FAO Fisheries Circular No. 985 FIPL/C985 ISSN 0429-9329

SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERY ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER BODIES CONCERNED WITH THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from: Sales and Marketing Group

Information Division FAO

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy

E-mail: publications-sales@fao.org Fax: (+39) 06 57053360

FAO Fisheries Circular No. 985 FIPL/C985

SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERY ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER BODIES CONCERNED WITH THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES

by Judith Swan Consultant International Institutions and Liaison Service FAO Fisheries Department

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2003

The desi gnations employed and the presentation of the material in this information product do not imply the expr ession of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U nited Nati ons concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities , or concerni ng the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial pur poses are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright hol ders. Applicati ons for such permission should be addressed to the Chi ef, Publishi ng Management Service, Information Division, FAO, Vial e delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to copyright@fao.org

© FAO 2003

TR/D/YXXXXE/1/12.02/XXX

iii

PREPARATION OF THIS CIRCULAR This Circular was prepared within the framework of the Regular Programme as part of on-going activities of the FAO International Institutions and Liaison Service (FIPL) aimed at providing information on activities of regional fishery bodies.

Swan, J. Summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies concerned with the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 985. Rome, FAO. 2003. 114p.

ABSTRACT This Circular provides summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies with regard to the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. It updates information in FAO Fisheries Circular No. 908, “ Summary information on the role of international fishery and other bodies with regard to the conservation and management of living resources of the high seas” prepared by Mr S.H. Marashi in 1996, but extends to management of all living aquatic resources. It includes information on new bodies established since 1996, as well as bodies with competence over inland fisheries. Bodies that have ceased to exist since that time are not included. This Circular updates information as appropriate on the establishment, area of competence, species, membership and main objectives and activities of the organizations. In addition, it contains responses of the organizations to a survey seeking information on (a) priority issues for the organization; (b) implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments; and (c) activities, plans and priorities in relation to specific issues. This information is described in relation to each relevant body, and general trends relating to priority issues and activities are identified in respect of these responses. The updated information in this Circular was provided by the relevant organizations. Where information was not received, the relevant entry remains unchanged from Circular No. 908 as indicated.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... viii I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARIES............................................................................ 1

I.1 Background and Methodology........................................................................................ 1 I.2 Summary of Trends in Issues Important to RFBs............................................................. 2

I.2.1 Management............................................................................................................ 5 I.2.2 Science/Research ...................................................................................................... 9 I.2.3 Institutional ............................................................................................................ 11 I.2.4 Development............................................................................................................ 16

I.3 Summary of Responses on the Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments ........... 17 I.4 Summary of Responses on Activities Addressing Specific Issues ........................................ 17

II. REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND ADJACENT SEAS .. 19 II.1 Atlantic Africa Fisheries Conference: Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (AAFC).............................................. 19 II.2 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) ............................................ 20 II.3 Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina/Uruguay Maritime Front (COFREMAR)...... 22 II.4 Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (Comité Régional des Pêches du Golfe de Guinée (COREP)........................................................................................ 24 II.5 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)........................................... 25 II.6 International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) ...................................................... 28 II.7 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) ....................... 30 II.8 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)............................................................ 31 II.9 North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO)............................................. 33 II.10 Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) ........................................................... 36 II.11 Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO).......................................................... 38 II.12 Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries (SRCF/CSRP)...................................................... 39 II.13 Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) ................................................ 40

III. INDIAN, INDO-PACIFIC OCEAN.................................................................................. 42 III.1 Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC)........................................................................ 42 III.2 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)......................................................................... 43 III.3 Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI).................................................................. 46 III.4 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC)............................................... 46 III.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO) ....................................................... 48

IV. PACIFIC OCEAN ......................................................................................................... 50 IV.1 Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement (CEPTFA) ................................... 50 IV.2 Permanent South Pacific Commission/Commission permanente du Pacifique Sud (CPPS) ... 50 IV.3 South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).................................................................... 52 IV.4 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)........................................................ 53 IV.5 International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)............................................................ 55 IV.6 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) ..................................................... 56 IV.7 Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Organization (OAPO)......................................................... 59 IV.8 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) .................................................................................. 59 IV.9 South Pacific Commission (SPC)..................................................................................... 62

V. TRANS-OCEAN............................................................................................................ 65 V.1 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)........... 65 V.2 Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT).............................. 67 V.3 Latin American Organization for Fishery Development (OLDEPESCA).............................. 69

VI. INLAND....................................................................................................................... 70 VI.1 Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA).............................................................. 70 VI.2 Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL) ..................................... 71

vi

VI.3 European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC).............................................. 74 VI.4 Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO)................................................................... 76 VI.5 Mekong River Commission (MRC)................................................................................... 78

VII. MARINE MAMMALS ................................................................................................... 80 VII.1 International Whaling Commission (IWC)....................................................................... 80 VII.2 North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)................................................. 81

VIII. RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 84 VIII.1 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)............................................. 84 VIII.2 North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES).......................................................... 86

IX. OTHER........................................................................................................................ 87 IX.1 Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP).................................................. 87

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY INFORMATION ON FISHERY BODIES ........................................ 89

APPENDIX 2: CONTACTS OF REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES .............................................. 105

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERY ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER BODIES CONCERNED WITH THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 109

APPENDIX 4: INDICATIVE ISSUES IMPORTANT TO REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES.......... 114

APPENDIX 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF POST-UNCED INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................... 121

APPENDIX 6: ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUES .................................................................... 123

vii

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 – Indicative Areas of RFBs.........................................................................................................3 Map 2 - FAO Statistical Areas...............................................................................................................4 Map 3 – FAO Statistical Areas 34 and 47 – Coincides with AAFC Area .................................................. 19 Map 4 –FAO Statistical Area 34 – Coincides with CECAF Area ............................................................ 21 Map 5 – COFREMAR Common Fishing Zone...................................................................................... 23 Map 6 – FAO Statistical Area 37 – Corresponds to the GFCM Area ....................................................... 26 Map 7 – FAO Statistical Area 21 – Corresponds to the NAFO Regulatory Area ...................................... 32 Map 8 – NEAFC Area of Competence.................................................................................................. 37 Map 9 – FAO Statistical Area 51 – IOTC Area of Competence............................................................... 43 Map 10 – FAO Statistical Area 57 – IOTC Area of Competence ............................................................. 44 Map 11 – Pacific Salmon Treaty Area.................................................................................................. 61 Map 12 – CCAMLR Area of Competence............................................................................................. 66 Map 13 – EIFAC Area of Competence ................................................................................................. 76 Map 14 – FAO Statistical Area 27 – Coincides with Areas for NAMMCO. ICES .................................... 85

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AAFC Atlantic Africa Fisheries Conference APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation APFIC Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Marine Bluefin Tuna CECAF Fishery Commission for the Eastern Central Atlantic CEPTFA Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement CIFA Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa COFREMAR Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina/Uruguay Maritime Front COPESCAL Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America COREP Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (Comité régional des pêches du Golfe de

Guinée) CPPS South Pacific Permanent Commission CSRP Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries (Commission sous-régionale des pêches) CWP Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics EIFAC European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFA South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency GFCM General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IBSFC International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission IWC International Whaling Commission LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization MRC Mekong River Commission NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization NEAFC North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NPAFC North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission OAPO Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Organization OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OLDEPESCA Latin American Organization for the Development of Fisheries PICES North Pacific Marine Science Organization PSC Pacific Salmon Commission RECOFI Regional Commission for Fisheries SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea WECAFC Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission WIOTO Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization

1

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARIES I.1 Background and Methodology This Circular provides summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies (Regional Fishery Bodies, “ RFBs”) with regard to the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. It updates information in FAO Fisheries Circular No. 908, “ Summary Information on the Role of International Fishery and Other Bodies with Regard to the Conservation and Management of Living Resources of the High Seas” prepared by Mr S.H. Marashi in 1996. It maintains the framework describing the establishment, area of competence, species, membership and main objectives and activities of each RFB. In addition, the scope of this document extends to the conservation and management of all living aquatic resources. It includes information on new bodies established since 1996, as well as bodies with competence over inland fisheries. Bodies that have ceased to exist since that time are not included. This Circular also updates the table of summary information on each RFB (Appendix 1), and the contacts (Appendix 2). Updated information was provided by the RFBs in response to a questionnaire (Appendix 3), which also requested information on issues and activities of the RFB: (a) priority issues for the organization; (b) implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments; and (c) activities, plans and priorities in relation to specific issues. Responses in relation to each of these areas are summarized in this Part, and details regarding implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments and addressing specific issues appear in the framework under the relevant RFB. The survey was undertaken for the purpose of identifying general trends. Responses to the questionnaire are indicative only, and are not quantified. They were provided by the secretariats without formal consideration by member countries, and a number of factors contribute to the general nature of the resposnes including the interrelationship of many of the issues leading to gaps or overlaps in information and the diversity of RFBs’mandates, funding, and membership. If an RFB did not indicate its attention to certain issues or activities in the survey, this may not indicate an absence of attention in its operations. However, the responses do reflect trends in activities and issues that serve to indicate general priorities and challenges of RFBs at the time of writing. This overview is consistent with, and potentially useful for, a range of global initiatives being taken either among RFBs or between RFBs and other organizations. One such example is the joint FAO-UNEP initative to identify opportunities and challenges for coordination of ecosystem-based fisheries management between RFBs and Regional Seas Conventions.1 The updated information in this Circular was provided by the relevant organizations in response to the questionnaire. Where information was not received, the relevant entry for that RFB remains unchanged from Circular No. 908 as indicated. An indicative map of RFBs’areas of competence (Map 1) and the map of FAO Statistical Areas (Map 2) provide an overview for purposes of locating the areas of competence of RFBs. Separate maps, as available,2 appear throughout the text showing specific areas of competence for the relevant RFB. Where an area of competence relates generally to FAO Statistical Areas, Map 2 serves as the reference and this is indicated in the

1 See “ Ecosystem-based Management of Fisheries: Opportunities and Challenges for Coordination between Marine Regional Fishery Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs),” UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 175. UNEP, 2001. ISBN 92-807-21-5-4. This document was prepared by the author (for RFBs) and Mr. Stjepan Keckes (for RSCs) under the joint auspices of FAO and UNEP, and presented at the 3rd Global Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions organized by UNEP in Monaco 6-9 November 2000 and at the 2nd Meeting of Regional Fisheries Bodies and Arrangements, at FAO Headquarters In February 2001. The UNEP meeting endorsed a number of actions recommended for enhanced cooperation among RFBs and RSCs. The FAO meeting of RFBs agreed on a need for closer collaboration between RFBs and RSCs. 2 Individual maps were taken from the RFB’s website where available. Other maps showing FAO Statistical Areas were taken from the FAO website. Websites are listed in Appendix 2.

2

text. I.2 Summary of Trends in Issues Important to RFBs

A range of issues and challenges have faced RFBs in recent years, including those relating to effective governance by the RFB and to the conservation and management of the resource. RFBs were requested to indicate the five most important issues for them, and the reasons why they are important. The responses generally fall into the following areas: management, science/research, institutional and development. A table showing the range of responses is in Appendix 4. The issues identified as important to RFBs complement information requested in Parts B and C of the questionnaire, relating to the implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments and addressing specific issues.3 The information provides an indication of current trends and concerns; some issues were raised by only one RFB while others were cited by many. The Secretariats of twenty-nine RFBs responded, and while the information is indicative only - it was not formally considered by member countries - it reflects major concerns of each organization. Because RFBs have varying mandates, membership and institutional arrangements, it would be inappropriate to quantify the number of RFBs that referred to a given issue; instead, this analysis will focus on general trends. Even though an RFB did not identify an issue as a priority, this does not necessarily mean that it views the issue as unimportant. The RFB may concur with the trends, providing scope for future cooperation and action. Similarly, while RFBs have indicated some areas as priority issues, it should be appreciated that these areas may overlap with other issues. For example, an RFB may have indicated unreported catch as a priority issue, but it may also be taking action on related issues such as reviewing the control and enforcement programmes of member countries.4 Work on the precautionary approach could cover all aspects of management, including habitat protection, social and economic aspects and other areas which may not be indicated in Appendix 4. Placing the results in tabular form may not readily convey this holistic situation, so this is another reason that this review, together with the Appendix, is presented as an indicative guideline on trends in priority issues at the time of writing. As noted above, these trends may assist in reaching a clearer understanding of the challenges facing RFBs. Management and institutional issues were most often cited by RFBs as important for them, with strong concern shown regarding science/research. Some RFBs also referred to fisheries development issues. The responses in all categories are reviewed below. “ Trends” are identified where two or more RFBs identified the same, or similar issues, and the heading “ other concerns” relates to issues identified by a single RFB.

3 These issues appear in Part C of the questionnaire, in Appendix 6, and are: implementation of precautionary approach to fisheries management; addressing ecosystem-based fisheries management; assessment of the extent, impact and effects of IUU fishing in area of competence; strengthening the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues; addressing issues relating to capacity; accommodate new entrants; catch certification and documentation. 4 NASCO cited this connection.

3

Map 1 – Indicative Areas of RFBs

4

Map 2 - FAO Statistical Areas

5

I.2.1 Management I.2.1.1 Trends Issues surrounding responsible fisheries management, the ecosystem approach, bycatch and IUU fishing were cited as important by the highest aggregation of RFBs. This is consistent with prominent issues in recent international instruments, which in turn responded to broad international concern.

Implementation of responsible fisheries management was described by one RFB5 as including: holistic approaches encompassing multidisciplinary skills; a sound research base; upgrading less advanced countries to minimum standard level for managing shared stocks; membership of all riparian and long distant fishing nations; an enhanced decision making process to formulate binding decisions; and clarification of management objectives. Some RFBs noted this would include establishing management measures for sustainable fisheries including TACS, and effort control and other measures.6 One RFB referred to difficulties in allocation of resources, and the need to determine principles for this purpose.7

Specific management concerns were raised by some RFBs, in the context of their mandate. This includes by area,8 management scheme,9 developing new management regimes,10 and managing shared stocks11 and certain species of fish.12 One RFB referred to the more general problem of overfishing of commercially important species.13 5 GFCM. 6 NEAFC has brought three main fisheries under sustainable management in its Regulatory Area since 1997, and management plans have been agreed for a fourth. The next step will be to agree on management measures for deep-sea species in the Regulatory Area. CCSBT referred to the fact that the southern bluefin tuna (SBT) stock has been fished to low historical levels, and the consequent importance of setting a TAC for its management and conservation objectives. COFREMAR referred to the establishment of closed areas, seasons, gear restrictions, and a protection line in the Common Fishing Zone. 7 IOTC noted that its Agreement guarantees a share to coastal States and DWFNs invoke historical rights based on past exploitation levels or capacity. This issue is complicated by reflagging of IUU fleets in non-coastal States, often with open registries, some of which are seeking contracting or cooperating status in the Commission. 8 CPPS referred to management and development of industrial fisheries in the southeast Pacific CPPS stated that understanding the current status of the principal industrial fisheries of the region will help devise a fisheries management and development project aimed at ensuring the rational and sustainable management of fully exploited resources, a start to the tapping of potential resources and a higher harvesting of underexploited resources. The aim of the project is to help consolidate fully exploited fisheries, to raise the production of underexploited and potential fishery resources and to permit the recovery of overexploited resources, so that fisheries management and development can be truly rational and sustainable, and so that the different types of fisheries existing in each country can be enhanced. It should have a noticeable impact on national economies, with a higher contribution to Gross Domestic Product and to foreign currency earnings from exports. 9 The IWC referred to work to develop a Revised Management Scheme for commercial whaling and its relation to the current moratorium This issue is important since IWC agreed that the moratorium on commercial whaling would not be lifted until a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) that incorporates scientific aspects of management with those designed to ensure that regulations are obeyed is in place. Some component parts of the RMS have been agreed, and in particular a scientifically robust method of setting safe catch limits. This method is referred to as the Revised Management Procedure. The main issue within the RMS to be resolved is what constitutes an acceptable supervision and control scheme (e.g. percent coverage of whaling operations by international observers, need for additional catch verification measures through DNA registers and market monitoring and/or catch documentation). Some Contracting Governments believe that reaching agreement of an RMS and lifting the moratorium are inextricably linked. Others see them as two separate issues (i.e. first agree an RMS, and then consider lifting of the moratorium). 10 By IWC for aboriginal subsistence whaling. This work is being done to improve management of whale stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence takes, i.e. to ensure less risk to the stocks involved. The work includes scientific work on methods to determine safe catch limits (Strike Limit Algorithms) and guidelines for sighting surveys (needed in stock assessment) as well as operational factors such as the duration of block quotas, the extent of carry-over provisions and rules concerning the phase-out of catches if suitable scientific data are not available. 11 GFCM and RECOFI. 12 IATTC cited the conservation of yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna. 13 RECOFI.

