REVIEW CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT OF FISH STOCKS OPENS IN NEW YORK

Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

1^st & 2^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

REVIEW CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT OF FISH STOCKS OPENS IN NEW YORK

Nearly Two Thirds of Straddling Fish Stocks,

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Overexploited, Conference Told

About 30 per cent of the stocks of tuna were overexploited or depleted, and nearly two thirds of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks were overexploited, David Balton ( United States), President of the first Review Conference of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, told participants.

He said that the Conference, officially known as the Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, did therefore not take place in isolation.  In its deliberations, the Review Conference might be able to generate ideas to implement the Fish Stocks Agreement in ways that would better address the status of those resources.

In an opening statement, read out by the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, Vladimir Golitsyn, Nicolas Michel, United Nations Legal Counsel, expressed the sincere hope that the Review Conference would recommend measures for improving the implementation of the Agreement’s provisions.

As the Agreement was considered to be the most important legally binding global instrument for the conservation and management of fishery resources since the adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, he said it had elaborated and developed specific rules set out in Convention, including provisions related to the strengthening of flag States duties, as well as the role of regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements.  It further introduced port States control to promote compliance with high seas fisheries conservation and management measures.

Since its adoption in 1995, the Agreement had brought a fundamental change in the approach of the international community towards the management of high seas fisheries, he stated.  That management was now increasingly based on the principle of long-term sustainability.  In order to assist developing countries in the conservation and management of fish stocks, States Parties to the Agreement had established an Assistance Fund in 2003.

He said that, in spite of those positive developments, several fisheries were still subject to unsustainable fishing practices, including overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and use of unselective fishing gear and techniques resulting in excessive by-catch and discards, and adverse impact on marine ecosystems.  More had to be done to ensure that the Agreement was effectively implemented.  Increasing the number of Parties to the Agreement and addressing the obstacles that prevented States from becoming Parties were also crucial.

Participants then considered the review and assessment of the adequacy of the provisions of the Agreement and, if necessary, proposals for strengthening the substance and methods of implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.  Today’s debate was clustered around:  adoption of measures; overfishing and capacity management; the effects of fishing on the marine ecosystem; fisheries not regulated by regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements; and data collection and sharing.

Speakers in the debate noted that the Agreement had had many positive impacts, but that more needed to be done to achieve universal implementation.  They urged States that had not yet done so to join the Agreement.  The representative of Indonesia said that because less than one third of the members of the international community had become parties to the Agreement, the meeting should formulate more incentives for non-party States to join and not create additional obligations that would discourage them from doing so.  China’s representative said that it had not joined the Agreement because of concerns about enforcement, even though it had implemented other provisions of the Agreement.

Many speakers noted that the high seas were often not regulated or governed by regional fisheries management organizations.  The world’s overfishing capacity stemmed mainly from super-size fleets belonging to developed countries, some said.  Chile’s representative said in that regard that, even though his country had implemented regulatory measures for its own Exclusive Economic Zone, fishing nations in areas of the high seas adjacent to that zone interfered with those measures.  He also addressed the problem of government subsidies of high-seas fishing, as that contributed greatly to the current overcapacity.

The representative of Canada said impediments to implementing the International Plan of Action on capacity and reducing and controlling capacity under the Agreement posed a major threat to its success.  States and regional fisheries management organizations must develop “capacity management plans” that would include ongoing assessment of fishing capacity, rules for government support to fishing fleets and other measures.

Speakers, especially from developing fishing States, noted the urgent need to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, as no single issue had the potential for greater ongoing impact on livelihoods.  The representative of Palau, noting the destructiveness of high-seas bottom trawling, urged for a moratorium on that method of fishing until regulations could be put in place.  Some developing countries stressed that they needed assistance in collecting data, which were needed for decision-making by regional fisheries management organizations on the “best scientific evidence available”.

The regional organizations should also integrate an ecosystem approach in their management, speakers said.  The representative of the United States stressed the importance of science for conservation and management decisions.  Even in cases where there was scientific advice, however, States had taken decisions that fell short of such advice, he said.  Where measures had been adopted, compliance with those measures by non-Parties or members of certain organizations was problematic.

In other business, the Conference adopted its agenda and programme of work.  It also agreed to use the provisional rules of procedure on a provisional basis.  If any problem arose where formal adoption was necessary, the Review Conference would move to do that.

The Conference also elected Guinea, Brazil, Spain, Fiji, Russian Federation, China and Chile Vice-Presidents of the Review Conference.

