Back to list of documents

Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Ninth Session

WECAFC - Lesser Antilles Fisheries Committee

Sixth Session

Castries, Saint Lucia, 27-30 September 1999

RESTRUCTURING OF WECAFC: OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

1. The Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) was established in 1973 by Resolution 4/61 of the Sixty-first Session of the FAO Council under Article VI¹ of the FAO Constitution in the light of the challenges faced by the fishing nations operating in the area at the time. The terms of reference of the Commission is found in Appendix 1.

2. Membership of the Commission is open to all member countries of FAO. The member countries of WECAFC are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, France (French Antilles and Guyane), Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Netherlands (Netherlands Antilles), Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of America and Venezuela. Currently, WECAFC members do not make any special contributions towards the work of the Commission beyond those established under the FAO constitution.

3. The Commission has held eight sessions and has undoubtedly contributed significantly to the management and development of fisheries in the Western Central Atlantic. For example, important contributions were made to fisheries management through the work of the Working Party on Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources which has held eight sessions, the Working Party on Fishery Economics and Planning which has held two sessions, and the dissolved Working Party on Fishery Statistics which met five times. The Ad Hoc Working Groups on Shrimp and Groundfish on the Brazil-Guianas Shelf and on the Spiny Lobster also contributed significantly towards the management of these resources.

4. Expert consultations on specific subjects, such as shared resources in the Lesser Antilles, the use of microcomputers in fisheries, the use of length based stock assessment methods and sustainable fisheries development in the WECAFC Region, were held. These working parties and expert consultations have produced a substantial body of literature on fisheries management and conservation in the region. Additionally, the Lesser Antilles Committee provided a forum for articulating the special needs of these small island states. WECAFC provides a unique forum, which periodically facilitates interaction among persons involved in fisheries in the region. These activities and bodies provided lessons and guidance for the management and development of fisheries in the region.

5. The Commission also contributed to human resource development and the strengthening of national institutional capacity through training courses in specific subjects such as tropical fish stock assessment and HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point).

6. The level of WECAFC activities has diminished recently for a number of reasons, one being the failure to secure funding for a follow-on project to the WECAFC project on its completion in 1981. Another has been the bilateral channeling of technical assistance funds that have previously been channeled multilaterally, in preference to FAO. Also, during this period, member countries of WECAFC appeared instead to focus their attention on consolidating their national and sub-regional capacity (OLDEPESCA, OECS, CARICOM, OSPESCA) in light of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

7. However, WECAFC has continued and continues to provide technical assistance and advice despite its limited capacity and has made good use of the opportunities for technical assistance provided by FAO to the region.

8. The Secretariat of the Commission is now based in the region, at the FAO Sub-Regional Office in Barbados. Current FAO support to the Commission includes the Secretariat, the Secretary of the Commission, a part-time (30%) stock assessment specialist, a part-time (30%) fishery economist, a part-time fisheries officer, ad hoc technical support from FAO Fisheries Department, support of FAO network and contacts, and FAO communication infrastructure and network.

9. The Commission at its last session in Venezuela, November 1995, recommended that FAO conduct an assessment of the situation of fisheries in the region in respect to the future role of the Commission and the prospects for enhancing regional co-operation in the region. (FAO Fisheries Report No. 543, para. 65). It was stated that this review should be prepared with technical contributions from the WECAFC Working Parties on Marine Resource Assessment and on Economics and Planning, respectively. (FAO Fisheries Report No. 543, para. 67). This mandate was the principal objective of the Seventh Session of the Working Party on Resource Assessment (FAO, Fisheries Report SLAC/R576) and the Second Session of the Working Party on Economics and Planning (FAO, Fisheries Report SLAC/R581). The key recommendations, conclusions and suggestions of these two Working Parties are included in this paper.

10. The Twenty-second Session of the Committee of Fisheries, March 1997, agreed that FAO regional fishery bodies should be reviewed and evaluated by their members, taking full account of regional and membership differences, to determine what measures should be taken to facilitate the strengthening of each body. (FAO Fishery Report No. 562, para. 31).

11. The Twenty-ninth Session of the FAO Conference, 1997, reviewed the FAO statutory bodies by considering the continuing need to: enhance the efficiency of the organization and its governance in a time of financial challenge; eliminate statutory bodies that are obsolete; ensure more flexible task-oriented and time-bound working arrangements for those that remain; and, limit the creation of new bodies to those that are strictly necessary.