6

Many RFBs expressed support for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. From a scientific perspective, ICES noted that today’s complex issues require integration of both fisheries and environmental information into useful advice.14 In addition, other RFBs noted the need to understand the broader large marine ecosystem supporting the managed species,15 the ecosystem effects of fishing,16 and the general need for valuation and understanding of ecological processes.17 Some other RFBs have added ecosystem concerns to their agendas or activities to monitor developments for management purposes.18

One RFB19 placed a high priority on rational utilization of the fisheries resources, and another RFB20 stated

that its area of competence, a semi-enclosed sea, needs special care because it is affected by pollution from industrialized coastal States.

Bycatch is a concern to a number of RFBs. 21 Some organizations with a mandate over tuna noted the need for the control of bycatch,22 one named use of shrimp fisheries bycatch reducing devices as a priority23 and another referred to the fact that improved control over bycatch would be a positive development for the conservation of endangered species and biodiversity concerns.24 The slow pace of scientific knowledge in this area was noted, and an observation was made that the development of a regulatory environment for bycatch management often proceeds at a rate greater than the research programs necessary to estimate the impact of bycatch on target/ancillary species. IUU fishing was named by a number of RFBs as an important issue. Concern was expressed about the level of unreported catches25 and extent and impact of IUU fishing.26 One RFB attributes the unreporting in its area of competence to the fact that the vessels concerned are flagged in open registry countries.27 However, under the threat of Port State control measures and trade documentation schemes, some of these countries are now cooperating with 14 The stated goal of ICES in this regard is to develop protocols for preparing and delivering scientific advice on emerging ecosystem issues. 15 SPC, which links this with the hitherto lack of detailed information on the potential significance of tuna fishery bycatch. 16 CCAMLR, noting that the Convention strives to manage fishing in terms of both direct effects of fishing on target stocks and also takes into account possible effects of fishing activities on non-targeted species with a view to minimizing the risk of irreversible changes in the system. A key challenge has been the minimization of incidental mortality arising from longline fishing of seabirds breeding in the Convention Area. 17 MRC. 18 IBSFC, GFCM, NEAFC, ICCAT. The issue of fisheries management based on the ecosystem approach is part of the mandate of the GFCM/SAC Sub-Committee on Marine Ecosystems and the Environment. Possible methodologies on how to tackle the concept are being reviewed, and testing these in implementation will be largely the task of MEDSUDMED, a GFCM support regional project. 19 Rational utilisation of inland fishery resources was cited by COPESCAL, to increase food security, to maintain employment and income of population in the area. 20 IBSFC. 21 For NASCO, bycatch of Atlantic salmon in fisheries for pelagic species is an issue. The issue is being considered by the International Cooperative Salmon Research Board. ICES has been asked to provide estimates of salmon bycatch in pelagic fisheries. 22 IATTC, SPC. 23 RECOFI. 24 IPHC. 25 IOTC noted that a substantial part of the catch is unreported. NASCO reported that information provided by its Contracting Parties indicates that unreported catches amounted to between 31-45 percent of the reported catch. Progress is reported in reducing the level of unreported catches, and the Council has emphasized the need to take further measures to minimize unreported catches. GFCM reported that a in Mediterranean fisheries, a substantial part of artisanal landings (mostly demersal species) directly reach restaurants without going through auction or other schemes for reporting purposes. 26 CCAMLR reported that extensive IUU fishing in the Convention Area by Non-Parties is undermining its conservation measures. Lack of information on total removals is also compromising stock assessment and high levels of IUU fishing are directly affecting non-target species. CCSBT noted that the southern bluefin tuna (SBT) stock has been fished to low historical levels. Scientific advice to the CCSBT is that at current catch levels there is a 50 percent chance of decline in the stock and a 50 percent chance of recovery. In this context it is believed that any fishing outside the membership of the CCSBT could be critical. 27 IOTC.

7

the Commission and providing some data. It is apparent that in most cases, however, they would most likely not apply management measures decided by the Commission.

8

Some RFBs report an ongoing focus on efficient control and enforcement.28 For one RFB this involves the establishment of a VMS automated database, resulting in almost 100percent coverage by automatic position messages.29 In the same realm, some RFBs referred to coordination of the Parties’ enforcement activities as a priority issue.30 One RFB named resource protection as an issue because control and surveillance is weak in the region and should be strengthened at a time when foreign vessels are increasingly fishing legally and illegally.31 Some RFBs referred to the application of the precautionary approach as an issue important to their work.32 One has developed agreements in relation to application of the precautionary approach to management of fisheries resources and habitat protection and restoration under its competence.33 As the next steps, it will consider the application of the precautionary approach to introductions and transfers, aquaculture and transgenics; and another RFB shares its concern about how social and economic factors can be taken into account in applying the precautionary approach without undermining its effectiveness.34 I.2.1.2 Other Concerns One inland RFB referred to policy development for fisheries and aquaculture as a priority issue.35 Conflicts of interest at national level are a problem stated by one RFB.36 Conflicts between the industry/environmental interest groups at national level leads to a reluctance to take specific management measures, although the principle behind these measures might have been adopted through ratification of overarching international instruments. It may also lead to a reluctance to monitor compliance through third party VMS or observer coverage.

The increasing capacity of the fishing fleets is a concern for one RFB within its area of competence, which noted that the fleet capacity should be controlled for conservation reasons. 37

Pollution was raised by one RFB as an issue of management and conservation, and directly pertains to the consumption of marine resources.38 The RFB is an important forum for discussing such issues. A closely related issue identified by another RFB is fish kill due to Red Tide and/or bacterial infection phenomena.39 28 IBSFC, and others noted in the following footnotes. 29 The NEAFC scheme established a control and enforcement system based on the NEAFC VMS automated database. Since its introduction in 2000 coverage by automatic position messages has reached almost 100 percent. Information in the database is automatically available to inspection services operating in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. 30 NPAFC noted that directed fishing for Pacific salmon is prohibited in the Convention Area. In order to prevent, deter, and eliminate any illegal fishing activities for Pacific salmon which undermine the effectiveness of the Convention, the Parties have been implementing their enforcement in a coordinated manner. Since the establishment of the NPAFC in 1993, the Parties have cooperated on the exchange of information on any violation of the provisions of the Convention and on the exchange of enforcement plans and actions. In recent years, the agencies responsible for enforcement within the Convention Area have significantly improved communications and the coordination of enforcement efforts among the Parties through the created Joint Operations Information Coordination Group (JOICG). The purpose of the JOICG is the voluntary exchange of enforcement related information, using computer and communication technology, for protection of salmon resources to prevent high seas driftnet fishing in the Convention Area of the North Pacific Ocean. IBSFC also places coordination of Parties’ enforcement activities as a priority. 31 CECAF. 32 GFCM, IBSFC, NASCO, SPC. 33 NASCO has developed agreements in relation to application of the precautionary approach to management of North Atlantic salmon fisheries and freshwater habitat protection and restoration 34 SPC also reported initiatives to take into account social and economic factors. See under SPC, “ Addressing Specific Issues”. 35 CIFA identified a growing need for policies that will facilitate the sustainable management of capture fisheries and the development of environmentally sound aquaculture. 36 IOTC. 37 IATTC. 38 NAMMCO. 39 RECOFI draws attention to the negative effects of these phenomena on local markets as well as exports.

9

Transboundary fishing is of concern to an RFB with a mandate for inland fisheries.40 Measures to minimize impacts of aquaculture, and introductions and transfers on the wild stocks is an important issue reported by one RFB.41 The background to its concern is based on a dramatic increase of the production of farm salmon in recent years to more than 300 times the harvest of wild salmon. There are concerns about genetic, disease and parasite and other impacts of cultured fish on the wild stocks. There is increasing interest in introductions and transfers of species and increasing pressure to remove barriers to trade. Poorly planned introductions and transfers have had very damaging impacts on wild salmonids. Managing conflicts between artisanal and industrial fisheries was flagged as a focal challenge by one RFB. A project will be prepared to help reduce or eliminate this problem.42 Urbanization and reclamation of nursery grounds for commercially imported species of fish and shrimp was cited by one RFB, due to the negative impact on recruitment of renewable resources.43 An RFB, being administered under interim arrangements until its Convention enters into force, cited difficulties in enforcement of interim measures contained in the Annex on Interim Arrangements to the Convention.44

I.2.2 Science/Research

I.2.2.1 Trends

A visionary springboard for the views expressed on science/research issues was described by one RFB as the need to “ build a foundation for science”. 45 Such a foundation would have several purposes: to fulfil the need to better understand the physical, chemical and biological biological functioning of marine ecosystems; to understand and quantify human impacts on marine ecosystems, including living marine resources; and to evaluate options for sustainable marine-related industries, particularly fishing and mariculture.

Most RFBs centered their responses around practical issues, including producing scientific advice decision-makers need (including integrating fisheries and environmental information),46 the need for continuing, accurate, comprehensive stock assessments,47 and assessments of associated species and ecosystems at national and regional 40 LVFO. This also applies to GFCM, where declarations of EEZs in the area of competence are not standard, and the Commission gives emphasis to the management of the shared stocks (i.e. that occur within 12 miles and on the high seas). 41 NASCO. 42 CPPS noted that conflicts between artisanal fisheries and larger (semi-industrial and industrial) fisheries is the most common problem arising in the Southeast Pacific. Conflict (interference) refers to disputes over fishing grounds, target and incidental species, fishing gear and practices, species caught, etc. The aim is to help bring about the sustainable management and development of the fisheries concerned, reducing disputes and increasing production and thus economic income and the social welfare of all parties; in brief, to reduce or eliminate situations of conflict and waste, and to contribute towards national fisheries development. 43 RECOFI. 44 SEAFO. 45 ICES. 46 In this context, ICES noted that the scientific advice decision-makers need involves integration of both fisheries and environmental information into useful advice. COPESCAL calls for establishment of a scientific basis for management of inland fishery resources, since there is currently not enough knowledge and awareness to encourage governments to adopt management regulations. 47 CCAMLR noted that lack of complete scientific information for key stocks, especially those be subject to “ new” fishing pressure continues to hamper effective assessment of sustainable yield(s). In some instances, such uncertainty is compounded by deficiencies in the timely submission of fisheries data. SPC cited the need to mitigate scarcity of information on reef fisheries and supporting ecosystems. CCSBT reported that SBT have a biology with important implications for management by the CCSBT. Age at maturity is no less than 8 years, life expectancy is up to 40 years, there is only one known breeding ground and the spatial distribution of the fish is not well understood. An accurate assessment of the stock in this context is very important for the Commission. EIFAC reported that sturgeons have been entered in Annex

10

levels.48 One RFB expressed a need for both resource evaluation and improved research and resource monitoring.49 Another emphasized the problems for managers and decision makers and difficulty of adopting a precautionary approach because of a lack of specific knowledge on the status and abundance of stocks.50 Many RFBs were concerned about statistical databases. They pointed to the need for timely statistics and submission, collection and distribution of information.51

B of the CITES convention. Stock assessment programmes are urgently needed in many sturgeon catching countries in order to demonstrate sustainability of sturgeon fisheries. LVFO emphasizes the importance of stock assessment, noting that one cannot continue fishing without knowing what is in the lake. The biology was crucial to establishing the size at first maturity and hence legislate the minimum mesh size for exploitation. IWC calls for a comprehensive assessment and status of whale stocks: When the Commission agreed to implement a moratorium on commercial whaling from 1986, it also agreed to include a clause that 'the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits'. IWC reported that this assessment includes the examination of current stock size, recent population trends, carrying capacity and productivity. Assessments have been completed for some stocks and are ongoing for others. GFCM has launched a process towards harmonizing stock assessment methodologies, wherever possible. For MRC, the Fisheries Programme must provide fisheries related data for the establishment and implementation of rules for water utilization. 48 SPC calls for the need for continually more rigorous and detailed periodic assessments of the status and fishing prospects of tuna stocks and associated species at the regional and national level. RECOFI identifies regional surveys of shared stocks. 49 CIFA identifies resource evaluation as a priority, because the knowledge of potential resources limited and countries adopt precautionary approach because of a lack of specific knowledge on quantities. This gap creates problems for the managers and decision-makers. In addition, it names fisheries research and resource monitoring as a priority because strengthening fisheries research will provide very useful inputs into the management of inland fisheries resources. Statistical data collection, processing and analysis is a problem in the region and planners need reliable information to advise managers on conservation and management measures. 50 CECAF. 51 SPC referred to the need for better statistics on tuna fishery, bycatch and effort by DWFNs and coastal States fishing in the region. SEAFO referred to the collection and circulation of catch data to Contracting Parties and register of fishing vessels in the Convention Area. To design and build a relational statistical database of the main fisheries of the Southeast Pacific for the period 1990-2001, including landings, production and exports. The database will be standardized to the CPPS fisheries statistical yearbooks, related to the national fisheries statistics offices of the Member Nations and FAO. CPPS aims to provide timely and consistent information to guide investment and improve fisheries production, to optimize trade and to enhance food supply and work opportunities; in brief, the timely, relational and user-friendly fisheries database should prove useful for the strategic and executive planning of investment and production. APFIC puts an urgency on improvement on data collection and reporting due to its concern that without timely and accurate data and information, it is unlikely that stocks and fisheries depending on them could be assessed for proper management. IOTC deals with aggregated data provided by the Flag State. Many countries, including some DWFNs, do not have adequate statistical systems. The Secretariat therefore has to employ considerable resources to upgrade these systems. The Commission has also determined minimum data standards, but it has proved difficult to obtain finer-level data needed for some stock assessment studies. GFCM reported that timely collection, processing and submission of statistical data remains the first concern of GFCM. Statistical-related work remains the priority of each of the sub-committees of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and one (SIPAM) of the three subsidiaries of the Committee on Aquaculture deals only with statistics. The bulk of the activities of the three GFCM support regional projects (ADRIAMED, COPEMED and MEDSUDMED) and a specific regional statistical project (MEDFISIS) are under finalization. CECAF suggests that strengthening fisheries research will provide very useful inputs into the management recommendations of the Scientific Sub-Committee that advises the Committee on resource management. Statistical data collection, processing and analysis are problems in the region and planners need reliable information to advise managers on conservation and management measures. NASCO has established a number of statistical databases.

11

Another issue shared by some RFBs is the decline, restoration and recovery and conservation of certain fish stocks.52

I.2.2.2 Other Concerns One RFB cited the evaluation of high seas fisheries as a priority, 53 another referred to factors affecting mortality of sea,54 and an inland fisheries organization identified a survey its area of competence as important.55 One RFB focused on a general Scientific Research Programme,56 and another cited coordination of the Parties’ research activities.57

On a broader scale, one RFB called for cooperation on issues surrounding initiatives to list fish on CITES appendices58 and another referred to administrative difficulties associated with international research and monitoring programmes.59

I.2.3 Institutional I.2.3.1 Trends The greatest number of issues identified by RFBs in this survey fall within the institutional area. Of these, issues relating to finance and strengthened external cooperation are most prominent, with capacity building, information exchange and human resource development following closely. A wide range of other issues was also expressed. 52 EIFAC cited decline of European eel stocks, and Danube and Black Sea sturgeon stocks; IBSFC’s concern is recovery of Eastern Baltic cod stocks and restoration of wild salmon stocks. 53 CPPS cited evaluation of Fisheries in the High Seas Adjacent to Waters under National Jurisdiction in the Southeast Pacific as an issue. It reported that the exploration and evaluation of fishery resources in the national waters of coastal States of the Southeast Pacific and in adjacent high sea areas will be intensified, with a special focus on evaluation of transboundary and highly migratory fish stocks. The aim is to heighten understanding of the distribution, concentration and abundance of fishery resources in the high seas and to guarantee their conservation and their rational and sustainable exploitation, in collaboration with the distant-water fisheries of nations from other latitudes with a clear and long-established interest in fisheries. Apart from improving economic and nutritional benefits because of greater exploitation, another positive impact will be to ensure that the high seas are no longer the focus of conflict. For GFCM, see note in relation to transboundary fishing, above. 54 NASCO reported that in recent years the mortality of salmon at sea has increased; for some monitored stocks it has doubled compared to the levels in the 1970s. However, the factors responsible for this increased mortality are poorly understood. NASCO has established an International Cooperative Salmon Research Board to promote collaboration and cooperation on research into the causes of marine mortality of salmon and the opportunities to counteract this mortality. The work of the Board in this regard is also relevant to building a foundation for science, sound scientific advice, statistical database, decline, restoration, etc of stocks and the need for a scientific research programme. 55 LVFO identified the Regional Frame Survey for Lake Victoria 56 CCSBT referred to the fact that circumstances surrounding stock assessment for SBT require sound scientific advice. The CCSBT has begun the implementation of a scientific research program aimed at supporting the stock assessment process. 57 NPAFC reported that questions about ocean migration, distribution, intermixing of stocks, associated effects on growth rates, and the need for international baselines to identify stock origins of salmon are major research issues faced by all NPAFC member Parties. Therefore, the cooperative research activities are essential for sustainable conservation of salmon stocks in their ocean ecosystems. Each Party prepares and implements its annual national research plan in an internationally coordinated manner, on the basis of the NPAFC Science P lan 2001-2005 adopted by the Parties. As one of the main areas of the Science P lan, the Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey, which involves closer cooperation of the Parties, was formulated and is being implemented for five years from 2002. 58 NAMMCO referred to current discussions on whether fish should be listed in the CITES Appendices, noting it will have great impact on fisheries. The RFBs should be informed of the process of developing criteria for fish, and work together regarding this issue. 59 IPHC explains that customs agencies are administratively isolated from authorizing agencies for RFBs, and may not have a coherent view of the roles, objectives, authorities, and permissions. It further noted the lack of consistent policy on taxation for purchases by RFBs, and a general difficulty of obtaining consistent policies for RFBs among government departments and agencies.

