committee agreed that further assistance was needed, especially from those countries implementing stringent health related import regulations, in order to build capacity of developing countries in quality control and hazard analysis.

48. The Committee endorsed the report of the consultation of the FAO ad Hoc Expert Group on Listing Criteria for Marine Species under CITES and agreed with its results. As regards the timing of its proposed work, it was indicated that it was necessary to inform in a preliminary fashion the Eleventh Session of the Conference of Parties to CITES of this work. Some delegations expressed the view that in reviewing the CITES listing criteria, FAO should take due account of the relevant provisions of UNCLOS relating to living marine resources.

49. Some delegations stated that FAO should carry out further work on collecting information on subsidies. Other delegations suggested that FAO should undertake further work on this issue beyond the compilation of information. The Committee was informed that the OECD Committee on Fisheries is also undertaking work on financial transfers to fisheries.

50. The Committee received the report of the Technical Consultation on the Feasibility of Developing Non-discriminatory Technical Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Products from Marine Capture Fisheries which was held in Rome from 21 to 23 October 1998, and expressed thanks to the Nordic Council of Ministers for providing the funding which made the Consultation possible.

51. Various delegations stressed that the Consultation did not reach an agreement regarding the practicability and feasibility of FAO drafting technical guidelines for the eco-labelling of produce from marine capture fisheries. Having noted this, most delegations identified FAO as an appropriate international organization to discuss technical criteria for eco-labelling schemes.

52. It was agreed that the issue of eco-labelling could have significant implications for the fishery sectors of member nations.

53. Most delegations endorsed the consensus expressed in paragraph 11 of the report of the Technical Consultation that if an agreement was eventually reached as the feasibility of elaborating guidelines for eco-labelling, it should be consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and cited the requirements of Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Code of Conduct, which discuss responsible post-harvest utilisation, trade and regulations concerning fishery products. The Committee noted that any eco-labelling scheme must be transparent and not be an obstacle to trade, that it must be voluntary, non discriminatory, ensure equivalence of standards between countries and/or schemes, recognize the sovereign rights of States, and comply with all relevant international agreements.

54. Most delegations recommended that FAO should initiate further work on elaborating technical aspects of eco-labelling during the current and future biennia, subject to availability of resources. This work should include a review of what the WTO and other relevant international organizations are already doing.

55. Other delegations, however, felt that FAO should not get involved in the issue and should leave it to the other specialist bodies.

56. Some delegations also called upon FAO to convene a second open technical consultation on eco-labelling, in accordance with the rules of FAO governing such consultations and called upon the Secretariat to prepare relevant Terms of Reference in consultation with Member States.

57. The Committee approved the report of the Sixth Session of its Sub-Committee on Fish Trade and accepted the invitation to hold the Seventh Session of the Sub-Committee in conjunction with the Seafood Fair to be held in Bremen, Germany, in the year 2000.

58. The Committee considered Version 2.0 of the Strategic Framework to be a substantial improvement over Version 1.0, both in presentation and content. It considered nonetheless that Version 3.0 should be more concise and less descriptive, in order to focus more incisively on strategic issues and better serve its purpose as the framework for FAO's action over a 15-year time horizon. Some Members considered that an Executive Summary would be a valuable addition.

59. With regard to Part I of the document, the Committee welcomed the statements of values, mission and vision for the Organization. It was suggested that the mission statement could be more crisply formulated, perhaps including a summary statement of the major objectives. With regard to values, several delegations proposed that a clear reference to respect for human rights, and in particular the right to adequate food as a human right, should be included.

60. In considering Part II, Corporate Strategies, the Committee fully supported the emphasis given, throughout, to inter-disciplinarity and partnerships. The additional information provided in Version 2.0 on each of the proposed strategies was appreciated, in particular as it permitted a clearer identification of the contribution of fisheries programmes to the broader effort

61. The Committee's consideration of the strategies to address Members' needs focussed, inter alia, on the importance of the contribution of fisheries and environmentally sound and sustainable aquaculture to the achievement of food security. Many Members referred to specific areas identified in the WFS Plan of Action which required action by the international community and in particular by FAO, in view of its clear mandate for the conservation and management of capture fisheries and aquaculture and its broad range of expertise in these areas.