12. Furthermore with respect to WECAF Resolution 13/97 paragraph 2 recommended the abolition of the Working Party on Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources and the Working Party on Fishery Economics and Planning, both of the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, unless the Commission considers taking into account the financial programme implications, that are the overriding reasons for retaining such bodies and to report to the Council through the Programme and Financial Committees on the actions taken and, where appropriate, on the reasons for retaining any of the subsidiary bodies.

13. Recent international instruments, such as the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement), the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement), Agenda 21 (Chapter 17) and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries have all stressed the need for international co-operation, through sub-regional, regional and global organizations for the conservation, management and utilisation of living aquatic resources.

14. All these instruments underline the need for collaboration and co-operation in the management of shared, straddling and highly migratory stocks. The UN fish stocks Agreement places particular obligation on coastal states and high seas fishing States with respect to highly migratory and straddling fish stocks to cooperate either directly or through appropriate sub-regional or regional fishery management organizations or arrangements. Where there is no sub-regional or regional fishery management organizations or arrangements to establish conservation and management measures for a particular straddling fish stock or highly migratory fish stock, relevant coastal states and states fishing on the high seas shall cooperate to establish such an organization or enter into other appropriate arrangements to ensure conservation and management of such stock and shall participate in the work of the organization or arrangement.

15. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries stresses the importance of sub-regional and regional organizations e.g. paragraph 7.3.4. states:

"States and, where appropriate, sub-regional or regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements should foster and promote international cooperation and co-ordination in all matters related to fisheries, including information gathering and exchange, fisheries research, management and development".

16. The thrust of these international instruments towards international collaboration in the management of shared resources has generated new interest and concern regarding the institutional capacity in the WECAFC area to address management at the sub-regional and regional levels. This coupled with the requirements of coastal states to properly manage their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and obligatory or voluntary commitments undertaken by the world�s fishing community (e.g. under the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries) have generated new needs for cooperation to promote the sustainability of fishery resources and the preservation of their environment. Hence the recommendation of the Eight Session of the WECAFC Commission (Venezuela, November 1995) that a study on the state of the fisheries resources be done in order to help determine its future role and for enhancing regional co-operation.

17. The Seventh Session of the Working Party on Marine Resource Assessment reviewed species and species groups, using the following factors, in determining the approach to management, in particular the need for international cooperation:

• economic and social importance (the use of the resource for food, export, employment, value added and the tourist trade);
• the distribution of the resource within the WECAFC region and its implications for the fishery (geographic extent of fishing, particularly with respect to distribution across EEZs; primary mode of dispersal, including planktonic larval dispersal or migration of adults);
• the advantage of exchange of information among WECAFC countries (including the transfer of technical skills and management experience and also, the sharing of specific data and information needed for management);
• the justification for regional management (based on the extent of sharing stocks between states and the harmonisation of management approaches); and
• the current status of the resource (evaluated relative to presumed levels of sustainable yield).

18. This Working Party arrived the following conclusions:

• The majority of species are considered to be shared at some level, some to the extent that co-operation would be essential for their successful management;
• Most of the species or groups were either fully exploited or over-exploited, indicating an urgent need for management;
• For those resources that are already over-exploited or depleted, co-operation in management will allow for rebuilding of the resources and result in increased revenues/yields and sustainability.

19. The following groups were identified as being of high priority for co-operation in management and where successful management would probably not be possible at the national level:

• lobster, because of its high value and regional stock structure;
• queen conch, because of its high value and regional trade issues;
• large coastal pelagics, because of their wide distribution and highly migratory nature;
• soft bottom demersals, because of their sub-regional stock structure on the Guianas-Brazil shelf;
• shrimp, because of their high value and sub-regional stock structure in the Guianas-Brazil and south western Caribbean areas;
• flyingfish, because of their sub-regional distribution and migratory nature;
• reef fish because of the uncertainty in stock structure and the need for exchange among countries of information on biology and management.