12

A number of RFBs referred to strengthening regional cooperation and coordination among RFBs and with outside organizations, 60 including addressing international initiatives in FAO,61 through open dialogue, and fostering partnerships.62 In this context, one RFB emphasized that the issues identified as important by the RFBs should be disseminated to the relevant organizations on a reciprocal basis, and that the RFBs are informed about decisions taken in other bodies that requires response.63 Others addressed their rationale for collaboration towards better use of scarce resources and avoidance of duplication.64

The importance of attendance at meetings of sister organizations to exchange information and build on their experience was cited by one new RF B currently with interim status, prior to entry into force of its Convention.65 And for one RFB, the work begins at home; the important issue was reported as fostering solidarity, political will and cooperation among members.66 Many RFBs strongly expressed a need for financial resources to execute their respective mandates,67 and one RFB cited the method of determining financial contributions as an important issue under review.68

60 NAMMCO note that the RFBs face similar issues regardless of the resources they manage (whether fish or marine mammals), and it is important to co-operate on identifying these issues, and to co-ordinate the dissemination of information to relevant organisations outside of the RFBs. 61 NEAFC has made the issue of addressing IUU fishing and other initiatives in FAO and other international bodies a permanent item on the agenda of the Commission to ensure that NEAFC practices conform with international trends in international law. 62 The ICES Vision (“ an international scientific community that is relevant, responsive, sound, and credible, concerning marine ecosystems and their relation to humanity”) goes beyond the capacities of any single organization. Thus, the goal of ICES is to enhance collaboration with organizations, scientific programmes, and stakeholders (including the fishing industry) that are relevant to the ICES goals. 63 NAMMCO. 64 CIFA suggests that Committee should collaborate with institutions and projects in the region on information available on research findings and management experiences. Such exchanges will reduce conflicts between capture fisheries/ aquaculture and other sectors like tourism in large water bodies. CECAF suggests that for better use of scarce resources and avoid duplication, the Committee should collaborate with the other bodies and arrangements in fisheries resources conservation and management. NASCO has taken steps to strengthen cooperation among RFBs. 65 SEAFO’s issue is to organize and arrange annual Interim Meetings and participation in meetings of other sister organizations. This will enable the Interim Secretariat and Contracting Parties to discuss and solve issues of concern to the organization, as well as to participate in meetings of other similar organizations with a view to exchanging information and building on their experience. 66 FFA reported that the need for FFA members to maintain solidarity on resource management issues in response to internal and external pressures is well recognized. While regional solidarity is primarily a concern for the members, the Agency will foster solidarity by ensuring that its services to members are undertaken on an equitable basis. Advisory and negotiating briefs will promote common positions and uniform approaches. 67 SEAFO relates this to receiving and managing voluntary financial contributions from Contracting Parties. WECAFC noted its dependence mainly on FAO Regular Programme Budget and extra-budgetary funding acquired by the Fisheries Department of FAO. Its member countries do not contribute financially to the work of the Commission. APFIC reported that the lack of financial contribution from Member States together with declining support from FAO has crippled it in carrying out its mandate as required. IATTC stated that is important for the future long-term stability of the budget of the Commission, and thus the Commission itself, to address the issue of member country contributions so that all members are contributing at a level they are able and willing to achieve. IPHC advises that management needs are now more acute, requiring more data with greater timeliness. Research planning and execution necessitates stable funding, yet research and staff costs increase at greater rate than funding. GFCM reported that full-fledged management outputs depend on entry into force of amendments to the GFCM Agreement concerning the autonomous budget. The current “ interim phase” is characterized by a lack of financial resources to carry out the proposed annual workplan. CECAF noted that Committee activities cannot be funded by mandatory contributions from its members and extra-budgetary funds are dwindling. 68 IWC. In the last few years, the Commission has been reviewing the way in which financial contributions from Contracting Governments are determined, including for the first time an element in relation to a country’s capacity to pay. This is important since it will make membership of the organization more accessible to smaller/poorer countries. Also

13

involved is review of who is a ‘user’ in the context of the ‘user pays’ principle (e.g. whether non-consumption use should be included).

14

Some RFBs identified related financially-based issues, the need for capacity building/financial support for fisheries administrations in member States69 An attendant problem for two RFBs is the wide diversity among its members in terms of development (social and economic), and a natural resource base.70

Linked to the financial and capacity issues is human resource development. One RFB is concerned about

the lack of human resources in the RFB71 and another is concerned about the need to develop a specialized human resource cadre in fisheries in member States to lessen the reliance on international and regional assistance, and to fulfil their own stewardship obligations in areas where there is no international or regional assistance.72

On the credit side, maintaining and increasing the added value of the Organization is important for one

RFB.73 A different area of concern is information and communication. Information exchange among member States,

between the member States and the organization,74 its communication to decision-makers75 and the public are of high priority to several RFBs.76

69 IOTC referred specifically to the need to improve statistical systems in some Contracting Parties to meet the agreed minimum data standards. WECAFC referred to weak fisheries administrations in most Member countries, and the need for capacity building and financial support. Some problems include the current economic situation and structural adjustment programmes in many Member countries; high mobility of personnel and reduction in budgets; and reduced ability to actively participate in activities of the Commission and in its working groups. The activities are reported to be a reflection of the priorities of Member States. The majority of FFA Member States have small populations, fragile economies, and limited technical capacity and expertise. On the other hand the tuna resources of their exclusive economic zones and in the region generally are vast and constitute one of the largest fisheries in the world. FFA has been given the role of assisting Members in improving their capacity to manage and develop the tuna resources for their benefit. CIFA noted that Committee activities cannot be funded by mandatory contributions from its Members and extra-budgetary funds are dwindling. COPESCAL calls for education and training of people in resource evaluation, research, and related areas. To increase food security, to maintain employment and income of population in the area, to increase awareness regarding the need of better use of fishery resources, to increase awareness of officials regarding the importance and contribution of inland fisheries and aquaculture to national economy. 70 WECAFC, and GFCM. The latter noted the dual characteristics of fishing (artisanal/industrial); the multispecies resource base and the mix of members’ economic status, including developing/developed/transition status. 71 WECAFC. 72 SPC. 73 To add value to the efforts of Member Countries and individual scientists by fostering the sharing of human and material assets, and by pooling resources to support common goals. ICES’ goals include: maintaining and further developing a modern and effective infrastructure; and broadening the diversity of scientists who participate in ICES activities. 74 FFA reported that one of the important challenges is provision of information amongst FFA members, and between members and the Agency. FFA will take a role in facilitating information exchange by promoting website use and other modern/efficient communication methods, by producing timely publications, and by arranging meetings of members and others on critical topics. GFCM’s concerns in this regard are expressed under review of statistical database, infra. NASCO has taken steps to improve information exchange among its members. 75 SPC cited the need to get better information on all areas to decision-makers. A need was stated for an expert filter to process and summarise relevant and applicable information from the vast flow of material, not all of it relevant, that fisheries administrations currently access. 76 ICES noted that ultimately, the greatest contribution made by sound scientific information may be the influence it has on public opinion. There are many organizations that use scientific information to help stress their points of view when it comes to environmental issues and living marine resources. However, their interpretation of scientific information is not always objective. The sole reason for ICES to make scientific information more accessible to a wider public is to provide an unbiased scientific basis for public opinion and policies. MRC reported communication as a priority issue.

15

Some RFBs cited membership concerns as an important issue for them. This includes fishing by non-members,77 and broadened participation in the RFB.78

I.2.3.2 Other Concerns

Institutional competence is an issue for some RFBs, in different contexts. One identified institutional uncertainty regarding the competence of RFBs to implement the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement.79

Another RFB was concerned about its mandate to address certain issues and its competence to determine the legal status of reservations to the Schedule to its Convention. 80 One RFB, observing that many RFBs are not established as management bodies, stated that without proper authority from its members, it is not possible to provide effective governance as demanded by recent global initiatives/arrangements.81

Harmonization of fisheries regulations among its members, and particularly fish quality assurance regulations, was on the list of one RFB’s important issues.82 On the related problem of cross regulatory/cross governance issues in the absence of such harmonization, one RFB noted that overlapping governance impedes effective implementation of management measures, and creates duplication in data reporting and error propagation. A lack of coordinated licensing structure prevents joint optimization of yield and creates ‘bycatch’ issues.83

One RFB is developing timely dispute settlement procedures, and cited this as an important issue.84

Initial thought is being given to private sector involvement in the work of one Commission, and this may affect decisions on taking measures in future.85

77 CCSBT reported that the are currently 5 members of the Extended Commission which cover about 90 percent of the reported catch. Indonesia fishes in the only known spawning ground of SBT and takes a significant amount of SBT. The CCSBT is encouraging the membership of Indonesia, in particular, and other interested countries to join so that the aims and objectives of the Convention will apply to almost the full commercial catch of SBT. 78 IOTC noted that key fishery participants are not currently parties to the Commission. One has withheld important data against a voice in management decisions and access to the resource, and another is concerned about having to apply management measures to their artisanal fishery. 79 CCAMLR. It noted that the entry into force of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement is likely to impact on the competencies and status associated with specific RFMBs. It is seen that some period of time will be required in order to ensure that the current RFMB’s competence is appropriately aligned with other RFMBs (both pre- and post-dating the Agreement). 80 IWC reported concerns about its competence to address issues in relation to small cetaceans, whalewatching and the environment. 81 APFIC. 82 LVFO noted that in a shared resource the product exported has to have the same standards to conform to the importers requirements. A bad product from any of the three Partner States can cause a ban on the fish exports from the whole region. 83 IPHC. 84 NEAFC referred to a proposal for amending the Convention to allow the fast settlement of disputes if the parties involved agree will be put before the 2002 Annual Meeting. Rules for other less demanding procedures have been agreed. If the amendment to the Convention is agreed, it is the intended to apply these provisionally, pending their entry into force. 85 GFCM.

16

Some RFBs identified issues relating to establishment86 of a new RFB, and ratification87 or renegotiation88

of a Convention as important. One FAO RFB cited the upgrading of the Committee to a Commission under Article XIV as a priority.89 These activities reflect developments to implement the post-UNCED international instruments. I.2.4 Development I.2.4.1 Trends The fewest number of RFBs cited fisheries development issues as important. The issues include aquaculture and artisanal fisheries development, the impact of development, tuna industry development and assisting member States with the change in balance between subsistence and commercial fisheries. Some RFBs identified aquaculture development as a priority issue. The need to guide increasing aquaculture investment into economically and socially sustainable channels was cited by two RFBs.90 Another identified aquaculture development in Eastern Europe as a priority issue, noting that the marketing of freshwater aquaculture products could become critical once Eastern European countries join the EU.91 A third cited the development of aquaculture as important to increase food security and to increase/maintain employment and income.92 I.2.4.2 Other Concerns One RFB referred to artisanal fisheries development as a strong priority, noting details of a project designed to develop the main components of artisanal fishing. 93 and another named tuna industry development as a priority

86 FFA referred to the establishment of the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Commission as important for the sustainable management and development of tuna resources in a coordinated way in the region. It will enable the small Pacific coastal States and territories to work together with DWFNs on this issue. FFA will assist its member countries in the work of the commission. 87 SEAFO’s priority is to obtain the necessary instruments of ratification of the Convention by signatory parties. 88 IATTC referred to the importance of updating and improving the existing Convention in order to make it more effective. This is also an opportunity to apply the new fisheries management principles that have been recently negotiated. 89 CECAF. At its Sixteenth Session in October 2002, the Committee felt that the status quo of the Committee should be maintained and, in particular, that it could continue to operate as an advisory body set up under Article VI, paragraph 2 of the FAO Constitution. It agreed that the work of the Committee should be more focused and revised the Terms of Reference of CECAF. The Committee recommended that, without prejudice to the proposal that the current status quo of CECAF be maintained, the Director General should keep under review the issue of a possible framework for the high seas. To this effect, it requested the Director General to convene an Legal and Technical Consultation to address the matter before the Seventeenth Session of CECAF. 90 SPC and GFCM. The latter reported that promoting economically and socially sustainable aquaculture is the objective of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ). Pursuant to an exercise for “ regionalizing” Article 9 of the Code of Conduct, CAQ has adopted a P lan of Action in this respect. 91 EIFAC reported that specific recommendations were prepared by the EIFAC/EC Working Party on Market Perspectives of European Freshwater Aquaculture in 2001, to be followed up by the International Conference on Aquaculture Economics/Marketing. 92 COPESCAL. 93 CCPS reported that the main objective of the CPPS /Artisanal Fisheries: Analysis and Development Project in the Southeast Pacific has is to help develop the main components of artisanal fisheries. The main components include: appropriate fishing technologies, fishing craft and gear, fishing methods and activities, increased production, enhanced marketing and higher income with a view to furthering food security (increased supply of fishery products), and boosting work opportunities and economic incomes; in brief, helping improve the quality of life of artisanal fisheries communities. Baseline studies on the biology, fishery, fishing effort and landings of the main fishery resources harvested by artisanal fisheries will lead to regional analysis and, in particular, to the preparation of a fisheries development project to be submitted to selected sources of economic and financial assistance for implementation.

17

issue.94 Assistance with activities for the processing, preservation and marketing of fish and fish products of inland fisheries was cited as a priority by an inland RFB.95 Issues not related to the development of specific fisheries include a need to assess the cumulative impact of development,96 and to assist member States with the change in balance between subsistence and commercial fisheries.97 I.3 Summary of Responses on the Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments RFBs were requested to provide information regarding recent activities, priorities or plans to implement the post-UNCED fishery instruments, including the four International Plans of Action (IPOA) adopted since 1999:

• 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement; • 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement; • 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing; • IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries; • IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks;. • IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity; • IPOA on the Prevention, Deterrence and Elimination of IUU Fishing.

Detailed responses from RFBs are included in the text under the relevant organization in sections II - VIII,

below, and a chart showing the responses in summary form is in APPENDIX 5. Commentary in the section 1.1 above, regarding the indicative nature of the responses, diversities in mandates and other factors among RFBs and other variables is applicable to the interpretation of trends in this area. For example, if an RFB did not indicate implementation of an instrument, this may only apply to direct action for implementation and not indirectly in the context of action on related matters. However, it is apparent that a similar number of RFBs are taking action on the implementation of all instruments across the board, but the individual RFBs vary among the instruments. The only instrument that does not appear to have attracted a similar level of action is the IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, but many RFBs do not have a mandate for this activity. I.4 Summary of Responses on Activities Addressing Specific Issues RFBs were requested to indicate if their RFB has recently undertaken any activity, priorities or plans in relation to the following specific issues:

• Implementation of the precautionary approach • Addressing ecosystem based fisheries management • Assessment of extent, impact, effects of IUU fishing in area of competence • Strengthening RFB’s capacity to deal more effectively with conservation, management issues • Addressing issues relating to capacity • Accommodating new entrants • Catch certification and documentation

94 FFA reported that its members are determined to see more private sector tuna-based economic activities, and to improve their domestic retention of economic and social benefits from the tuna industry. FFA will assist this by providing or coordinating expert advice in particular areas of interest. 95 COPESCAL‘s aim is to increase income of population involved in the area, by enhancing their possibilities to access to markets and to better prices. 96 One component of the MRC Fisheries Programme is Ecology and Impact Assessment, where the cumulative impacts of development are to be assessed. 97 SPC. An attendant need is identified to develop environmentally sound small scale coastal-based fishing enterprises, working in collaboration with the larger-scale tuna fisheries economic development work of FFA.

18

Of these, it appeared that the three issues on which most activity is taking place are implementation of the precautionary approach, addressing ecosystem based fisheries management and strengthening the RFB’s capacity to deal more effectively with conservation and management issues. This reflects to a great extent the results of the survey described in Part 1.2 on important issues for RFBs. The ecosystem approach and financial/institutional strengthening matters were each named by many RFBs as important. The other four issues each were designated by a similar number of RFBs, which was about half the number that designated each of the first three issues. Details of the activities undertaken in relation to the specific issues are described under the relevant RFB in Parts II – X of this document. RFBs were also asked to name any other issue of concern to them, and these appear beneath the chart in Appendix 6. These issues mostly pertain to the specific work of the RFB with no apparent trends.