Statements were also made by representatives of Mexico, Peru, Austria (on behalf of the European Union), Guatemala, Iceland, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Papua New Guinea (on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum), Japan, India, New Zealand, Fiji, Saint Lucia, Tonga, Guinea, Sri Lanka, Iceland, Australia, Norway, Mauritius, and Senegal.  The representative of the European Community also made a statement.

Representatives of the following observer organizations also contributed to the discussion:  International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); Western and Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency; World Conservation Union/IUCN; International Coalition of Fisheries Association (ICFA); World Wildlife Fund (WWF); Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC); International Collective in Support of Fish Workers; Permanent Commission for the South Pacific; National Resources Defence Council; and Greenpeace.

The Review Conference will meet again Tuesday, 23 May, at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion.

Background

The first Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks met this morning to, among other things, elect its officers and adopt its rules and procedures, and review and assess the adequacy of the provisions of the Agreement.  It will also consider elements relating to the conservation and management of fish stocks (see document A/CONF/210/2006/5) and propose means of strengthening the substance of implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.

For more background information, see Press Release SEA/1852 of 18 May.

Opening Remarks

VLADIMIR GOLITSYN, Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, declared the Conference open and proceeded with the election of the Conference’s President.

The Review Conference elected, by acclamation, David Balton ( United States) as its President.  His nomination was proposed by the representative of Canada and seconded by the representatives of Australia, Japan, India, Marshall Islands, Ukraine, Iceland and Austria (on behalf of the European Union).

In opening remarks, DAVID BALTON ( United States), President of the Review Conference, thanked participants for the honour and privilege of serving, and pledged to do his utmost to assist the Review Conference in reaching meaningful conclusions.

He said the Review Conference did not take place in isolation.  Since 1995, much had happened, and the Agreement had played a powerful role.  During the Review Conference, participants would have an opportunity to propose improvements for strengthening the Agreement.  Although there was no mandate to amend the Agreement, article 36 of that text mandated the Review Conference to assess the Agreement and propose measures to strengthen it.

He said that, based on available data, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had reported that about 30 per cent of the stocks of highly migratory tuna were overexploited or depleted.  Nearly two thirds of the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks were overexploited.  In its deliberations, the Review Conference might be able to generate ideas to implement the Agreement in ways that would better address the status of those resources.

Adoption of Rules of Procedure

During a debate on the provisional rules of procedure, the representative of China said that, according to the proposed provisional rules of procedure, non-party States had no right to vote.  Equal rights and equal footing for decision-making, however, were essential under article 36.  He requested that only the provisional rules would be used, but not adopted as the rules of procedure for the Review Conference.  The representative of Mexico, supported by Peru, Guatemala and Republic of Korea proposed that non-party States should be considered “participating States”.

Other speakers, among them the representatives of Canada, Australia, Iceland and Austria (on behalf of the European Union), expressed concern about the debate, as the issue had been discussed at length, during the preparatory meetings in March.  The representative of Guinea also participated in the discussion.

The Conference then agreed to use the provisional rules of procedure, as contained in document A/Conf.210/2006/6, on a provisional basis.  If any problem arose where formal adoption was necessary, the Review Conference would move to address that.

The provisional agenda was adopted.

The organization of work was adopted, and the President took note of the presentation of the report of the fifth round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement.

The President then introduced the report of the fifth round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement, contained in document A/CONF.210/2006/4).

Opening Statement by Under-Secretary-General

A statement by Nicholas Michel, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, was read out in his absence by Mr. GOLITSYN.  In that statement, he said the Review Conference had been convened to assess the effectiveness of the Agreement in securing the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, pursuant to article 36 of the Agreement.  The Review Conference would also review and assess the adequacy of the Agreement’s provisions and, if necessary, propose means of strengthening them and improving their implementation.

Considered to be the most important legally binding global instrument for the conservation and management of fishery resources since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, the Agreement had established a comprehensive legal regime for the conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, he said.  The Agreement elaborated and developed specific rules set out in the Convention, including provisions related to the strengthening of flag States duties, as well as the role of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements.  It further introduced port States control to promote compliance with high-seas fisheries conservation and management measures. 

He said the Agreement also contained new approaches to fisheries management, resulting from developments in international fisheries law, such as the application of the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.  Another important aspect of the Agreement was its dispute settlement mechanism.  It also took fully into account the requirements of developing countries in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

Since its adoption in 1995, the Agreement, with other international instruments, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Compliance Agreement, had brought a fundamental change in the approach of the international community towards the management of high-seas fisheries, he said.  That management was now increasingly based on the principle of long-term sustainability.  In order to assist developing countries in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, States parties had established an assistance fund in 2003.