20. Fisheries management entails a complex and wide-embracing set of tasks, aimed at ensuring that optimal benefits are obtained for local users, State and region from the sustainable utilisation of the living aquatic resources to which they have access. From this working definition, fisheries management can be taken to include the following:

• Setting Policies and objectives for each fishery or stock to be managed, taking into account the biological characteristics of the stock, the nature of existing or potential fisheries and other activities related to or impacting the stock and the potential economic and social contribution of the fishery to national and local needs and goals;
• Determining and implementing the actions necessary to enable the management authorities, the fishers and other interest groups, to work towards the identified objectives. This task should be done in consultation with all interest groups. The actions required will include: developing and implementing management plans for all the managed stocks; ensuring that the stock or stocks, the ecosystems in which they occur and their environment are maintained in a productive state; collecting and analysing the biologocal fishery data necessary for the assessment, monitoring, control and surveillance; adoption and promulgation of appropriate and effective laws and regulations necessary to achieve the objectives; and ensuring that fishers comply with them to achieve the objectives;
• Consulting and negotiating with users and interest groups concerned with the resources and from areas not directly related to fisheries activities but which impact on fisheries. The management authority needs to ensure that the interest of fisheries are appropriately considered and catered for in planning and integration of such activities;
• In consultation with the users, regularly reviewing the management objectives and measures to ensure they are still appropriate and effective; and
• Reporting to Governments, users and public on the state of resources and management performance.

Pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries the primary responsibility for overseeing the fishery management process is vested essentially with fisheries management arrangements or organizations

21. There is a large number of existing fisheries related groupings and arrangements among Wider Caribbean states, Table 1 (cf. Annex I). These include inter-governmental (e.g. WECAFC, CARICOM, OECS, OLDEPESCA), non-governmental organizations (e.g. CONFEPESCA) and groupings based on specific objectives (e.g. ICCAT, IOCARIBE). In addition, there are many bi-lateral agreements and arrangements between member states.

22. Several of the organizations in Table 1 serve functions tailored for their own members, which also fall within the terms of reference of WECAFC. However, WECAFC is unique in that it covers the whole region, its membership (31 countries) embraces all the states within the region, and it has the potential to adequately undertake regional approaches to management of many of the fisheries of the region. In addition, WECAFC currently has a mandate for a wider range of tasks and objectives related to fisheries than any of the existing groupings.

23. There are several resources which are widely dispersed and transboundary and which require urgent assessment and management. WECAFC could have the responsibility to initiate and co-ordinate fisheries management for these stocks. (See para. 19).

24. However, even where this does not occur, there are many advantages to be gained by co-operation between states with similar resources and fisheries, and WECAFC should serve as an overall facilitator of this cooperation. Benefits to be gained include the opportunity to share expertise and information in order to compare the status of fishery resources, facilitating identification of causes and effects, share results (e.g., population dynamics parameters of stocks) and ensure compatibility of regulations in cases where fish may move across national boundaries through trade.

25. Most of the fisheries departments in the region have a relatively small staff with very wide-ranging responsibilities. In nearly all cases it is impossible for the departments to undertake rigorous assessments of all their resources or to have experts in all resources on their staff. By agreeing to co-operate in regional or sub-regional working groups, expertise and information can be shared, giving all member states access to a much wider range of expertise than can be found within any single range.

26. The WECAFC ad hoc Working Groups on Shrimp and Groundfish of the Brazil-Guianas Shelf and on Spiny Lobster were important precursors to regionally co-ordinated assessment and management of these resources. The Working Parties recommended that the approach adopted by these two working groups could serve as a model. At the 1997 lobster workshop 13 lobster-producing countries met to analyse the different stocks being exploited. Four sub-groups, reflecting the possible stock structures, were formed, representing different sub-regions and efforts were made to pool data for analyses to produce essential information for appropriate and compatible management. One of the sub-groups included Cuba and USA.

27. The assessment and management of queen conch and reef fish were identified as high priority cases for the establishment of groups with these objectives. In the case of queen conch, the initiative by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CMFC) in establishing a regional group with these general objectives can be supported within a proposed new structure of WECAFC as the regional facilitator/coordinator for fisheries management (see Figure 1). In this regard, any sub-regional grouping or arrangement (see Table 1) could take the lead role with respect to the resource groups identified in paragraph 19. The regional groupings or arrangements could work co-operatively or in partnership with WECAFC and still maintain their lead roles. They could benefit from the technical inputs of WECAFC, and, by taking advantage of the profile of WECAFC in the FAO structure in sourcing technical and financial assistance from the donor community.