19

II. REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND ADJACENT SEAS II.1 Atlantic Africa Fisheries Conference: Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (AAFC)98 The Convention on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean was signed at Dakar, Senegal, on 5 July 1991. The institutional framework of the Convention comprises the Conference of Ministers, the Bureau and the Secretariat. The Convention entered into force on 12 July 1995.

Map 3 – FAO Statistical Areas 34 and 47 - Coincides with AAFC Area

Area of Competence The area covered by the Convention is not defined in precise terms. Under Article I the convention applies to the African States bordering the Atlantic Ocean and then it defines "regions" as the area comprising those States. This area coincides with parts of the FAO Statistical Areas 34 and 47, as shown in Map 3. Species Covered The Convention applies to all fishery resources. Membership The Convention is open for ratification, approval or acceptance only by the following States: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape-Verde, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Morocco, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo and Zaire.

98 This information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

20

Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Convention are to enable the Parties inter alia to (i) promote an active and organized cooperation in the area of fisheries management and development in the region, and (ii) take up the challenge of food self-sufficiency through the rational utilization of fishery resources, within the context of an integrated approach that would embrace all the components of the fishing sector. Under Article 3, Parties should combine their efforts to ensure the conservation and rational management of their fishery resources and take concerted action for the assessment of fish stocks occurring within the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of more than one Party. In addition, contracting Parties should endeavour to adopt harmonized policies concerning the conservation, management and exploitation of fishery resources, in particular with regard to the determination of catch quotas and, as appropriate, the adoption of joint regulation of fishing seasons. II.2 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) Established by Resolution 1/48 of the FAO Council at its Forty-eighth Session held in Rome in June 1967 under Article VI (2) of the FAO Constitution. Its Statutes were promulgated by the Director-General on 19 September 1967 and were amended by the FAO Council in November 1992. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Committee is defined as all the waters of the Atlantic bounded by a line drawn as follows: from a point on the high water mark on the African coast at Cape Spartel (lat. 35o47'N, long.5o55'W) following the high water mark along the African coast to a point at Ponta da Moita Seca (lat.6o07'S, long.12o16'E) along a rhumb line in a northwesterly direction to a point on 6o south latitude and 12o west longitude, thence due north to the Equator, thence due west to 30o west longitude, thence due north to 5o north latitude, thence due west to 40o west longitude, thence due north to 36o north latitude, thence due east to 6o west longitude, thence along a rhumb line in a southeasterly direction to the original point at Cape Spartel. This area mostly coincides with FAO Statistical Area 34 (Map 4). Species Covered The Committee covers all living marine resources within its area of competence. Membership The members of the Committee are selected by the Director-General of FAO from Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO in Africa whose territory borders the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Spartel to the mouth of the Congo River as well as such other Member Nations and Associate Members fishing in the area, carrying out research, or having fisheries interest thereof whose contribution to the work of the Committee the Director-General deems to be essential or desirable. The present members of CECAF are: Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, European Community, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Italy, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Liberia, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, Togo, USA and Zaire. Main Objectives and Activities The objectives of the Committee are to promote within its area of competence the sustainable utilization of the living marine resources by the proper management and development of the fisheries and fishing operations. The Committee does not have regulatory powers but can adopt recommendations on management issues. At its Sixteenth Session in October 2002, the Committee felt that the status quo of the Committee should be maintained and, in particular, that it could continue to operate as an advisory body set up under Article VI, paragraph 2 of the FAO Constitution.

21

Map 4 – FAO Statistical Area 34 – Coincides with CECAF Area

22

It agreed that the work of the Committee should be more focused and revised the Terms of Reference of CECAF. The Committee recommended that, without prejudice to the proposal that the current status quo of CECAF be maintained, the Director General should keep under review the issue of a possible framework for the high seas. To this effect, it requested the Director General to convene an Legal and Technical Consultation to address the matter before the Seventeenth Session of CECAF. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments Members are encouraged at meetings to accept the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, and are sensitised to the importance of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Members are also encouraged to incorporate relevant parts of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct in their legislation and policies. The Secretariat is working on national stakeholder sensitization programmes. After an initial sub-regional workshop on sensitizing national authorities to the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity, there are plans to organise more workshops for decision-makers and planners in the region. CECAF is also sensitizing Members on the dangers of IUU fishing and consulting regional institutions on ways to strengthen MCS to curb illegal fishing. There are no activities or plans regarding the IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries or the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Addressing Specific Issues Implementation of precautionary approach to fisheries management is recommended to Members by the CECAF Scientific Sub-Committee in its pelagic and demersal resources management recommendations. Ecosystem-based fisheries management was introduced at the Second Session of the CECAF Scientific Sub-Committee and the 16th Session of CECAF. CECAF has worked towards strengthening the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues through developing revised Terms of Reference of the Committee at a Technical Consultation, which were endorsed by the 16th Session in October 2002.

Issues relating to fleet capacity were introduced in discussions of the Committee as a reminder to members. To accommodate new entrants, the Netherlands was welcomed as a new member and Angola and Namibia have been encouraged to join CECAF after attending sessions as observer. There have been no activities relating to the assessment of IUU fishing, or catch certification and documentation. II.3 Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina/Uruguay Maritime Front (COFREMAR) Established by the Agreement "Tratado del Río de la Plata y sus Frente Maritimo", signed by Argentina and Uruguay in 1973. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Joint Technical Commission is referred to in the Agreement as the Common Fishing Zone of the Contracting Parties in the South Atlantic (Map 5).

23

Map 5 – COFREMAR Common Fishing Zone

Species Covered All marine living resources of the Common Fishing Zone are covered by the Commission. Membership The membership of the Commission consists of Argentina and Uruguay. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Commission are to adopt and coordinate plans and measures relevant to conservation, preservation and the rational exploitation of living resources and to protect the maritime environment in the Common Fishing Zone. The Commission has regulatory powers setting quotas for each Party in the Common Fishery Zone.

24

Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments The COFREMAR follows the basic principles in the1995 FAO Code of Conduct and applies the Code in

its decisions as a precautionary measure.

The COFREMAR is at present initiating the study on chondrycthies (rays and sharks) in the Common Fishing Zone. In the future, due attention will be given to the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks. The COFREMAR adopts measures for the management of fisheries (main commercial species) in the Common Fishing Zone. Account will be taken of the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity.

Although the IPOA on the Prevention, Deterrence and Elimination of IUU Fishing is under the responsibility of the respective Parties to the Treaty, the Commission is engaged in the research for the implementation of a satellite tracking system, which would be useful for attain the aims in the IPOA. The 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement has been ratified by Argentina and Uruguay, and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement has been ratified by Uruguay, but neither instrument is applicable to the Common Fishing Zone. Similarly, in practice the IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries is not applicable to the Common Fishing Zone because the COFREMAR is currently targeting work on demersal species. Addressing Specific Issues When adopting management measures the COFREMAR takes into account the precautionary principles. Regarding ecosystem-based fisheries management, the Treaty provides that the COFREMAR shall establish norms and measures related to the rational exploitation of fisheries and the equilibrium of the bioecological systems. As noted above, the Commission is engaged in the research for the implementation of a satellite tracking system, which would be useful to assess IUU fishing. To strengthen the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues, the COFREMAR has technical cooperation arrangements with Fishery Research Institutes of the two Parties. The COFREMAR undertakes research on fishing capacity or effort, and has established a task group on catch reporting and processing. Another priority issue is being addressed in a GEF project, to which the COFREMAR is party, directed to the protection of the Common Fishing Zone marine environment. The Treaty is a bilateral instrument, so accommodation of new entrants is not an issue. II.4 Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (Comité régional des pêches du Golfe de Guinée (COREP)99 Established by the Convention Concerning the Regional Development of Fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea, signed at Libreville, Gabon, on 21 June 1984. The Convention has not yet entered into force. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Committee is defined as the Central and Southern Gulf of Guinea. Species Covered The species covered by the Committee are all living resources within its area of competence. 99 This information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

25

Membership The Convention is open for signature and accession to States bordering the Gulf of Guinea. The present members of the Committee are as follows: Congo, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, and Zaire. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Convention inter alia are (i) to determine a concerted attitude towards the activities of foreign fishing vessels and give priority to the needs of fishing vessels originating from member countries; (ii) to harmonize the national regulations with a view to having a unified regulation fixing the conditions of fishing and the control of fishing operations in the area covered by the Convention, and (iii) to collect the maximum scientific, technical and economic data on fishing operations.

II.5 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Established by an Agreement drawn up in Rome on 24 September 1949 under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution and approved by the FAO Conference at its Fifth Session in 1949. The Agreement entered into force on 20 February 1952. It was amended in 1963, 1976 and 1997. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission is the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and connecting waters. (Map 7). This area coincides with FAO Statistical Area 37. Species Covered The Agreement applies to all living marine resources in the area covered by the GFCM. At its Tenth Session in 1976 the Commission noted that since the establishment of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in 1966, this body had also had a mandate for the monitoring and management of tuna resources of the Mediterranean as an adjacent sea to the Atlantic. The Commission acknowledged the work done by ICCAT in connection with Mediterranean tuna resources and expressed willingness for increased collaboration with ICCAT. Since 1990 the two bodies have held regular Expert Consultations on Stocks of Large Pelagic Fishes in the Mediterranean. Membership Membership of GFCM is open to Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. Other States that are Members of the United Nations, any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted as members by a two-thirds majority of the Commission’s membership. The present members of GFCM are: Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the European Union, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Commission are to promote the development, conservation, rational management and best utilization of living marine resources in its area of competence. The Commission is empowered to formulate and recommend appropriate management measures including the regulation of fishing methods and fishing gears, the prescription of the minimum size for individuals of specified species, the establishment of open and closed seasons, and the regulation of the amount of total catch and fishing effort and their allocation among members. The management measures adopted by the Commission are subject to objection procedure. Currently, the countries bordering the Black Sea are negotiating a convention for the Black Sea fisheries.

26

Map 6 – FAO Statistical Area 37 – Corresponds to the GFCM Area

27

Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

Pursuant to the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, two related Resolutions100 were adopted in 1995 for the provision of data of fleets over 15m length overall. Three (3) member countries have ratified the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Reference to the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct was introduced in 1997 in the Preamble of the Agreement establishing the Commission. In addition, several member countries have translated the Code in their own language; and have organized information tools and related workshops. A Consultation on the application of Article 9 of the Code in the Mediterranean region has been organized leading to the adoption of a Plan of Action on Responsible Aquaculture. Regarding the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of sharks, National and a Regional Action Plans are being formulated in collaboration with the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (RAC/SPA). The issue is monitored by the SAC Sub-committee on Marine Ecosystem and Environment. Three shark species have added to the list of priority species with regard to fisheries management. Fleet segmentation and socio-economic indicators have been defined pursuant to the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity. A first Seminar on the management of Fishing Capacity was organized in October, 2002. Methodologies to assess capacity are under review. The issue of IUU fishing was tackled in 1998, but no reported practical follow-up is reported as of 2002. Addressing Specific Issues The implementation of the precautionary approach to fisheries management is included as Article III.2 of the 1997 amended Agreement, and the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) is working on defining reference points. The issue of ecosystem-based fisheries management is dealt with in the SAC Sub-committee on Marine Environment and Ecosystem. Pilot implementation is being organized in the Sicily Channel through one of the supporting GFCM Regional projects (MEDSUDMED). The issue is on the agenda of the 27th Session of the Commission in November 2002. Although IUU fishing was considered in 1998, practical action is still pending. The Commission’s endorsement of sustainable fisheries principles entailed adapting, in 1997, the Agreement establishing GFCM. Amendments to the Agreement, which would strengthen the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management measures, included:

• change of name, from Council to Commission; • allowing membership of regional economic integration organization; • institutional restructuring: establishment of a Scientific Advisory Committee backed by four sub-

committees (stock assessments; economics and social sciences; information and statistics; ecosystem and environment); and establishment of a Committee on Aquaculture backed with subsidiaries;

• establishment of an autonomous budget; • yearly meetings of the Commission (instead of biannual); • endorsement of precautionary approach; and • an enhanced decision making process to formulate binding management measures.

To address capacity, the Commission’s task to implement fishing effort control for multi-species, multi-scale; multi-gear shared fisheries entails, on an ongoing basis: 100 Nos. 95/2 and 95/4

28

• defining indicators of sustainability (economic and social indicators; biological reference points; environmental benchmarks).

• consolidating a statistical base; • defining management units; and • agreeing upon fleet segmentation to monitor fishing capacity.

To accommodate new entrants, the Agreement was amended in 1997 to allow membership of economic organizations and to open membership to “ States or Associate Members whose vessels engage in fishing in the Region for stocks covered by the Agreement” (new article I.2 (ii)). As a consequence, Japan (1997) and the EU (1998) became members. In relation to catch certification, initiatives include the consolidation of the database, and discussion of the issue of labelling aquaculture products.

A priority issue for GFCM is to ensure that there is necessary funding to fulfil its mandate. II.6 International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) Established by the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and Belt, signed at Gdansk on 13 September 1973 and entered into force on 28 July 1974. Area of Competence The area covered by the Convention, "the Convention Area", is all the waters of the Baltic Sea and the Belts, excluding internal waters bounded in the west by a line from Hasenore Head to Gniben Point, and from Korshagae to Spodsbierg and from Gilbierg Head to the Kullen (Map 6). Species Covered The Convention applies to all fish species and other living marine resources in the Convention Area. Membership The Convention is open for accession to any State interested in preservation and rational exploitation of living resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts, provided that such a State is invited by the Contracting States. The present membership consists of Estonia, the European Community, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Convention are to preserve and increase the living resources of the Baltic Sea and the Belts and to obtain the optimum yield, in particular, to expand and coordinate studies towards these ends and to put into effect organizational and technical projects on conservation and growth of the living resources on a just and equitable basis as well as take other steps towards rational and effective exploitation of the living resources. The Commission has the duty to keep under review the living resources and the fisheries in the Convention Area and to prepare and submit recommendations concerning inter alia the regulation of fishing gear, closed seasons, closed areas, and the total allowable catch and its allocation among Contracting Parties. The decisions of the Commission are subject to an objection procedure. The total allowable catches for herring, sprat, cod and salmon as well as their allocations among member States are set annually by the Commission. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

The following plans and strategies adopted by IBSFC implement the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct:

29

• Salmon Action Plan 1997 – 2010 to restore the wild salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea region (February

1997); • Long Term Management Strategy for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea (September 1999);

• Long Term Management Strategy for the sprat stock in the Baltic Sea (September 2000); and • Cod Recovery Plan (September 2001).

The IBSFC Fishery Rules on Control and Enforcement, adopted in 1994, address the following issues in the IPOA-IUU Fishing:

• monthly reporting to the Commission of catch/rate of utilisation of available catch allocation; • monthly reporting of landings from other Parties in the ports of the Contracting Parties;

• yearly reporting of the number and name of vessels authorized to fish cod in the Baltic sea.

In addition, there are Joint Inspection Programmes with the participation of all coastal States, involving an exchange of inspectors. They have been carried out for the first half of 2001 and 2002, and are planned for the entire year of 2003. Addressing Specific Issues The precautionary approach is implemented by IBSFC through its implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct, including its long term management strategies noted above. Regarding ecosystem based management, UNEP (2001)101 considered IBSFC as a Pioneer in applying the eco-system approach in Fishery Management. IBSFC has cooperated since 1992 with HELCOM - the Environment Commission for the Baltic Sea Region. A joint meeting of IBSFC and HELCOM was held in February 2002 on Fishery and Environment, which resulted in conclusions relating to joint actions. This was the first meeting between an international fishery organization and an environment commission. Since 2002 there has been cooperation with ASCOBANS (Agreement on Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Sea to protect the Harbour Porpoises in the Baltic Sea). IBSFC has taken measures to implement the IPOA-IUU fishing, as noted above, and the organization’s capacity has been strengthend to deal more effectively with conservation and management issues under the "Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region". Adopted at ministerial level in June 1998 by all coastal States of the Baltic Sea and the EU (effective until 2030), IBSFC was appointed Lead Party for the "Fisheries" sector (covering the Baltic Sea proper, the coastal waters, the inland waters and aquaculture). In this capacity IBSFC, in 1998, elaborated biological, economic and social indicators for the “ Fisheries" sector.

Regarding catch certification and documentation, all Contracting Parties of IBSFC have established licences for all fishing vessels operating in the Baltic Sea.