He said that, in spite of those positive developments, several fisheries were still subject to unsustainable fishing practices, including overfishing; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and the use of unselective fishing gear and techniques, resulting in excessive by-catch, discards and adverse impact on marine ecosystems.  More had to be done to ensure that the Agreement was effectively implemented.  Increasing the number of parties to the Agreement and addressing the obstacles that prevented States from becoming parties were also crucial.

The Review Conference provided a unique opportunity to address those issues, he said.  In cooperation with FAO, the Secretary-General had prepared a report on implementation of the Review Conference’s mandate (document A/CONF.210/2006/1).  The fifth round of informal consultations of States parties had also issued their report, with proposed framework questions and organization of work.  That fifth round had also recommended elements for assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of the Agreement (document A/CONF.210/2006/5).  A number of States, FAO and regional fisheries management organizations had provided the Conference with additional information.

In conclusion, Mr. Michel expressed the “sincere hope” that the Review Conference would recommend measures for improving the implementation of the Agreement’s provisions.  Such measures would have to meet the expectations and address the concerns of the international community as a whole.

General Debate

The Review Conference then considered the review and assessment of the adequacy of the provisions of the Agreement and, if necessary, proposals for strengthening the substance and methods of implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.  Today’s debate was clustered around adoption of measures; overfishing and capacity management; effects of fishing on the marine ecosystem; fisheries not regulated by regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements; and data collection and sharing.

SERGE BESLIER of the European Community stressed the importance of the review.  He said that progress and advances achieved since 1995 should not be overlooked.  The fact, however, that about 25 to 35 per cent of the stocks continued to pose serious problems, underlined the importance of continuing efforts to improve the situation.  There was a need for the Review Conference to agree on clear recommendations.  Areas to be addressed included strengthening the regional approach to manage the resources in the high seas, modernizing and strengthening the international cooperation mechanisms and institutions that worked on a regional basis, and strengthening of coverage of oceans by the regional organizations.

He said it was also important to ensure global coverage for management of the interaction between fisheries activities and the environment.  He said that, so far, 18 of the European Community’s member States were already States parties to the Agreement, and others were in the process of becoming party.  If there were issues of substance that were dissuading States from becoming parties, those issues should be discussed in a frank and constructive manner, as there might be certain ambiguities in the Agreement, which might prevent States from becoming party to it.

ROBERT G. AISI (Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, said the long-term sustainability of regional fish resources was a matter of the utmost priority to the group’s members, whose cultures, health, economies and development were all dependant on the proper conservation and management of shared fish stocks.  The group’s own regional fisheries management convention had been adopted in 2000.  The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and its framework of cooperative regional management continued to offer the best opportunity to ensure long-term sustainability of fish resources.  For that to continue to be the case, participants must be rigorous and honest in assessing whether the tools provided by the 1995 Agreement and their implementation were adequate to address continuing conservation and management problems.  “We must be proactive this week in identifying our responses and committing to their implementation,” he said. 

A top priority for members of the Pacific Islands Forum was the urgent need to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, he said.  No single issue had the potential for greater ongoing impact on livelihoods.  Regulatory methods must be strengthened and coverage of regional organisations extended.  Enforcement capabilities in fighting such fishing activities must be improved and cooperative management, including targeted delivery of assistance and capacity-building, was the key to winning that fight.  Among the mechanisms for delivering assistance to developing States in accordance with the Agreement was the Part VII Assistance Fund.  Members of the Forum supported the need to review or streamline the application and award process, and to ensure that outreach in relation to the Fund was targeted towards practical ways of increasing States’ understanding of, and access to, the Fund.

J. MORISHIRA ( Japan) said his country had submitted the provisions of the Fish Stocks Agreement to the Diet, and it was now nearing its final stages of consideration. In January 2007, Japan would host a meeting on measures to control tuna stocks.  It was expected that the action plan would be adopted.  He invited anyone who was interested in an explanatory paper to contact the delegation.

STUART BECK ( Palau) said his country expected to accede to the Agreement this year.  He stressed that the Agreement’s prescription of the precautionary approach in ecosystems was the right response.  Since changes in fisheries systems were only slowly reversible and not well understood, the lack of full scientific information should not be used as a reason for not taking measures to prevent environmental degradation.