28. Since ICCAT has the mandate for the conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean, including the WECAFC region, a key role for WECAFC, could be to coordinate a regional or sub-regional approach in order to enable all WECAFC countries receive an equitable share of benefits. There is no other organization currently fulfilling this task for the region as a whole, nor has the potential to do so.

29. Global initiatives related to fisheries management and related environmental issues, treaties, conventions and agreements such as trade issues and eco-certification, are rapidly growing. The Working Parties agreed that WECAFC provide the best regional forum where such issues can be considered and evaluated in terms of impacts on fisheries and where consensus can be reached. WECAFC could also be a provider of information on these issues.

30. The Working Parties proposed that the new WECAFC should also function as a fisheries management advisory body, and, providing the members approve, as a management body for certain fish stocks.

VII. RESTRUCTURING OPTIONS

31. The Second Session of the Working Party on Economics and Planning identified the following alternatives for the restructuring of WECAFC:

a) Maintain the present status of WECAFC;
b) Restructure WECAFC under Article VI of the Constitution of FAO;
c) Transform WECAFC into an administrative body under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution;
d) Replace WECAFC by an independent body; and
e) A combination of some of the above options.

32. Both WECAFC Working Parties concluded that the most convenient option was for the Commission to continue to function within the FAO system, para. 33 , Table 2.

Table 2. Restructuring Options for WECAFC

OPTIONS	SECRETARIAT	OBSERVATIONS
Maintain present status; Article VI body under FAO Constitution.	Currently provided by FAO. Current support: - Secretary - part-time (30%) stock assessment specialist - part-time (30%) fisheries economist - part-time (50%) fisheries officer Technical support through FAO Fisheries Department, network and contacts, communication infrastructure and network	Terms of Reference have not changed since established in 1973. Eight Session of WECAFC recommended enhancing regional co-operation in determining future role. Recent international fisheries instruments invite change. Operates through FAO with a low level of autonomy.
Restructure as Article VI body under FAO Constitution.	Currently provided by FAO. Current support: - Secretary - part-time (30%) stock assessment specialist - part-time (30%) fisheries economist - part-time (50%) fisheries officer Technical support through FAO Fisheries Department, network and contacts, communication infrastructure and network	Structure and mode of operations should change; could become a fishery management advisory body, more active participation of members. Operates through FAO with a low level of autonomy.
Transform into Article XIV body under FAO constitution.	To be provided by FAO. FAO maintains current support. - Secretary - part-time (30%) stock assessment specialist - part-time (30%) fisheries economist - part-time (50%) fisheries officer Technical support through FAO Fisheries Department, network and contacts, communication infrastructure and network.	More autonomy. Develop autonomous budget Can receive direct funding from donors and members. Fisheries management advisory body (can be involved in management, if members approve).
Independent inter-governmental body.	Annual subvention by members.	Autonomous body. Members to determine its structure and functions.

33. The two WECAFC Working Parties recommended that the Commission should, at its next meeting, give serious consideration to altering the status of WECAFC from an Article VI to an Article XIV⁷ body within the FAO structure. Table 3 contains a comparison of an Article VI and Article XIV body within the FAO structure.

Table 3. Main Characteristics of Bodies Established Under Articles VI and XIV of the FAO Constitution

Article VI Bodies	Article XIV Bodies
Authority for Establishment   The Conference, the Council or the Director General on the authority of the Conference or Council . Membership   All Member Nations and Associate Members.   Source of Financing   1. Entirely financed by FAO except the participation of members to Sessions. 2. Possibility for extra-budgetary support. 3. Cannot have their own autonomous budget from mandatory contributions.   Secretariat   Secretary appointed by the Director-General.   Powers   1. Have an advisory role. Can adopt recommendations on management issues, which are not binding .   2. Can create subsidiary bodies, subject to the availability of funds in the relevant approved budget.   3. Can establish rules of procedure for subsidiary bodies, but the latter must be in conformity with the Rules of Procedure of the parent body and the General Rules of the Organization.   4. Bodies may recommend amendments to Statutes which must be transmitted to the Director General and be included in the agenda of the Council or Conference.	Authority for Establishment   1. Established through International Agreement by the Contracting Parties under Article XIV of FAO Constitution. Membership   Non-members of the Organization can be members but must contribute towards the expenses incurred by the Organization with respect to the activities of the body.   Source of Financing   Bodies established under Article XIV of the Constitution fall into one of the three following categories: - bodies entirely financed by the Organization; - bodies that, in addition to being financed by the Organization may undertake cooperative projects financed by the members of the body; - bodies that in addition to being financed by the Organization, have autonomous budgets.   Secretariat   Secretary appointed by Director-General but the Agreement may provide for the consultation with or with the approval or concurrence of Members of the body concerned.   Powers   1. May have regulatory powers to adopt fisheries management measures of a potentially binding nature.   2. Can create subsidiary bodies, subject to the availability of funds in the relevant approved budget.   3. Bodies may adopt amendments to Conventions and Agreements which shall be reported to the Council which shall have the power to disallow them.   4. The rules of procedure shall not be inconsistent with the Convention or Agreement establishing the body or with the Constitution.