101 Ecosystem based Management of Fisheries, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No 175 (UNEP 2001).

30

II.7 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Established by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, signed in Rio de Janeiro, on 14 May 1966 and entered into force on 21 March 1969. The Convention was amended in 1984 and 1992102. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission is defined as "all waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent seas". There is no precise delimitation of this area by lines of longitude and latitude. This rather broad definition was established in order to encompass all waters of the Atlantic Ocean in which tunas were likely to be found. This area corresponds in most part to FAO Statistical Areas 41, 47, 48 (part of it), 31, 34, 37, 21 and 27 (See Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the Commission are the tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombrioformes with the exception of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention Area as are not under investigation by another international organization. Membership The membership of ICCAT is open to any State which is a member of the United Nations or of any Specialized Agency of the United Nations. The Paris Protocol of 1984 amending Article XIV on membership also allows intergovernmental economic integration organization constituted by States that have transferred to its competence over the matters governed by the convention to become a member. The present members of ICCAT are: Algeria, Angola, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Equatorial Guinea, European Community, France (St. Pierre and Miquelon), Gabon, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Honduras, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Panama, Russia, Sao Tomé and Principe, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom (Overseas Territories), United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Main Objectives and Activities The main objective of the Convention is to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like species found in the Atlantic at levels which permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes. The Commission's functions inter alia include: (i) to study the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes, (ii) to collect and analyse statistical information relating to the current conditions and trends of the tuna fishery resources of the Convention Area, and (iii) recommend studies and investigations to the Contracting Parties. The Commission has no regulatory powers, but makes regulatory recommendations to be implemented by Contracting Parties. ICCAT has recommended a number of measures on catch quotas, minimum weight of fish and limitation of incidental catches, as well as IUU fishing. The regulatory recommendations adopted by ICCAT are subject to an objection procedure. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

ICCAT indicates its implementation of the post-UNCED fishery instruments by including post-UNCED fishery agreements on its website, to which reference is made in accompanying text.

102 The 1984 Protocol concerned Article XIV of the Convention allowing the membership of the Commission by intergovernmental economic integration organization constituted by States that have transferred to its competence over the matters governed by the Convention. The 1992 Protocol concerned Article X of the Convention on financial contributions of Members.

31

The number of resolutions and recommendations adopted annually by ICCAT has increased dramatically over the past decade. Many of these support the post-UNCED Fishery Instruments. One example is the Resolution adopted at its Ninth Special Meeting (Madrid, November-December, 1994), Regarding the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, which states that the Contracting Parties should take the necessary measures as soon as possible to maintain a register of all high seas fishing vessels greater than 24 meters in length and provide ICCAT with this information annually. ICCAT encourages non-Contracting parties to do the same. In 1999, ICCAT published a list of around 340 longline tuna fishing vessels claimed to be involved in IUU fishing and flagged to countries operating open registers.

The ICCAT Resolution Concerning the Unreported and Unregulated Catches of Tunas by Large-Scale Longline Vessels in the Convention Area adopted at the 11th Special Meeting in Spain, 1998 requires the Commission to request the Contracting Parties, Cooperating Parties, entities or fishing entities which import or land frozen tuna and tuna-like products to submit specified information on an annual basis. The Compliance Committee and Permanent Working Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics must then identify those whose vessels diminish the effectiveness of management measures. ICCAT may then request the revocation of their vessel registration or fishing licenses. Addressing Specific Issues ICCAT has a scheme for port inspection as well as a Compliance Committee. ICCAT also has a Permanent Working Group on ICCAT Statistics and Conservation Measures, and the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). The SCRS has a subcommittee on the Environment, which studies the effects on the environment.

Two special Working Groups have been established in the Commission: Working Group on Allocation Criteria and Working Group to Develop Integrated Monitoring Measures. ICCAT has established an ad hoc working group on the precautionary approach. II.8 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)103 Established by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, concluded at Ottawa, Canada, on 24 October 1978 and entered into force on 1 January 1979. Area of Competence The area of competence of NAFO "the Convention Area" is defined as "the waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean north of 35oN latitude and west of a line extending due north from 35oN latitude and 42oW longitude to 59oN latitude, thence due west to 44oW longitude, and thence due north to the coast of Greenland, and the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Davis Strait and Baffin Bay south of 78o10'N latitude" . This area coincides exactly with FAO Statistical Area 21 (Map 7). The Convention provides for the establishment of "Regulatory Area" which is that part of the Convention Area lying beyond the areas under the fisheries jurisdiction of Coastal States. Species Covered NAFO covers all fishery resources with the following exceptions: salmon, tunas and marlins, cetacean stocks managed by the International Whaling Commission or any successor organization, and sedentary species of the continental shelf.

103 This information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

32

Map 7 – FAO Statistical Area 21 - Corresponds to the NAFO Regulatory Area

33

Membership The Convention is open for accession by other States. The membership of the Fisheries Commission is reviewed annually by the Organization's General Council and should consist of (a) Contracting Parties which participate in the Fisheries of the Regulatory Area, and (b) Contracting Parties which provide satisfactory evidence to the General Council of its expected participation in the fisheries of the Regulatory Area during the year of that annual meeting or during the following calendar year. The present Contracting Parties are: Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands & Greenland), Estonia, European Community, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, and the USA. Main Objectives and Activities The main objective of the Convention as set out in its Preamble is to promote the conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic area within a framework appropriate to the regime of extended coastal States jurisdiction over fisheries, and accordingly to encourage international cooperation and consultation with respect to these resources. The Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Regulatory Area. The Fisheries Commission, within the Regulatory Area, may adopt proposals for international measures of control and enforcement within the Regulatory Area for the purpose of ensuring the application of the Convention and execution of the main functions of NAFO. The Commission resolves on the allocations of the catches in the Regulatory Area to the Contracting Parties and maintains a scheme of joint international inspection for providing surveillance and inspection of international fisheries in the Regulatory Area. The proposals of the Fisheries Commission are subject to the objection procedure. The Convention provides that the Contracting Parties may invite the attention of any State not a Party to this Convention to any matter relating to the fishing activities in the Regulatory Area of the nationals or vessels of that State which appear to affect adversely the attainment of the objectives of this Convention. II.9 North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) Established by the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, signed in Reykjavik, Iceland, on 2 March 1982 and entered into force on 1 October 1983. Area of Competence The Convention applies to the salmon stocks which migrate beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States of the Atlantic Ocean north of 36oN latitude throughout their migratory range. The area of competence of NASCO coincides with FAO Statistical Area 27 and part of Area 21 (See Map 2). This area is subdivided into three regions serviced by three different commissions: (1) The North American Commission covers all maritime waters within areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States off the east coast of North America; (2) the West Greenland Commission covers all maritime waters within the area of fisheries jurisdiction off the coast of West Greenland west of a line drawn along 44oW longitude south to 59oN latitude, thence due east to 42oW longitude and thence due south; and (3) the North East Atlantic Commission covers all maritime waters east of the line mentioned above. Species Covered Salmon.

34

Membership The Convention is open for accession by any State that exercises fisheries jurisdiction in the North Atlantic Ocean or is a State of origin for salmon stocks provided it is approved by the Council. The present members of NASCO are: Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the European Union, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the USA.104 Main Objectives and Activities

The objective of NASCO is to contribute to the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of salmon stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean. Regulatory measures have been agreed by the regional Commissions of NASCO in most years since the Organization’s establishment. These measures, together with those introduced by NASCO’s Contracting Parties, have greatly reduced the harvest of Atlantic salmon. In contrast, there has been a dramatic increase in the production of farmed Atlantic salmon from less than 30,000 tonnes in 1984 to more than 600,000 tonnes in 2001. The Council of NASCO is increasingly concerned about genetic, disease and parasite and other impacts of cultured fish on the wild salmon stocks. In 1994, the Council adopted a Resolution containing measures to minimise the impacts of aquaculture on the wild stocks and a Liaison Group has been established with the salmon farming industry to provide a forum for cooperation on issues of mutual concern. The Liaison Group has developed Guidelines for Containment of Farm Salmon.

In response to concerns about the increased marine mortality of salmon NASCO has established an International Cooperative Salmon Research Board to oversee a research programme into the causes of marine mortality of salmon and the opportunities to counteract this mortality. The Board is also considering the issue of the possible bycatch of Atlantic salmon in pelagic fisheries in the north-east Atlantic.

NASCO has taken steps to improve the comparability of catch statistics and to minimise the level of unreported catches. Databases have been established of laws, regulations and programmes, of salmon rivers, and of the measures taken to minimise the impacts of aquaculture and of introductions and transfers. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments Regarding implementation of the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, fishing for salmon beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction, and in most cases beyond 12 nautical miles, by NASCO’s Contracting Parties is prohibited under the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean. NASCO has taken action to eliminate fishing for salmon in international waters by non-Contracting Parties. The Compliance Agreement, when it enters into force, should be a helpful initiative complementary to NASCO’s actions. NASCO has welcomed the adoption by consensus of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and although the Agreement does not apply to Atlantic salmon, it contains provisions which can contribute to the international conservation and management of Atlantic salmon. NASCO has undertaken many activities to implement the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct, including Article 7 (Fisheries Management), Article 8 (Fishing Operations) and Article 12 (Fisheries Research). Among its activities in relation to fisheries management, it has taken measures to ensure the level of fishing is commensurate with the state of fisheries resources, to allow depleted stocks to recover and containing stock specific target reference points. It has also addressed the selectivity of fishing gear, prohibited destructive fishing methods and practices, addressed fishing capacity, the biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems, the interests of small scale fishers and the protection of endangered species. NASCO has provided for stakeholder participation in determining management decisions.

104 NASCO has taken steps to increase the transparency of its work and has 28 accredited non-government organizations. Inter-government organizations and the media may also attend meetings.

35

In relation to fishing operations under the Code of Conduct, NASCO has taken diplomatic action to eliminate fishing for salmon in international waters by non-contracting parties, and action to minimise illegal fishing and other sources of unreported catch. For fisheries research, models of fishery abundance have been developed for both North American and European stocks. Detailed information on stock status is derived from monitored rivers. Data is obtained from commercial fisheries, research vessel surveys and in-port sampling surveys. The IPOA-IUU Fishing is the only IPOA applicable to NASCO. In that regard, there are two main issues being addressed by the Council of relevance to the IPOA-IUU Fishing. These are unreported catches (including those from illegal fishing) by the Contracting Parties and unregulated fishing by non-Contracting Parties in international waters in the North-East Atlantic Commission. In addition, the Council is concerned about the level of harvests of salmon at St. Pierre and Miquelon. Although this fishery is subject to domestic regulations and a bilateral agreement with Canada, the Council is taking action consistent with the IPOA-IUU Fishing. Addressing Specific Issues NASCO and its Contracting Parties have agreed to adopt and apply the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of salmon in order to protect the resource and preserve the environments in which it lives. To assist in application of the precautionary approach the Council has developed:

• a decision structure for management of salmon fisheries; and • a Plan of Action for Habitat Protection and Restoration.

As the next step, NASCO will be considering:

• application of the precautionary approach to introductions and transfers, aquaculture and transgenics; and

• how social and economic factors can be taken into account without undermining the effectiveness of the precautionary approach.

NASCO has developed agreements in relation to minimising impacts of introductions and transfers on wild

salmon stocks. This is intended to address some consequences of the dramatic increase in production of farmed salmon in recent years, to more than 300 times the harvest of wild salmon. The concerns relate to genetic, disease, parasite and other impacts of cultured fish on the wild stocks in view of the increasing interest in the introductions and transfer of species, and increasing pressure to remove barriers to trade.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management is enhanced by the Organization’s adoption of its internally agreed

Plan of Action for Habitat Protection and Restoration, which applies to the salmon’s freshwater environment. NASCO has undertaken a range of activities in relation to IUU fishing in its area of competence. It has taken

action to eliminate fishing for salmon in international waters in the North-East Atlantic by non-Contracting Parties, including the following.

• The Council adopted a Protocol for States not Party to the Convention for the Conservation of

Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, calling for each Party to the Protocol to prohibit fishing for salmon beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction.

• The Council’s Resolution Concerning St Pierre and Miquelon, adopted in 2000, urged France to set

harvest levels at the lowest possible level consistent with the advice from ICES. It also requests France to inform NASCO of the measures it has taken to address NASCO’s concerns about harvest levels at St Pierre and Miquelon.

• The Resolution on Fishing for Salmon on the High Seas adopted in 1992 contains agreed

mechanisms for the exchange of information in relation to fishing for salmon in international waters, encouraging Contracting Parties to transmit to the Secretary information concerning sightings of

36

fishing activities on the high seas of the North Atlantic which may undermine NASCO’s conservation measures. The Resolution also requests the Secretary to draw the attention of non-Contracting Parties to the activities of their vessels, and Diplomatic Notes have been sent in this regard.

• NASCO has also taken steps to coordinate surveillance activities and enhance the flow of information

from these activities. The high level of unreported catch by NASCO member is also a concern (estimated at 31 – 45percent of the reported catch), and while progress is being made in reducing the level of unreported catches, the Council has emphasized the need to take further measures. II.10 Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Established by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northeast Atlantic Fisheries, opened for signature in London on 18 November 1980 and entered into force on 17 March 1982. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission (Map 8) is defined as the waters within those parts of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and their dependent seas which lie north of 36oN latitude and between 42oW longitude and 51oE longitude; within that part of the Atlantic Ocean north of 59oN latitude and between 44oW and 42oW longitude. The Baltic Sea and the belts and the Mediterranean Sea and its dependent seas are excluded from the Commission's area of competence. This area of competence coincides with most of FAO Statistical Area 27 . Species Covered The Commission covers fishery resources of the Northeast Atlantic with the exception of marine mammals, sedentary species and, insofar as they are dealt with by other international agreements, highly migratory species and anadromous stocks. Membership Membership of the Commission is open to the founding members (Article 20). Accession to the Convention by other States is subject to the approval of three quarters of the Contracting Parties. The present Members of the Commission are: Denmark (in respect of Faroe Island and Greenland, the European Community, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Russian Federation. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Commission are to provide a forum for Consultation and exchange of information on the state of fisheries resources in the Northeast Atlantic and on related management policies to ensure the conservation and optimum utilization of such resources, and to recommend conservation measures in waters outside national jurisdiction. The Commission is empowered to recommend measures applicable to the high seas concerning (i) the conduct of fisheries (ii) the control of fisheries and (iii) the collection of statistical information. In recent years, NEAFC has agreed on measures such as setting total allowable catches for certain species and establishing minimum fish sizes and mesh sizes. The recommendations formulated by NEAFC are subject to the objection procedure.

37

Map 8 – NEAFC Area of Competence

38

Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments The rapid development of NEAFC from 1996 and onwards came in response to developments in UNCED 1992, the entering into force of the 1982 Convention and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and general developments in international law of the oceans. An independent secretariat was established pursuant to a 1998 decision, and other significant decisions include Schemes for Control and Enforcement and to Promote Compliance by Non-Contracting Parties (1998), introduction of a satellite vessel monitoring system (1999) and recommendations on dispute settlement and transparency (2001). In addition, decisions have been taken since 1996 on TACs and allocations for oceanic redfish, Atlanto Scandian spring spawning herring and mackerel, a closed area has been agreed for trawl fishing to protect haddock and management of deepsea fisheries has been reviewed.

All four IPOAs are being addressed at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Commission in 2002, and the IPOA-IUU Fishing, addressed extensively at the 20th Annual Meeting, is a recurrent item on the Annual Meeting agenda.

Addressing Specific Issues The precautionary approach is built into the scientific advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. NEAFC has added ecosystem concerns to its agenda and will be monitoring developments to include these in the management of the stocks in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. NEAFC has made IUU fishing a permanent item on the agenda of the Commission to ensure that NEAFC practices conform with trends in international law. Since 1997, NEAFC has brought 3 main fisheries under sustainable management in its Regulatory Area (pelagic redfish, Norwegian spring-spawning herring and mackerel). For blue whiting management plans have been agreed, but allocation is still outstanding. The next step will be to agree on management measures for deep-sea species in the Regulatory Area.

The NEAFC scheme established a control and enforcement system based on the NEAFC VMS automated database. Since its introduction in 2000 coverage by automatic position messages has reached almost 100 percent. Information in the database is automatically available to inspection services operating in the NEAFC Regulatory Area.

A proposal for amending the Convention to allow the fast settlement of disputes if the parties involved agree will be put before the Annual Meeting in November this year. Rules for other less demanding procedures have been agreed. If the amendment to the Convention is agreed, it is the intended to apply these provisionally, pending their entry into force.

Accommodation of new entrants is on the Commission’s agenda for the 21st Annual meeting in 2002.

NEAFC is investigating procedures for port control, and it is anticipated that the issue of catch certification will arise in that context II.11 Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO) The Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean was signed on 20 April 2001. It will enter into force 60 days after the date of deposit with the Depositary of the third instrument of ratification, accession, acceptance or approval at least one of which must be deposited by a coastal State. Area of Competence

All waters beyond areas of national jurisdiction in the area bounded by a line joining the following points along parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude:

39

beginning at the outer limit of waters under national jurisdiction at a point 6° South, thence due west along the 6º South parallel to the meridian 10° West, thence due north along the 10º West meridian to the equator, thence due west along the equator to the meridian 20° West, thence due south along the 20º West meridian to a parallel 50° South, thence due east along the 50º South parallel to the meridian 30° East, thence due north along the 30º East meridian to the coast of the African continent.