62. During the discussion, Members provided specific suggestions for changes, improvements and ways of sharpening the focus of the fisheries components of individual strategies. Fisheries was seen as one of the areas of overall comparative advantage for FAO, and stress was placed on FAO's role in capacity building to enable countries and regional fishery management bodies to participate fully in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other fisheries instruments.

63. The Committee noted that the cross-organizational strategies formed a set of management principles which FAO would apply to the implementation of the programme strategies, and welcomed the addition of the sixth cross-organizational strategy on Communicating FAO's Messages. Support was also expressed for the strategy devoted to Leveraging Resources for FAO and its Members, to ensure effective implementation of the Strategic Framework once adopted.

64. With regard to partnerships and alliances, the Committee welcomed the information provided both in the body of the document and in Annex III, and indicated that Version 3.0 should provide further explanation of how these partnerships were being or would be operationalized. It was suggested that the areas in which FAO would expect to play a lead role should be reviewed as part of this process, and that partnerships with specific UN organizations should be indicated. In this connection, some Members stressed the importance of FAO to engage in the current UN reform process for work being carried out at the national level, inter alia through the UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs), and of maximum synergy between the Rome-based agencies. Other countries commended the structural reforms instituted by FAO since 1994.

65. The synergistic effect of cooperation with other actors was also considered to be an important criterion for priority-setting. The Committee appreciated the additional explanations provided in Annex II concerning such criteria, including that of comparative advantage. Some Members expressed the view that these criteria should be part of the Strategic Framework and be further developed in order for the document to serve as a basis for establishing the Medium-Term Plan and the Programme of Work and Budget.

66. The Committee stressed that addressing the effective requirements of the membership, building on the Organization's greatest strengths and taking into account an appropriate balance between normative and field activities, should continue to be the paramount consideration. In concluding, it recalled that a fundamental point of reference for considering the Strategic Framework was a World Food Summit Plan of Action, and the challenge facing countries and the international community to achieve its goals.

67. The Secretariat introduced the Medium-term Perspectives for Major Programme 2.3 (Fisheries) on the basis of documents COFI/99/8, COFI/99/5 Part IV, Inf.6, Inf.10, Inf.11, Inf.12 and Inf.15.

68. During the discussion of these documents, members provided specific suggestions for changes and improvements. The Secretariat explained that all points raised in Plenary would be properly taken into consideration when revising them.

69. The Committee endorsed the Medium-term Perspectives, but pointed out that it was difficult to formally approve them in the absence of adequate information on the budget. In response to regrets by several delegations, the Secretariat explained that the unavailability of the Programme of Work and Budget for 2000-2001 was caused by time constraints created by the preparation of the Strategic Framework. It was, however, clear that given the range and complexity of the programme described, the current level of Regular Budget allocation would not be sufficient. The Committee requested that, in view of the importance of fisheries and aquaculture and the ever-growing demand on its work, the Fisheries Department be allocated an increased share of the overall FAO budget.

70. The Committee agreed that there was a need to prioritize and that demands for important new work to be undertaken implied that the priority of some elements in the existing programme may have to be lowered.

71. The Committee noted the progress in the application of the Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action and expressed the need to assess better the cultural and socio-economic aspects of fisheries in relation to food security. The Committee agreed that greater consideration should be given to the development of more appropriate ecosystem approaches to fisheries development and management, optimally in collaboration with both FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies, and to continue its work on the development of sustainability indicators for fisheries.