34. The change from an Article VI to an Article XIV body would give the region the opportunity to exercise better management over transboundary resources. This is particularly important in view of current global developments in fisheries. However, in terms of developing an autonomous budget and assuming potentially binding management functions, the assumption of additional powers and responsibilities associated with this change would require considerable additional resources. The process therefore should be approached slowly extending over a period of years, and should be undertaken in consultation with and subject to the approval of the member countries.

35. The Working Parties recommended that the restructuring of WECAFC should be guided by the criteria of flexibility and gradualism. Flexibility should be reflected in its structure and functions. Because of the region�s broad diversity of fisheries, natural resource endowment, culture, language, history, economic development and so forth, WECAFC should have the technical capacity and legal authority to attend effectively to the more important differing needs of its member countries, whether these concern geographic matters (e.g. country groups), global, regional, or sub-regional issues (trade, environment and fisheries) shared, transboundary or highly-migratory stocks, exchange of information, transfer of technology, training or whatever. To act in a flexible manner, the WECAFC structure needs to operate at different levels (e.g. geographical; sectoral; evaluation and possible management of shared, straddling and highly-migratory stocks; co-operation and exchange of experiences; etc.).

36. Regarding co-operation and partnership arrangements with other regional bodies involved in fisheries ( e.g. CARICOM, CFMC, ICCAT, IOCARIBE, OECS, OLDEPESCA, OSPESCA,and regional research and training institutions, universities, etc.), WECAFC should be structurally equipped to foster and lead a process of programme and operations coordination that would help strengthen overall technical and scientific co-operation in the region. Because of its predominant geographic coverage and access to technical support, WECAFC should also be in a strategic position to fill any gaps that might arise in the composite of regional co-operation for sustainable development of fisheries.

37. An equally important consideration is that in addition to FAO support, member countries will also have to provide active support (which could take many forms, such as expertise, in-kind support, organizational support, etc.) towards the achievement of the Commission�s objectives, which should be in line with the countries' objectives.

VIII. STRUCTURAL AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

38. In order to achieve effective regional or sub-regional management, it is essential to establish bodies (working groups) with responsibility for compiling and analysing data and information relevant to a given resource or geographic area and its fisheries, and formulating scientific advice for management. Once historical data have been collected and analysed and assessments undertaken, the bodies should report to the designated decision-making body within the Commission and to the national fisheries management agencies, Figure 1.

39. To fulfil these functions the WECAFC Working Parties recommended that WECAFC establish ongoing working groups for the following, with clear terms of reference:

• spiny lobster;


• large pelagics (and sharks), including the function of liaison with ICCAT;


• shrimp and groundfish resources of the Brazil-Guianas Shelf and possibly for other shrimp areas in the region if the need is identified;


• flying-fish;


• reef fish;


• queen conch (initiated by CFMC).

40. These groups, which should be multidisciplinary (biologists, economists, managers, users), should have clear terms of reference and sources of financial support. The groups would be able to do much of their work through e-mail and correspondence. They would also need to meet periodically, preferably every year but, if costs were prohibitive, every second year would still be useful, in order to undertake stock assessment and provide management advice based on the best information available. The cost of these meetings, which could be kept low by various means, will have to be borne by the members of the particular working group or by alternative sources other than FAO.

41. The work programme of each specific working group should reflect national priorities and should be internalised by the participating countries and be included in the programme of work and budget of the national fisheries management agency. In this way, the group would be assisting in the implementation of national priorities and from which process the countries should obtain tangible benefits. Countries should participate in only what is of importance or relevant to their national priorities.