This corresponds to FAO Area 47 (see Map 2). Species Covered All fishery resources within the area of competence. Membership The nine signatory members are: Republic of Angola, Republic of Namibia, Republic of South Africa, United Kingdom on behalf of St. Helena, European Community, Republic of Korea, The Kingdom of Norway, Republic of Iceland and the United States of America. Main Objectives and Activities The objective of the Convention is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the Convention Area through the effective implementation of the Convention. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

The SEAFO Convention takes cognition of the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, the 1995 Fish

Stocks Agreement and the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct. Measures in the Agreements, the Code or the IPOAs cannot be put in place until the Convention comes into force and the Commission assumes its mandate. Certain provisions of the Convention require Contracting Parties to ensure compatibility and consistency with international conservation and management measures adopted for highly migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks.

Addressing Specific Issues Because the SEAFO Convention has not entered into force at the time of writing, there are no activities to report in relation to specific issues. II.12 Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries (SRCF/CSRP)105 The Convention for the Establishment of a Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries was signed by Cape-Verde, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and Senegal in Dakar, Senegal, on 29 March 1985. Guinea became a member of the Commission in 1987. The Convention has not yet entered into force. Area of Competence The Convention does not define the precise area covered by the Commission but references are made to "Sub-Region" and the EEZs of the Contracting Parties. Species Covered The Convention covers all fishery resources within its area of competence.

105 This information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

40

Membership The Membership of the Commission is as follows: Cape-Verde, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal. The Convention is open for accession to other States in the sub-region. Main Objectives and Activities The main objective of the Commission is to harmonize the long-term policies of Member States in the preservation, conservation and exploitation of the fisheries resources for the benefit of their respective populations. The Commission consists of the Conference of Ministers, the Coordinating Committee, and the Permanent Secretariat. The Conakry Convention concerning determination of conditions for foreign access to exploitation of the living resources in off-shore areas of SRCF Member States was signed by the Commission's Member States in 1989. II.13 Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) Established by Resolution 4/61 of the FAO Council at its Sixty-first Session held in Rome in November 1973 under Article VI (1) of the FAO Constitution. The Statutes of the Commission were amended by the FAO Council at its Seventy-fourth Session in December 1978. Area of Competence The Commission's area of competence is defined as all marine waters of the Western Central Atlantic bounded by a line drawn as follows: from a point on the coast of South America at 10oS latitude in a northerly direction along this coast past the Atlantic entry to the Panama canal; thence continue along the coasts of central and north America to a point on this coast at 35oN latitude; thence due east along this parallel to 42oW longitude; thence due north along this meridian to 36oN latitude; thence due east along this parallel to 40oW longitude; thence due south along this meridian to 5oN latitude; thence due east along this parallel to 30oW longitude; thence due south along this meridian to the Equator; thence due east along the Equator to 20oW longitude; thence due south along this meridian to 10oS latitude; thence due west along this parallel to the original point at 10oS latitude on the coast of South America. This area coincides with FAO Statistical Area 31 and part of Area 41 (See Map 2). Species Covered The Commission has competence to deal with all living marine resources. Membership The membership of the WECAFC is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO which notify the Director-General of their desire to be considered as members. The present members of the Commission are: Antigua and Burbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, European Community, France, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela. Main Objectives and Activities The goal of the Commission is to promote international cooperation for the conservation, development and sustainable utilisation of the living marine resources of the WECAFC Area. The main objectives of the Commission are to facilitate the coordination of research, to encourage education and training, to assist Member Governments in establishing rational policies and to promote the rational management of resources that are of interest for two or more countries. The Commission is not actively involved in fisheries management in the region. The responsibility for fisheries management is left to the member countries. WECAFC provides management advice or scientific information upon which management measures should be based. The Commission does not have any regulatory powers and can only perform advisory

41

functions on management. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments WECAFC does not have any specific activities/programmes that address these issues individually. WECAFC’s work programme/activities are implemented through ad hoc working groups based on geography/ecosystem (e.g. WECAFC Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf) or on species (e.g. WECAFC ad hoc working group on Caribbean Spiny Lobster) or on specific subjects (e.g. Anchored Fish Attracting Devices for small-scale fisheries) of interest to the member countries. These working groups have specific terms of reference and are time bound. All the issues in the post-UNCED fishery instruments are addressed at different levels by the working groups as they pertain to the specific geographic region (e.g. Brazil-Guiana Shelf) or fishery (e.g. Spiny Lobster). The goal is to achieve sustainable utilisation through effective fishery management and the participation of the resource users. Most post UNCED fishery instruments address specific issues and not the fishery. However, WECAFC does provide a vehicle for the international cooperation among States for the conservation, management and utilisation of living aquatic resources, and have generated renewed interest in collaboration at the regional level. Addressing Specific Issues Specific issues are addressed in varying degrees by each ad hoc working group as it relates to the fishery that is being addressed. However, with respect to the future role of the Commission it was agreed at its Ninth Session in September 1999 that responsible fisheries management requires sub-regional and regional cooperation through working groups for the application of the precautionary approach to fisheries of the WECAFC region.

42

III. INDIAN, INDO-PACIFIC OCEAN III.1 Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC) Established (as Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council) by an Agreement adopted at Baguio, Philippines, on 26 February 1948 under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution. The Agreement entered into force on 9 November 1948 and has been amended in 1952, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1977 and 1993. The 1976 amendment changed the title from Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council to Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission (IPFC). The 1993 amendments included the change of the title to Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission is referred to as Asia-Pacific area. There is no precise definition of this area by lines of longitude and latitude. The APFIC Committee on Marine Fisheries (COMAF) is responsible for the management of Asia-Pacific area with priority on marine fishery resources in the South China Sea and adjacent waters. It concentrates its activities in FAO Statistical Area 71 (see Map 2). Species Covered The Commission covers all living marine resources as well as living inland aquatic resources. APFIC Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Committee established in 1993 is responsible for the management and development of aquaculture and inland fisheries of Asia-Pacific area. Membership Membership of the Commission is open to Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO. Non-member States of FAO which are Members of the United Nations, or any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted as members by a two-thirds majority of the Commission's membership. The present members of APFIC are: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China (People's Republic of), France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Malaysia, Myanmar (Union of), Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Viet Nam. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of APFIC are to promote the full and proper utilization of living aquatic resources by the development and management of fishing and culture operations and by the development of related processing and marketing activities in conformity with the objectives of its members. The Commission has a broad mandate (Article IV) to formulate and recommend measures in respect of conservation and management of the resources in the Asia-Pacific area. It does not have regulatory powers. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments To implement the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, APFIC carried out a review on small pelagic resources in the Asia-Pacific region and transboundary stocks were identified by the APFIC Working Party on Marine Fisheries in May, 1997. APFIC’s activities to implement the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks include promoting the development of national shark plans and reviewing the progress of implementation in cooperation with IUCN. APFIC supports reviews on the existing legal framework for management in support of the IPOA-IUU fishing, which have been carried out in Cambodia, Thailand and Micronesia.

43

Addressing Specific Issues APFIC supports the development of the precautionary approach in tuna fisheries.106 An extensive review on current issues and proposed action is underway to strengthen APFIC’s activities in future, in line with the needs of member States in the region. Other issues considered to be a priority include:

• coastal community fisheries management, as the highest priority in the Asia-Pacific region; • inland fisheries management, to improve conservation and management measures to ensure food

security in rural areas; and • aquaculture, which remains an important issue to be addressed by RFBs in all regions.

III.2 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Established by an Agreement drawn up at Rome under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution and was approved by the FAO Conference at its Twenty-seventh Session and adopted by the Council at its Hundred and Fifth Session in November 1993. The Agreement entered into force upon the receipt of the tenth instrument of acceptance by the Director-General of the FAO, from Republic of Korea on 27 March 1996.

Map 9 – FAO Statistical Area 51 - IOTC Area of Competence

106 This is evidenced in the discussions held in Phuket, Thailand, 7-15 March 2000.

44

Map 10 – FAO Statistical Area 57 - IOTC Area of Competence

Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission is defined as the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas, north of the Antarctic convergence, in so far as it is necessary to cover such seas for the purpose of conserving and managing stocks that migrate into or out of the Indian Ocean. This area coincides exactly with the FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57 (See Maps 9 and 10). Species Covered The species covered by the Convention are as follows: yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore, Southern bluefin tuna, longtail tuna, kawakawa, frigate tuna, bullet tuna, narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Indo-Pacific king mackerel, Indo-Pacific blue marlin, black marlin, striped marlin, Indo-Pacific sailfish, and swordfish. Membership The Convention is open for acceptance by Members and Associate Members of FAO that are (i) coastal States or Associate Members situated wholly or partly within the area; (ii) States responsible for the international relations of territories situated wholly or partly within the area covered by the Agreement; (iii) States or Associate Members whose vessels engage in fishing in the area of stocks covered by the Agreement; and (iv) regional economic integration organizations of which any State has transferred competence over matters covered by the Agreement. The Commission may, by a two-third majority of its members, admit other States which are Members of the United Nations or of any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency provided that they are coastal States situated wholly or partly within the area or States whose vessels engage in fishing in the area for stocks covered by the Agreement.

45

Members are: Australia, People’s Republic of China, Comoros, Eritrea, European Community, France, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Oman, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, United Kingdom. Main Objectives and Activities The main objectives of the Agreement are to promote cooperation among members with a view to ensuring through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilization of stocks as well as to encourage sustainable development of fisheries based on them. The Commission may be a two-third majority of the Members present and voting adopt conservation and management measures binding on its Members. Such regulatory measures are subject to objection procedure. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

Regarding the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, the Secretariat is collecting data on all tuna fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean and coordinating this activity with FAO and the other tuna regional fisheries management bodies.

Although the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement may encourage some non-members to accede to IOTC, the Commission is not mandated by all its members to pursue implementation. The IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries is only an issue in the temperate zone, where IOTC recognises the priority of CCSBT in the management of southern bluefin tuna. Regarding the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks, the Commission has authorised the Secretariat to collect statistical data on non-target, associated and dependent species, including sharks. This does not go the extent of conducting stock assessment because the Agreement provides a mandate on only 16 tuna and tuna-like species. In connection with the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity, resolutions have been taken to prevent capacity increase in certain targeted stocks. There have also been repeated calls for fleet reductions. The Secretariat is collecting data on all tuna fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean. IOTC action in support of the IPOA-IUU fishing has included listings of vessels aimed at identifying IUU fishing vessels, port State control and trade documentation schemes. Establishment of a Compliance Committee is planned. Addressing Specific Issues The implementation of a precautionary approach to fisheries management is reflected in the acceptance of the principle of incorporating uncertainty in stock assessments, but this has not been implemented to date. Operational models will be used to assess the consequences of management. Ecosystem-based fisheries management is pursued through requesting data on NTADs (however, it is rarely available), observer coverage of about 10 percent of vessels, and assessment of FAD deployment through tagging. IUU catches are routinely estimated from vessel listings, activity reports (port visits) and trade documents. To strengthen the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues, funds have been secured from extra-budgetary sources for improvement of coastal State statistical systems and for tagging. Regarding fleet capacity, assessment of effort is addressed actively as a complement to vessel listings. To accommodate new entrants, IOTC encourages participation of States with financial constraints under the status of Cooperating Non-Contracting Party.

46

An IOTC trade documentation scheme covers frozen bigeye tuna not destined for canning. III.3 Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI) Established by the FAO Council at its One hundered and seventheenth Session, 9 to 11 November 1999. Area of Competence

The area of competence is the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

Species Covered

All fisheries resources in the Area of the Commission.

Membership Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Main Objectives and Activities To promote the development, conservation, rational management and best utilization of living marine resources as well as the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Area of the Commission. At its First Session, in October 2001, the Commission agreed on its modus operandi and established two ad hoc working groups on aquaculture and stock assessment and fishery statistics. A technical meeting was held in May 2002, at which the Commission reviewed the status of fisheries development in its member countries with a view to establishing a targeted work plan for future years. III.4 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) SEAFDEC was established in 1967 by the Agreement Establishing the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Area of Competence The area of competence is the Southeast Asian region. However, for data collection for the Fishery Statistical Bulletin, the area extends to cover the South China Sea Area, FAO Statistical Area 71 (See Map 2.). Species Covered SEAFDEC’s work covers all fishery resources within its area of competence. Membership The membership of SEAFDEC is open to the governments of all the Southeast Asian countries and Japan. Current members are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singpaore, Thailand and Viet Nam. Main Objectives and Activities SEAFDEC aims specifically to develop the fishery potential in the region through training, research and information services in order to improve the food supply by rational utilization of the fisheries resources in the region. To achieve its objectives, the Center carries out the following functions.

• Offers training courses, organizes workshops and seminars in fisheries technology, marine engineering, extension methodology, post-harvest technology and aquaculture.

47

• Conducts research on fishing gear technology, fishing ground survey, post harvest technology and aquaculture, examines problems in relation to handling fish at sea and quality control and undertakes studies of fishery resources in the region.

• Facilitates the transfer of technology to the countries in the region and provides information

materials to the print and non-print media, including the publication of statistical bulletins and reports for the dissemination of survey, research and other data on fisheries and aquaculture.

An ASEAN-SEAFDEC Fisheries Consultative Group (FCG) mechanism was developed in 1998. Several

programs have since been undertaken, taking into consideration the requirements of the ASEAN Member countries, and using technical capabilities of SEAFDEC. The mechanism also focuses on mobilizing of technical expertise and reducing gaps among the countries.

Achievement of sustainable fisheries development in the ASEAN region was the goal of the 2001 ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference on Sustainable Fisheries for Food Security in the New Millennium: “ Fish for the People”. Common problems of the ASEAN region were identified, and the ‘Resolution’ and ‘Plan of Action’ on Sustainable Fisheries for Food Security for the ASEAN Region were adopted at Ministerial level,107 to be used as basis for the formulation of national fishery policies and programmes.

Based upon the ‘Resolution’ and ‘Plan of Action’, SEAFDEC has formulated the Special 5-year Program on Sustainable Fisheries for Food Security for the ASEAN region, to be implemented from 2002 to 2005.

The Programme is comprised of a series of projects to support the ASEAN Member countries in the implementation of the Resolution and Plan of Action. The Programme also involves other fishery-related institutions, having common goal in achieving sustainable fisheries and food security in the ASEAN region. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

To support implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, SEAFDEC collaborates with the Member countries of ASEAN in implementing the program on Regionalization of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Program consists of 4 phases:

I Responsible Fishing Operations; II Aquaculture Development; III Fisheries Management; and IV Post-harvest Technology and Trade.

Regional Guidelines for Phases I and II were published and distributed to all ASEAN countries.

Finalization of Regional Guidelines of Phase III is now in process, and activities for phase IV are yet to start. SEAFDEC will continue to support countries in the implementation of the Code of Conduct.

Regarding the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks, SEAFDEC organized a Regional Meeting on Fish Trade and Environment in October 2002 with participation from ASEAN and SEAFDEC Member countries, where the issues relating to the IPOA were discussed.

SEAFDEC in collaboration with FAO organized a Regional Workshop on the Excess Fishing Capacity in November, 2000 in order to identify related opportunities and constraints as well as actions required for the management of fishing capacity in Southeast Asia. As follow-up of the Workshop, a Regional Technical Consultation on Indicators for Sustainable Fisheries Management in the ASEAN Region was organized in May 2001. Outcomes from the Consultation were discussed during the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference, organized in November 2001, and were incorporated in the formulation of the Special 5-year Follow-up Programme.

In addition, a project on Identification of Indicators for Sustainable Development and Management of Capture Fisheries in the ASEAN Region will be implemented from 2002-2005.