72. The Committee placed a high level of importance on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Committee was concerned about information presented indicating increases in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, including fishing vessels flying "flags of convenience". The Committee urged, as a priority, those countries which had not yet ratified the Compliance Agreement to consider doing so as soon as possible. It was generally agreed that pending the entering into force of the Agreement, additional steps might need to be considered and that FAO should undertake work in this regard. Several delegations urged that FAO convene a meeting of experts to identify suitable measures, followed by a technical consultation that would report to the Twenty-fourth Session of the Committee. Before convening such a meeting, FAO should review the activities that had been undertaken by regional fishery management organizations to deal with these problems. It was emphasized that due account should be taken of the rights and obligations of States under international law.

73. The Committee took note that the issues related to reflagging of fishing vessels and ship registration would be one of the subjects to be discussed by the IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation. It was suggested that FAO inform IMO of the importance the Committee ascribed to the issue in time for the meeting in March 1999.

74. The Committee agreed that improvements were needed in FAO’s global monitoring of fish stocks.

75. The Committee expressed its satisfaction at the information provided that the fishing capacity of some long-line and other techniques of some major fishing nations was being reduced and encouraged other States to make similar reductions in capacity as appropriate.

76. A number of priorities in relation to the Code of Conduct were agreed, including the need to carry out research and develop sustainable technologies and practices, to develop indicators of sustainability and to promote the further reduction of wastage in fisheries. FAO was also requested to sustain its assistance to enable developing countries to meet the safety requirement for fish products of importing countries.

77. Implementation of the three International Plans of Action, just adopted for the Management of Fishing Capacity, the Conservation and Management of Sharks and for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Long-line Fisheries should also be pursued as high priority.

78. The Committee agreed that FAO’s work on the review of CITES listing criteria for commercially harvested fish species should be continued.

79. The Committee agreed that sustainable aquaculture could have high potential in securing food availability and poverty alleviation in developing countries. There was a broad support in the Committee to the proposal to establish a COFI sub-committee on aquaculture. Noting that extra-budgetary funds for such a body had not yet been identified, suggestion was made that consideration be given to funding such a sub-committee from Regular Programme resources.

80. The Committee agreed that the above priorities should be reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget 2000-2001.

81. The Committee expressed its satisfaction with the outcome of the implementation of the FAO Conference Resolution 13/97 as documented in COFI/99/4. It noted that eight of the nine FAO regional fishery bodies (RFBs) had already considered actions to strengthen their functions and responsibilities. It urged FAO to continue the systematic analysis of these bodies, especially concerning their institutional and financial arrangements, the strategies used to implement decisions and the recommendations and measures taken to address current international fishery issues.

82. The Committee commended FAO for convening a meeting of FAO and Non-FAO Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements on 11 and 12 February 1999 and recommended that such meetings be held on a regular basis, preferably prior to regular sessions of COFI.

83. Furthermore, the Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Twenty-ninth Session of the FAO Conference to abolish two Sub-Committees of COFI: the Sub-Committee on Programmes to Assist Developing Coastal States in Managing and Developing Fisheries in their Economic Zones and the Sub-Committee on Fishery Education and Training. The Committee also noted the abolition of the Regional Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic (CARPAS).

84. The Committee was also informed that at a meeting of the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC) held on 17 February 1999, the members of the Commission recommended that the IOFC be abolished.

85. One delegation informed the Committee of the decision of some interested countries to establish a regional fishery organization for the management of fish stocks in the South-East Atlantic, corresponding to FAO Statistical Division Area 47.

86. It was agreed that the Committee should meet in Rome in 2001. The exact date would be determined by the Director-General in consultation with the Chairman.

87. The Committee discussed the procedure for the preparations for the Ministerial Meeting on the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to be held on 10 and 11 March 1999 in Rome.

88. The Committee noted the decision of the Secretariat to set up an open-ended Contact Group consisting of representatives of each regional group, under the Chairmanship of Mr Ronald Rose, Permanent Representative of Canada to FAO, to undertake preparations for the Ministerial Meeting. Some delegations strongly expressed the view that the Contact Group should not serve as a drafting committee for the Ministerial Meeting.

89. The Report was adopted on 19 February 1999.