42. A standing working party of fishery managers and scientists from the region should be set up in a multidisciplinary effort to periodically assess progress made in fisheries management in the region, provide scientific guidance to the work of the working groups, and also in programme review and direction of the Commission.

43. Figure 1 provides a possible structure of the new Commission based mainly on the results of the two Working Parties meetings and which are summarised in this report. In this proposed structure there is no role for the WECAFC Working Party on the Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources and the WECAFC Working Party on Fishery Economics and Planning. These two subsidiary bodies are to be replaced by a standing working party (see para. 42).

44. The recommendations for changes in the role of WECAFC would result in the new or increased function which includes:

• convening and co-ordinating an increased number of meetings;


• maintenance of the increased data and information requirements;


• partnership arrangements and liaison with other organizations;


• seeking additional financial support; and


• promoting in the region the benefits of fisheries management and the Commission.

45. Responsibility for carrying out these functions will require increased resources. The Working Parties recognised (Sections II & III) that FAO financial, technical and administrative support would almost certainly not be increased in the near future but recommended that FAO current support to WECAFC should be maintained for the foreseeable future if it continues to function within the FAO system.

46. Given the accumulation of tasks identified for the Commission and the relative shortage of funding, the Working Party concluded that the introduction and activation of the Commission�s structure, functions and programmes of work should be gradual and results-oriented so that member countries could see the benefits of successful execution and be encouraged to provide further support.

47. Since it is envisaged that this change will be gradual, initially the working groups and FAO/WECAFC could share the costs. The participating countries could internalise the costs for national activities which should be part of their regular annual work programme and for their participation in regular meetings of the working group and the Commission. FAO/WECAFC could provide technical assistance to these working groups, and member countries local expertise, which would also be essential. In the long term, the participating countries should be able to provide the funding for the functioning of the working group and to mobilise the fishing industry to support their involvement.

IX. PROCEDURE

48. The first step would be for the Commission to make a recommendation on the restructuring of WECAFC, taking into consideration FAO Conference Resolution 13/97 (para. 10, 11 & 12). If restructuring is to involve the conversion of WECAFC from an Article VI body to an Article XIV body within the FAO structure, it will entail the consideration of the matter by a technical meeting as foreshadowed in Article XIV 3 (a). This technical meeting would prepare a draft agreement for possible submission to the Conference or Council, through the Director General.

X. QUESTIONS TO AID DISCUSSION

49. In order to initiate and stimulate discussions, the Commission may wish to consider the following questions which are in no priority order:

• Is a Wider Caribbean regional approach to management of many of the region's fisheries a feasible arrangement for achieving sustainable fisheries in the WECAFC region?
• If yes, is WECAFC the appropriate body through which countries could undertake this task?
• Would altering the status of WECAFC from an Article VI to an Article XIV body within the FAO structure be advantageous to the countries of the region?
• In a multinational fishery, is there a need for a suitable forum to facilitate conservation and management?
• If yes, can WECAFC provide this role?
• Can WECAFC, given that its membership (31 countries) embraces all the states within the region, provide a forum for existing regional groupings and arrangements and member states, through which they can bring their concerns and interests to a wider audience?

Appendix 1

Terms of Reference of the Commission as approved by the Council in 1973

The following are the Terms of Reference of the Commission:

• to promote and assist in the collection of national statistics and biological data relating to dissemination of these data on a regional basis;
• to facilitate the co-ordination of national research programmes and to promote, where appropriate, the standardisation of research methods;
• to promote the interchange of information relating to the fisheries in the region;
• to promote and co-ordinate, on a national and regional basis, studies on the effect of the environment and of pollution on fisheries, and studies of appropriate methods of control and improvement;
• to promote and assist in the development of aquaculture and stock improvement;
• to encourage education through the establishment or improvement of national and regional institutions and by the organization of training centres and seminars;
• to assist Member Governments in establishing rational policies for the development and utilisation of the resources consistent with national objectives and the conservation and improvement of resources; and
• to promote and co-ordinate international aid to further the achievement of the objectives referred to in the proceeding sub-paragraphs.