107 They were adopted by the Ministers responsible for fisheries in the ASEAN and SEAFDEC Member countries.

48

Addressing Specific Issues The Special 5-year Program on sustainable Fisheries for Food Security for the ASEAN region, noted above, addresses the implementation of the precautionary approach to fisheries management. Ecosystem-based fisheries management is included in the Program on Promotion of Mangrove-friendly Aquaculture in Southeast Asia, implemented by the Aquaculture Department of SEAFDEC in collaboration with the ASEAN Member Countries since 2000. The issue of IUU fishing was discussed among the ASEAN-SEAFDEC member countries during various meetings for the program on Regionalization of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the ASEAN Region. So far, there is no regional agreement regarding this issue. To strengthen the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues, formulation and implementation of the Program under the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Fisheries Consultative Group (FCG) Mechanism has helped mobilized technical expertise among SEAFDEC and the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Member Countries since 1998. Collaboration with other international/regional organization, including the staff exchange program among the institutions, also strengthens organisational capacity. The issue of fishing capacity was discussed in various meetings organized by SEAFDEC. The program on Identification of Indicators for Sustainable Development and Management of Capture Fisheries in the ASEAN Region was formulated and is currently undertaken as part of regional efforts to manage fishing capacity. The program will be undertaken from 2002 to 2005. III.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO)108 Established by the Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization Convention, signed at Mahé, Seychelles, on 19 June 1991 and entered into force in 1994. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Organization as described in Annex II of the Convention starts along 11oN latitude from the Eastern coast of India and through the following coordinates: 11oN latitude to 85oE longitude and 3oN latitude to 85oE longitude and 3oN latitude to 80oE longitude and 45oS latitude to 80oE longitude and 45oS latitude to 30oE longitude and then proceed along meridian 30oE to the coast of Africa. This area coincides with the FAO Statistical Area 51 (see Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the Convention are as follows: yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, southern bluefin tuna, longtail tuna, frigate tuna, bullet tuna, kawakawa, narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Indo-Pacific king mackerel, Indo-Pacific blue marlin, black marlin, striped marlin, Indo-Pacific sailfish, and swordfish. Membership The membership of the Organization is open to the funding States (Comoros, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania). Any independent coastal State bordering the Western Indian Ocean whose territory is situated principally in the Western Indian Ocean region may also be admitted by unanimous approval of the parties to the Convention. The present members of WIOTO are Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros and India. Main Objectives and Activities The Organization's objectives are (a) harmonization of policies with respect to fisheries; (b) relations with distant water fishing nations; (c) fisheries surveillance and enforcement; (d) fisheries development; and (e) access to exclusive economic zones of members. There are no provisions in the Convention for establishing regulatory measures in the area covered by the Organization. The First Ministerial Meeting of WIOTO was held

108 Information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

49

in August 1994.

50

IV. PACIFIC OCEAN IV.1 Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement (CEPTFA)109 The Eastern Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishing Agreement and its Protocol was signed in San José, Costa Rica, by the United States of America, Costa Rica and Panama on 15 March 1983. The Agreement will enter into force after it has been ratified or adhered to by five coastal States bordering the area covered by the Agreement. The Agreement has not yet entered into force. Area of Competence The Agreement Area is defined as the area bounded by a line from the point on the mainland where the parallel of 40oN latitude intersects the coast westward along the parallel of 40oN latitude to 40oN latitude by 125oW longitude, thence southerly along the meridian of 125oW longitude to 20oN latitude by 125oW longitude, then easterly along the parallel of 20oN latitude to 20oN latitude by 120oW longitude, thence southerly along the meridian of 120oW longitude to 5oN latitude by 120oW longitude, thence easterly along the parallel of 5oN latitude to 5oN latitude by 110oW longitude, thence southerly along the meridian of 110oW longitude to 10oS latitude by 110oW longitude, thence easterly along the parallel of 10oS latitude to 10oS latitude by 90oW longitude, thence southerly along the meridian of 90oW longitude to 30oS latitude by 90oW longitude, thence easterly along the parallel of 30oS latitude to the point on the mainland where the parallel intersects the coast, excluding the areas within 12 nautical miles of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial sea is measured and those areas within 200 nautical miles of the baselines of coastal States not signatories to this Agreement, measured from the same baseline. This area coincides with part of FAO Statistical Areas 77 and 87 (see Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the Agreement are as follows: yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, northern bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna, black skipjack, kawakawa, bullet tuna, frigate tuna, eastern Pacific bonito, and Indo-Pacific bonito. Membership Membership of the Council will be open to States bordering the Agreement Area or to members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) at the time when the Agreement enters into force, other States may also adhere to the Agreement subject to the unanimous approval by the Council. Main Objectives and Activities The main objective of the Agreement is to ensure the conservation and rational utilization of tuna resources in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The Agreement, when in force, would establish an Eastern Pacific Tuna Council whose main activity will be to issue licences permitting access to fishing in the Agreement Area to vessels of States parties to the Agreement against payment of a fee based on net registered tons of the vessel requesting the licence. IV.2 Permanent South Pacific Commission/Commission permanente du Pacifique Sud (CPPS) Established by the Convention on the Organization of the Permanent Commission of the Conference on the Use and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific, signed by Chile, Ecuador and Peru at the First Conference on the Use and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific, held in Santiago, Chile, on 18 August 1952. Colombia joined the CPPS on 9 August, 1979. Area of Competence The Agreement does not define the precise area to be served by the Commission by lines of longitude

109 Information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

51

and latitude. It merely provides that the Permanent Commission is established in order to achieve the objectives set forth in the Declaration on the Maritime Zone. This Declaration states that the three Governments proclaim as a principle of their international maritime policy that each of them possesses sole sovereignty and jurisdiction over the area of the sea, the sea floor and sub-soil thereof adjacent to the coast of its own country and extending not less than 200 nautical miles from the said coast. This area is part of FAO Statistical Area 87 (See Map 2). In 1984, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of CPPS member countries referred to the "legitimate interests of the Coastal States in the conservation and optimum utilization of the marine resources beyond their 200 mile zones, when these resources are part of the same populations of species existing in their 200 mile zones, or populations of species associated with them". They instructed the CPPS Secretariat to take action with a view to considering the possibility of establishing adequate mechanisms for the conservation and optimum utilization of these resources. Species Covered The species covered by the Convention are all marine resources. Membership Neither the Agreement establishing the Commission nor any of the Declarations, resolutions or recommendations of the Commission mention conditions regarding eligibility for membership. The present members of the Commission are: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Main Objectives and Activities The objectives of the Convention are those set out in the Declaration on Maritime Zone. The objectives of the Declaration were, inter alia, the necessity to provide for the peoples of the three governments food supplies and to furnish them with the means of developing their economy. To do so it is essential to ensure the conservation and protection of their natural resources in the areas of the sea adjacent to their coasts and to regulate the use thereof. The functions of the Commission, are inter alia, (i) to determine protected species; open and closed seasons and areas of sea; fishing and hunting times, methods and equipment; prohibited gear and methods; and to lay down general regulations for hunting and fishing, (ii) to study and propose to the Parties such measures as it considers suitable for the protection, defence, conservation and use of marine resources, (iii) to encourage scientific and technical study of and research into biological phenomena in the South Pacific, and (iv) to prepare general statistics of the industrial use of marine resources by the Parties, and to suggest protective measures based on the study thereof. The Commission collaborates closely with FAO and other international agencies. The CPPS, in collaboration with FAO has published a number of Bulletins on Fisheries Statistics of the Southeast Pacific. The Commission also publishes a monthly Weather Warning Bulletin, providing information on El Niño Phenomenon. On 14 August, 2002, the Commission celebrated its 50th Anniversary with an Official Declaration by the four Member States: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, thus ratifying the standing nature of the rational conservation and exploitation of live resources principle, especially fishing resources in the marine areas of domestic jurisdiction, such as the adjacent high seas; strengthening its commitment to continue working toward the orderly development of sustainable fisheries and the preservation of the marine environment’s quality with the aim to contribute toward the well-being of their peoples by allowing access to increased food sources, work and income. As the Appropriate Regional Maritime Organization, the Commission has approved the Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Live Marine Resources in the Southeast Pacific High Seas (Santiago de Chile, August, 2000), also known as the Galapagos Agreement, which shall ensure the conservation of such resources covered by the Agreement. Meanwhile, the Commission has re-structured its organization and functions in order to be in a better condition to face the marine issues of modern times, in the legal, scientific and economic fields. The CPPS dedicates great effort to the study of the El Niño (hot phase of the ENSO cycle) in the

52

Region, especially with relation to the early warning or notification of this phenomenon’s presence in order to reduce its negative impacts and take advantage of El Niño’s positive effects; the Commission issues two monthly versions of the Weather Warning Bulletin – BAC- and regularly updates its web page. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments There is continued implementation by CPPS of the principles of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, with a focus on fishing laws, rules and regulations and selected fisheries management plans. Regarding the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity, the administration and management of fishing capacity is intrinsic in the CPPS fisheries management plans and regulations on fishery activity. Addressing Specific Issues The implementation by CPPS of a precautionary approach to fisheries management is in an initial phase for selected resources and their fisheries, especially those under threat and requiring protection against excessive fishing effort and overfishing. CPPS is addressing ecosystem-based fisheries management in the project on the Humbolt Current ecosystem and pelagic fisheries. This will enable better understanding of the structure and dynamics of the Southeast Pacific ecosystem and enhance strategies for fisheries management and the conservation of fishery resources. Regarding institutional capacity, the constitution and internal regulations of the CPPS have been strengthened to increase its effectiveness in the conservation and management of the fisheries environment and resources and fishing activity. In its capacity as a regional maritime body, the CPPS will help shape the operating framework of fisheries organizations. IV.3 South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Established by South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention, signed in Honiara, Solomon Islands on 10 July 1979. The Convention entered into force on 9 August 1979. Area of Competence The FFA's area of competence is the South Pacific region. There is no precise definition of this area by lines of longitude and latitude. It coincides mainly with FAO Statistical Areas 71 and 81 (See Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the FFA are the highly migratory species of tunas, primarily skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore. Membership Membership of FFA is open to members of the South Pacific Forum and to other States or territories in the region on the recommendation of the Forum Fisheries Committee. The present members of FFA are: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa. Main Objectives and Activities The objectives of the Convention are: (i) conservation and optimum utilization of the species covered by the Convention; (ii) promotion of regional cooperation and coordination in respect of fisheries policies; (iii) securing of maximum benefits from the living resources of the region for their peoples and for the region as a whole and in particular the developing countries; and (iv) facilitating the collection, analysis, evaluation and dissemination of relevant statistical scientific and economic information about the resources covered by the

53

Convention. The functions of the Agency include, inter alia: (i) harmonization of policies with respect to fisheries management; (ii) cooperation in respect of relations with distant water fishing countries; (iii) cooperation in surveillance and enforcement; (iv) cooperation in respect of onshore fish processing; (v) cooperation in marketing; (vi) cooperation in respect of access to the 200 mile zones of other Parties. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments The post-UNCED fishery instruments are not directly relevant to FFA, because it does not have a mandate to adopt conservation and management measures and therefore is not a management organization. However, the instruments are relevant to members’ national activities and legislation, and to the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Commission Ocean Convention. FFA’s role is to assist its member countries as noted above and in the work of the Commission. Addressing Specific Issues FFA provides some services to its members allowing them to assess the extent, impact and effects of IUU fishing, such as operation of a regional Vessel Monitoring System. However, because FFA does not have a management mandate, as noted above, it is not in a position to indicate activities, priorities or plans in relation to specific issues. It does, however, have important roles such as: the provision of information among FFA member countries and between the countries and the Agency; and assisting members in improving their capacity to manage and develop the tuna resources for their benefits. It these roles, FFA indirectly addresses the specific issues. IV.4 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Created by the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed by the Governments of the United States and Costa Rica, in Washington on 31 May 1949 and entered into force on 3 March 1950. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission is defined was the "Eastern Pacific Ocean". There is no precise definition of this area by lines of longitudes and latitudes, but in recent years the Commission’s conservation and management resolutions have specified the area covered as 150 degrees west longitude, 40 degrees north and south latitudes, and the coastline of the American continents. In 1962, a Commission's Yellowfin Regulatory Area (CYRA) was created. This "Regulatory area" was defined as follows: All waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean bounded by the mainland of the Americas and the following lines: beginning at a point on the mainland where the parallel of 40 degrees north latitude intersects the coast; thence due west to the meridian of 125 degrees west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of 20 degrees north latitude; thence due east to the meridian of 120 degrees west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of 5 degrees north latitude; thence due east to the meridian of 110 degrees west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of 30 degrees south latitude; thence due east to a point on the mainland where the parallel of 30 degrees south latitude intersects the coast. This area which includes substantive areas of high seas, coincides with part of FAO Statistical Areas 77 and 87 (See Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by IATTC are all tunas and other fish taken by tuna fishing vessels. Membership Membership is open to any States whose nationals participate in fisheries in the IATTC Convention Area, provided that the Contracting Parties given their unanimous consent. The present members of IATTC are: Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador France, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Perú, the United States of America, Vanuatu and Venezuela. Main Objectives and Activities

54

The main objectives of the Convention are to maintain the populations of yellowfin and skipjack tuna and other kind of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific and to cooperate in the gathering and interpretation of factual information to facilitate maintaining the populations of these fishes at a level which permits maximum sustainable catches year after year. The functions of the Commission include inter alia (a) to gather and interpret information on tuna, (b) to conduct scientific investigation concerning the abundance, biology, biometry, and ecology of yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Convention Area, and to recommend proposals for joint action for conservation. The Commission has regulatory powers and catch quotas for yellowfin tuna have been set by the Commission since 1962. Since 1976, the Commission has implemented a programme on tuna dolphin relationship and since 1992 it has developed an International Dolphin Conservation Programme aiming at progressively reducing dolphin mortality in tuna fishing. The Commission also serves as the Secretariat for the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, whose principal objective is to reduce and strictly regulate accidental dolphin mortality which occurs in the purse seine fisheries for tuna. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments To implement the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, The Commission has developed a regional register that lists vessels that are authorized to fish in the area of the Agreement. It has also agreed to establish a list of vessels that are not authorized to fish in the area of the Agreement and are undermining the Agreement and the conservation and management measures. Currently IATTC members are negotiating a new Convention that will take into account, among other things, many of the relevant principles of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Only two members of the IATTC have ratified the Agreement, but many of the key provisions of the Agreement have been incorporated into the draft negotiating text for the new Convention. The IATTC has not adopted specific measures to promote the application of the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. However, the relevant portions of the Code of Conduct often serve as a guideline for the consideration of the Commission’s conservation and management resolutions, and most, if not all, of the resolutions adopted by the parties to the IATTC are drafted in accordance with the principles of the Code. Regarding the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks, the Commission has adopted a measure requiring purse seine vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all sharks taken incidentally. The Commission has also taken action to enhance the collection of shark bycatch information. In relation to the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity, the members of the Commission reached agreement in June of 2002 on the limitation of fishing capacity in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). The Commission has established a Permanent Working Group on Fleet Capacity and is considering a draft Plan of Action on the management of fishing capacity for the EPO. The IATTC has taken measures in order to combat IUU fishing in the EPO, such as developing a Regional Register of vessels that are authorized to fish for species under the purview of the Commission, establishing a permanent working group to deal with IUU fishing on a regular basis, and the adoption of resolutions, intended to discourage IUU fishing, regarding fishing by non-parties. The Commission recently agreed to develop a list of non-cooperating vessels, and is in the process of preparing such a list. Addressing Specific Issues The Commission does manage the fisheries utilizing precautionary principles and is in the process of incorporating a more formal procedure of scientific advice that utilizes the precautionary approach. The IATTC has addressed the matter of ecosystem-based fisheries management in the formulation of relevant conservation and management measures. Thus, in considering measures for yellowfin and bigeye tuna, the two principal species currently being managed by the Commission, the impact on all species of tuna in the same ecosystem is taken into account. Further, the Commission has adopted resolutions regarding bycatch that are designed to address ecosystem management by requiring specific measures to reduce the bycatch of species taken in the tuna purse seine fisheries. This has included the development of ecosystems models for the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

55

One of the main responsibilities of the Working Group on Fishing by non-parties is to assess the extent and impact of IUU fishing in the area of the Agreement. Action to strengthen the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues is based on the main responsibility of the IATTC - the conservation of the stocks of tuna in the area of the Agreement. Therefore its members have recently taken innovative measures such as reaching agreement on the limitation of fishing capacity in the EPO and adopting strict bycatch measures. Also, Commission members are currently negotiating a new Convention which will strengthen futher the conservation and management program. As noted above, the issue of fleet capacity has been addressed, resulting in the establishment of a Permanent Working Group on Fleet Capacity and consideration of a draft Plan of Action on the management of fishing capacity for the EPO. New entrants have been accommodated, with several new members joining the Commission in the recent past. The Commission is currently considering the adoption of a catch certification and documentation scheme for Bigeye Tuna. IV.5 International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Established by the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery, signed at Washington on March 2, 1923. The Convention was amended in 1930 and 1937. A new Convention between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea was signed in Ottawa, Canada on 2 March 1953 and entered into force on 28 October 1953. When the two countries extended their fishery jurisdictions, a Protocol Amending the Convention was signed in Washington on 29 March 1979 and entered into force on 15 October 1980. Area of Competence The Convention covers the "Convention Area" defined as the waters off the west coasts of the United States and Canada, including the southern as well as the western coasts of Alaska, within the respective maritime areas in which either partly exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction. Maritime areas include, without distinction, areas within and seaward of the territorial sea or internal waters of the Parties. This area coincides with FAO Statistical Area 67 (see Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the Convention is Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) found in the Convention Area. Membership The Convention is not open to other States. Membership is limited to Canada and the United States. Main Objectives and Activities The objective of the Convention are the preservation of the halibut fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The main functions of the Commission are to conduct scientific studies relating to the Pacific halibut biology and fishery, as well as to formulate regulations designed to develop the stocks of Pacific halibut to those levels which permit optimum utilization. The Commission has regulatory powers and sets the total allowable catch of halibut in the Convention Area. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments A number of the post-UNCED fishery instruments do not contain issues of relevance of the work of the

56

IPHC, including the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, the IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity and IUU fishing. The IPHC Convention pre-dates the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement and already implements its provisions. Regarding the IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, recent actions concern successful initiatives by the Pacific halibut fishing industry, with the assistance of the IPHC, to request that regulatory agencies introduce regulations requiring the use of Bird Avoidance Devices while fishing for Pacific halibut and define performance standards for enforcement. The IPHC has also undertaken research projects to: evaluate options for the monitoring the potential mortality of seabirds in the Pacific halibut fishery; and, evaluate the use of digital video technology as a specific monitoring tool for this purpose. The objectives of the IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks are furthered by the cooperative research the IPHC has undertaken with universities to understand the biology and dynamics of Pacific sleeper sharks. This species is caught incidentally while fishing for halibut and, although survival of these sharks is very high, little is known of its biology in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Addressing Specific Issues To implement the precautionary approach, the Commission conducts ongoing research into harvest policy, in order to define appropriate threshold and limit reference points for management. Recent research concerns the development of harvest policies using capped harvest rates and yields In relation to ecosystem-based fisheries management, the Commission’s harvest policy incorporates decadal-scale oceanographic influences on oceanic productivity, recruitment, and growth rate in the selection of appropriate harvest rates. This research utilizes information on the dynamics of species co-occurring with Pacific halibut. Regarding catch certification, IPCH is participating with agencies of the contracting parties in the development of a joint electronic catch reporting system. The Organization’s existing capacity is considered highly effective, and the Convention restricts membership to Canada and the United States. Capacity-strengthening and accommodation of new entrants are therefore not issues for the Commission. IV.6 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) Established by the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, signed at Moscow, Russia, on 11 February 1992 and entered into force on 16 February 1993. It replaced the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific which had been in force since 1952. Area of Competence The area of competence of the Commission, referred to as the "Convention Area" is defined as the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, north of 33oN latitude beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. It is understood that activities under the Convention, for scientific purposes, may extend further southward in the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas. "The Convention Area" coincides mainly with the FAO Statistical Areas 61 and 67 and part of 77 (see Map 2). Species Covered The species covered by the Commission are as follows: chum salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, cherry salmon, and steelhead trout. Membership The members of the Commission are: the Untied States, Canada, Japan, and the Russian Federation. The Convention is not open to other States but at the invitation of the original Parties by unanimous agreement,

57

other States may accede to it. Main Objectives and Activities

The main objectives of the Convention are to prohibit directed high seas fishing for North Pacific salmon and to strictly limit the incidental taking of Pacific salmon. The Commission inter alia has the authority (i) to recommend to the Parties measures for the conservation of anadromous stocks and ecologically related species in the Convention Area; (ii) to promote the exchange of information of any activities contrary to the provisions of the Convention; (iii) to review and evaluate enforcement actions taken by the Parties, and (iv) to promote the exchange of catch and effort information and provide a forum for cooperation among the Parties with respect to anadromous stocks and ecologically related species. The Parties may take action individually or collectively to prevent unauthorized fishing activities by others and prevent trafficking in illegally harvested Pacific salmon. Decisions of the Commission on all important matters are taken by consensus among all Parties that are States of origin of anadromous stocks which migrate into the Convention Area. Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

Because the Convention prohibits direct fishing of the target species in the Convention Area, the “ Fisheries Management” and “ Fishing Operations” portions of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct are not among the NPAFC’s mandates, although the NPAFC applies the precautionary approach by prohibiting the commercial fishing operations of its target species in the Convention Area. Regarding “ Fisheries Research”, coordination of scientific research among the Parties for conservation of anadromous stocks in the North Pacific Ocean is one of the Commission’s mandates.

Regarding the IPOA-IUU fishing, each Party of the Commission must take all necessary measures to ensure that its nationals and fishing vessels flying its flag comply with the provisions of the Convention. The NPAFC Committee on Enforcement coordinates the Contracting Parties’ enforcement activities. In 1993-2002, the cooperative enforcement efforts of the Contracting Parties resulted in the detection of 39 vessels conducting directed driftnet fishing operations for salmon in the Convention Area. Of those vessels, 14 were apprehended.

Many of the post-UNCED fishery instruments are not applicable. The NPAFC Convention prohibits direct fishing of the target species in the Convention Area, and in that context the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement is not applicable. Anadromous species are not regulated under the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The Organizations’ mandate does not include the management of sharks and fishing capacity, or the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries because the NPAFC Convention prohibits directed fishing for anadromous fish in the Convention Area. Addressing Specific Issues

As noted above, NPAFC implements a precautionary approach in terms of prohibiting directed fishing of anadromous fish in the Convention Area under Article III.1.(a) of its Convention.

NPAFC activity on ecosystem-based fisheries management has involved a Joint Meeting on Causes of

Marine Mortality of Salmon in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans and in the Baltic Sea in March 2002, in cooperation with IBSFC, ICES, NASCO, and PICES.

The organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management

issues has been strengthened in enforcement and scientific research activities. The Parties have been discussing and implementing closer cooperation. This strengthens the NPAFC’s capacity to deal more effectively with conservation of anadromous stocks in the Convention Area. The Commission has the authority to consider and make proposals to the Parties for the enactment of a program for certificates of origin attesting that products of anadromous fish are from fish which were lawfully harvested. At its Third Annual Meeting in 1995, because no evidence was found to suggest that sales of illegally caught salmon from the Convention Area were taking place, the Parties agreed that it was not necessary at that point to devote financial and human resources to the development of a Certificate of Origin Program. The situation has not been changed to date (2002).

58

As noted above, assessment of the extent of IUU fishing has taken place, but NPAFC does not have the mandate to address issues relating to capacity. Regarding new entrants, the NPAFC Convention is not open to other States, but at the invitation of the original Parties by unanimous agreement, other States may accede to it.

59

IV.7 Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Organization (OAPO)110

An Agreement Creating the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Organization was signed by Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru in Lima on 21 July 1989. The Agreement has not yet entered into force.

Area of Competence

The area covered is defined as the Eastern Pacific Ocean through which the species covered by the Agreement roam. This area includes, not only the 200 miles zones adjacent to island and continental territories of the States parties, but also high seas areas adjacent to these zones, up to the meridian 145oW longitude (Map 20). This area coincides with part of FAO Statistical Areas 77, 81, 87 and 71.

Species Covered

The species covered by the Agreement are: yellowfin tuna, skipjack, northern bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, albacore, and bigeye tuna.

Membership

The membership of the Organization will be open to Eastern Pacific Coastal Nations and other States whose vessels have fished the species covered by the Agreement within its area of competence. The admission of non-coastal States will be subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the Organization.

Main Objectives and Activities

The main objectives of the Organization are (i) to achieve the conservation, protection and optimum utilization of the highly migratory species, (ii) to provide training, transfer of technology and to assist with development of fishing capacity and infrastructure of disadvantaged Latin American Eastern Pacific Coastal States who are Parties to the Agreement. The structure of the Organization will consist of the Governing Board, the Scientific Committee and the Secretariat. The Organization will have regulatory powers and its decisions are made by consensus or by a two-third majority.

IV.8 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)

Established by Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific Salmon, signed in Ottawa, Canada on 28 January 1985 and entered into force on 18 March 1985. The Annexes to the Treaty were revised in 1999.

Area of Competence

The Treaty applies to "Pacific salmon stocks". There is no precise definition of the area covered by the Treaty although the area covered by the Treaty extends in general, from SE Alaska (Cape Suckling) including the transboundary rivers the Alsek, Stikine and Taku in the North, through Canadian waters to Oregon (Columbia River) in the South. The Fraser River Panel for Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon is defined in Annex 23 of the Treaty as follows:

1. The territorial waters and the high seas westward from the western coast of Canada and the United States of America and from a direct line drawn from Bonilla Point, Vancouver Island, to the lighthouse on Tatoosh Island, Washington--which line marks the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait, --and embraced between 48 and 49 degrees north latitude, excepting therefrom, however, all the waters of Barkley Sound, eastward of a straight line drawn from Amphitrite Point to Cape Beale and all the waters of Nitinat Lake and the entrance thereto.

2. The waters included within the following boundaries:

110 Information is unchanged from FIPL Circular 908.

60

Beginning at Bonilla Point, Vancouver Island, thence along the aforesaid direct line drawn from Bonilla Point to Tatoosh Lighthouse, Washington, described in paragraph numbered 1 of this Article thence to the nearest point of Cape Flattery, thence following the southerly shore of Juan de Fuca Strait to Point Wilson, on Quimper Peninsula, thence in a straight line to Point Partridge on Whidbey Island thence following the western shore of the said Whidbey Island, to the entrance to Deception Pass, thence across said entrance to the southern side of Reservation Bay, on Fidalgo Island, thence following the western and northern shore line of the said Fidalgo Island to Swinomish Slough, crossing the said Swinomish Slough, in line with the track of the Great Northern Railway, thence northerly following the shore line of the mainland to Atkinson Point at the northerly entrance to Burrard Inlet, British Columbia, thence in a straight line to the southern end of Bowen Island, thence westerly following the southern shore of Bowen Island to Cape Roger Curtis, thence in a straight line to Gower Point, thence westerly following the shore line to Welcome Point on Sechelt Peninsula, thence in a straight line to Point Young on Lasqueti Island, thence in a straight line to Dorcas Point on Vancouver Island, thence following the eastern and southern shores of the said Vancouver Island, to the starting point at Bonilla Point, as shown on the British Admiralty Chart Number 579, and on the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart Number 6300, as corrected to March 14, 1930, copies of which are annexed to the 1930 Convention and made a part thereof.

3. The Fraser River and the streams and lakes tributary thereto.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty Area is shown in Map 11.

Species Covered

The Treaty covers all Pacific salmon stocks and takes into account the conservation of steelhead trout while fulfilling its other functions.

Membership

Membership of PSC is not open to other States. The membership consists of Canada and the United States of America.

Main Objectives and Activities

The main objectives of the Treaty are the conservation and rational management of Pacific salmon stocks and the promotion of optimum production of such stocks and the cooperation in the management, research and enhancement of Pacific salmon stocks. The Commission has established four panels: Southern Panel, Fraser River Panel, Transboundary Panel and Northern Panel. These Panels provide information and make recommendations to the Commission which the latter reviews and then recommends fishery regimes to the Parties. The Panel recommendations are based on information received from a variety of bilateral technical committees and from Commission staff. These committees rely on information provided by Canadian and United States fishery management agencies.

Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

The PSC agreements and policies are implemented by the Parties, the USA and Canada, and implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments by the PSC is not applicable in this context.

Addressing Specific Issues

Because the PSC agreements and policies are implemented by the Parties, attention to the specific issues of concern, such as the precautionary approach and ecosystem management, are consistent with the approach taken by the Parties on a more global scale.

61

Map 11 – Pacific Salmon Treaty Area

62

IV.9 South Pacific Commission (SPC)

Established by an Agreement signed by Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States at Canberra on 6 February 1947, entered into force on 29 July 1948, amended in 1952, 1954, 1964 and supplemented by Protocols of understanding in 1974 and 1976. The Commission activities are not restricted to fisheries and also cover agriculture and plant protection, rural development, education, health information and cultural exchanges.

Area of Competence

The territorial scope of the Commission was defined by the Canberra Agreement as all those territories in the Pacific Ocean which are administered by the participating Governments and which lie wholly or in part south of the Equator and east from and including the Australian Territory of Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea, and Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. There is no precise definition of this area by lines of longitude and latitude in the Agreement. The area of competence coincides with part of FAO Statistical Areas 71 and 77 (see Map 2).

Species Covered

The Commission operates a Coastal Fisheries Programme covering all living aquatic species subject to subsistence and commercial fishing and aquaculture, and an Oceanic Fisheries Programme which deals with tuna, billfish and related species.

Membership

The membership of the South Pacific Commission is as follows: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, U.K., U.S.A., Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.

Main Objectives and Activities

The main objective of the Agreement is to encourage and strengthen international cooperation in promoting the economic and social welfare and advancement of the peoples of the South Pacific region. The Divisional goal for fisheries is to provide a regional service which provides information, advice and direct assistance to the Pacific Community through SPC member governments, either individually or collectively, in using living marine resources in the most productive and responsible manner possible. Activities include fisheries stock assessment (for both reef fisheries and highly migratory fish stocks), marine ecosystem research for reef and pelagic fisheries, small scale tuna fisheries development support, coastal fisheries management support and fisheries information and databases within the area of competence.

Two fisheries programmes form the framework for SPC’s fisheries activities. These are the Coastal Fisheries Preogramme and the Oceanic Fisheries Programme, described below.

(a) Coastal Fisheries Programme

The goal is to optimise long-term social and economic value of small-scale fisheries and aquatic living resource use in Pacific Island waters, with the following objectives:

� a regional support framework for economically, socially and environmentally sustainable aquaculture planning, research and development by Pacific Island governments and private enterprises;

� economically-viable and environmentally sound Pacific Island fishing enterprises; � environmentally sound and socio-economically achievable governance of reef and lagoon fisheries; � fishing sector human resource and technical skills development; � scientifically rigorous information on the status, exploitation levels and prospects of the coastal

resources managed by Pacific Islanders; and � easily-available, relevant and understandable aquatic living resource-based knowledge for member

63

countries and territories.

(b) Oceanic Fisheries Programme

The goal is to provide access to Pacific Island countries and territories (PICT) of the best available scientific information and evidence necessary to rationally manage fisheries exploiting the region’s resources of tuna, billfish and related species, with the following objectives:

� comprehensive regular assessments of status and prospects of oceanic fisheries for PICT fisheries departments and regional processes;

� oceanic fishery data collection and analytical support to PICT fisheries departments; and � understanding pelagic ecosystems in relation to tuna and associated species stocks.

Implementation of Post-UNCED Fishery Instruments

The SPC supports its members extensively in the implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, including dealing with small-scale fisheries and aquaculture.

Some assessments and observer data analyses, have been carried out on incidental seabird catch, and it was recognised that this is not a problem in the current fisheries within the SPC mandate area.

SPC is undertaking some assessments on the conservation and management of sharks, based on observer data and improvement of bycatch reporting by fishing fleets. Current indications are that Pacific pelagic shark catches are within sustainable limits. SPC

SPC’s focus will be also on some other more fragile bycatch species, including turtle. Awareness materials have been produced on the general bycatch issue (including sharks), and one the of main aims of the SPC Fisheries Development Section is to promote tuna fishing methods by Pacific Islanders that mitigate bycatch.

Regarding IUU fishing on the high seas, SPC is promoting responsible management of Pacific Islands open registries through the Divisional Maritime Programme Legal Section, and working towards instituting more formal mechanisms for provision of catch-effort information on high seas fisheries in the region through the Oceanic Fisheries Programme Statistics Section. SPC is also involved in obtaining information on subsistence village “ IUU” fishing.

The SPC’s mandate does not extend to managing fishing capacity or implementing the Compliance Agreement.

Addressing Specific Issues

Implementation of the precautionary approach underlies all of SPC’s activities, advice to its members and relations with other regional organizations.

Where SPC assists in the development of inshore fisheries management policies, it builds in the precautionary approach into these policies. The precautionary approach has been clearly identified in the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP) under one of the guiding principles. The PIROP Vision Statement has been formally adopted as the vision statement of the SPC Marine Resources Division (this vision includes the scope of all Pacific Islands regional intergovernmental agencies).

SPC advocates a precautionary approach in relation to both resource exploitation and social aspects of fisheries. This means that a reasonable doubt about the sustainability of the fishery must exist before the precautionary approach can be invoked. If this reasonable doubt cannot be established, and if there is reasonable doubt that peoples’ basic livelihoods will be affected by a closure, then the criteria for invoking the precautionary approach would not be met.

SPC’s work is oriented towards ecosystem-based fisheries management in the context of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme on ecosystem understanding, supported by the EU and GEF, and of the reef fisheries work.

64

SPC is continually expanding in size, and undertakes strategic planning to develop strengthened organisational capacity.

Regarding fleet capacity, SPC advises countries during the course of developing national fishery development strategies, with the underlying philosophy that capacity should be incremented gradually. Further, SPC advises that actual fishing mortality should be reassessed after every new increment of fleet capacity, in relation to estimated sustainable limits. This is the preferred alternative to approving as many licences as possible, assessing the impact and then realizing that cut-backs are necessary; it promotes both sustainable local industry development and conservation.

SPC does not certify catches, but monitors them as much as possible through the SPC Pacific Islands-based Port Sampling Programme.

Other priority issues for SPC include management of reef fisheries (the concerns are associated with the live reef fish trade), development of an IPOA on turtles, fish export quality certification and tariff measures. Future developments surrounding agreement on the PRIOP could include building on agreed common principles and working towards a Global Ocean Policy.