Figure 1. Proposed Structure for WECAFC⁸

Annex I

Fisheries Co-operation Organizations/Arrangements in WECAFC Region

BODY	GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE	PRIMARY PURPOSE
WECAFC/ FAO	Wider Caribbean, 31 member countries Secretariat: Barbados	Established 1973. Provide technical support for the development, management & conservation of fisheries resources in the region.
ACS (Association of Caribbean States)	Wider Caribbean Headquarters: Trinidad & Tobago	Established 1994; to develop the potential of Caribbean Sea through interaction among Member states & with third parties.
CARICOM (Caribbean Community & Common Market)	Antigua & Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago and Suriname. Headquarters: Guyana	Established 1973; economic co-operation through the Caribbean Common Market; co-ordination of foreign policy. The CARICOM Fisheries Agency - co-ordinates the policies of contracting parties relating to the development & management of living resources of their EEZs & fisheries zones & protection & preservation of marine environment.
OECS (organization of Eastern Caribbean)	Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines. Headquarters: Saint Lucia.	Established in 1981 - OECS Fisheries Unit (within the NRMU); co-ordinate fisheries management & development affairs among OECS countries and promote co-operation among OECS member states at regional & international levels.
IOCARIBE (UNESCO)	Member states include Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Russian Federation, St. Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, United Kingdom, USA, Venezuela. Secretariat: Colombia	Established 1982; to promote, develop & co-ordinate marine scientific research programmes, ocean services & capacity building in the region.
UNEP/CEP/RCU (UNEP Caribbean Environmental Programme Regional Co-ordinating Unit	Wider Caribbean Secretariat: Jamaica	Established in 1986; implement UNEP�s Regional Seas Programme in the Caribbean (activities primarily in the areas of marine pollution & coastal zone management).
ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic tunas	Atlantic Ocean including the WECAFC region Headquarters: Spain	Established in 1969;responsible for conservation & management of tuna-like species(all large pelagic fish resources) in the Atlantic Ocean including the WECAFC Region.
IFREMER (French Institute for Research on the Sea)	French Antilles & Guyana. Has Stations in Martinique & French Guiana. Headquarters: France	Established in ?. Research on fishery resources.
OLDEPESCA (Latin-American organization for Fishery Development)	Members include: Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama & Peru. Headquarters: Peru	Established in 1982; to attend the Latin American food needs using fisheries resources potential for common benefit & strengthening regional co-operation.
G-3	Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela	Established 1989; to forge a common front to face non-members and to achieve co-operation in their respective economies. 13 High level groups include one in Fisheries and Aquaculture established in 1992.
CRIPCCA (The Central American Fisheries Research Centre for the Caribbean)	Caribbean Central America. Members; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama	Fisheries research facility, founded by PRADE/PESCA (Regional Support for Fisheries Development in Central America and Panama) - a programme initiated by OLDEPESCA with support from EU in 1988.
OSPESCA (organization of Central American Fisheries & Aquaculture Business)	Central American region. Headquarters: ?	Established in 1995; to consolidate the organization of fisheries & aquaculture industries in Central America.
CONFEPESCA (The Central American Non-Industrial Fishermen�s Federation)	Central America Headquarters: Guatemala	Established in 1996; the economic & social development of non-industrial fishermen in Central America. Member of Consultative Council of OSPESCA.
CFMC (Caribbean Fisheries Management Council)	US Caribbean waters of Puerto Rico USVI (US Virgin Islands) Headquarters: Puerto Rico	Established in ?; responsible for fisheries management, planning & implementation in US Caribbean waters.

---

1		The original text of Article VI is found in information document WECAFC/IX/99/Inf.5, Legal Documents Related to WECAFC.
2		While CFMC has been active in a number of fisheries within its area of jurisdiction, including shallow reef fish, small coastal pelagics and lobster, the recent initiative with conch is the only example of an international undertaking by the Council.
3		All agreements known to the Working Group and currently in existence are included in this list. However, it probably does not include all agreements.
4		Currently under re-negotiation.
5		The ICCAT mandate includes many of the large coastal pelagic species. However, because of the low level of participation by the countries of the region in ICCAT, these stocks have not been addressed.
6		A large number of general bi-lateral agreements exist between countries of the region.
7		The original text of Article VI is found in information document WECAFC/IX/99/Inf.5, Legal Documents Related to WECAFC.
8		Member countries should determine their participation in Working Groups based on relevance and national priority.