He said most of the ocean space was completely unregulated.  Preliminary discussions had begun to establish a pacific regional fisheries management organization.  However, temporary “restraining orders” were now needed to protect unprotected waters.  The shortcomings of regional efforts were very apparent concerning bottom trawling.  Its destructiveness had been of serious concern, and his country, like some others, had banned the practice in its exclusive economic zone.  Bottom trawling destroyed habitats and the productivity of fisheries.

As national waters were being regulated, bottom trawlers were now moving into international waters.  Most trawling was done in areas not covered, and its production was mostly underreported by flag States.  It came down to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  Pacific leaders had agreed to develop an international legal framework, which paralleled the course taken for large scale drift-net fishing.  For areas without competent regional fisheries management organizations, there should be an interim prohibition on bottom trawling.

WANG GUANGYA ( China) said the Agreement had contributed to the management of fish resources in the high seas.  In accordance with the Agreement, China had joined many regional fisheries management organizations and had continued to improve its own fisheries management system, adopting a series of measures, including on reporting and statistics.  His country, however, had not approved the Agreement yet, because of concerns about enforcement, even though it had implemented other provisions of the Agreement.

He said his Government had done a lot to achieve sustainable development of fish resources and their conservation.  It would continue to develop aquaculture for its fishermen, and the country was now a fishing State that had mainly focused on aquaculture.  Since 1995, China had also promulgated a programme of action for marine living resources, and his Government would continue to push for conservation management.  He emphasized that sustainable development in fisheries not only meant limiting fishing, but also regulating fishing.

HO SUNG LEE ( Republic of Korea) said the Agreement might be too young for its effectiveness to be assessed, although its measures on compliance enforcement could be considered historic.  They also gave rise to academic debate over whether the agreements imposed rights or obligations on third parties.

Agreement had yet to be reached on the level of participation.  Standards of conservation management and agreement had been widely disseminated at all levels.  Notably, they had guided high-sea fishing operations.  The membership of regional fishery management organizations covered State and non-party States.  Until now, implementation of the agreement appeared fragmented.

He said he wished to circulate information on what his Government had done on management of fish stocks, particularly efforts to establish regional fisheries management organizations to regulate bottom trawling in the North-West Pacific.  The Republic of Korea, Japan and the Russian Federation had met to exchange scientific information and had agreed to cooperate in analysis and exchange of data.  He shared the opinion that it was necessary to develop new regional organizations.

CARLOS DUARTE ( Brazil) said his country considered the Fish Stocks Agreement among the most important multilateral agreements for management of high-seas fisheries, since the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Convention.  Both States parties and those States and entities not yet parties were equally committed to reviewing the provisions.

The world’s overfishing capacity stemmed mainly from super-sized fleets belonging to developed countries.  Brazil would accept an effort to discuss fishing reduction, but only after a clearer definition concerning countries where fishing was still being developed.  He did not favour the creation of new regional fisheries management organizations, as they would entail additional financial obligations and create difficulties in constructively taking part in multiple organizations and initiatives.  But, regarding areas in the South Atlantic not covered by regional fisheries management organizations, he was amenable to discussing with African and other South American countries the establishment of new regional organizations to cover those gaps.  The creation of new regional organizations must be restrained to regions not covered by existing organizations.

The debate on enlarging the mandates of regional fisheries management organizations should account for the increase in duties and responsibilities, which must not be detrimental to countries where fishing was still being developed.  He expressed concern about the creation of a situation of imbalance.  Brazil did support a moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

L. RIDGEWAY ( Canada) said she looked forward to a rich discussion on the challenges to overcome the implementation gap.  The Agreement had an essential role to play in fisheries management, but needed increased participation.  She hoped that the Review Conference would be a catalyst for more participation, as the Agreement had to be brought to a more mature stage.  At the time of the Agreement’s adoption, the international community had proposed a new approach to the management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.  There was now convergence of views on the precautionary and ecosystem approach, but the operational management principles faced challenges.  Her delegation would table some recommendations in that regard.

She said the Agreement recognized the adverse impacts of fisheries on the marine ecosystem and the adverse impact of the changes in the marine ecosystem on fisheries, such as pollution and climate change.  States and regional fisheries management organizations should establish scientific criteria on the objectives and management of protected marine areas.  Regarding data, she said the information available must be complete and accurate.  Data limitations increased the need for precaution, and managers should err on the side of conservation.  She proposed that each regional organization’s secretariat would conduct an annual audit of data submitted by Member States for accuracy, timeliness and completeness.

She said overcapacity was a major systemic issue confronting the conservation and responsible management of many fisheries.  Overcapacity on the high seas was not just a question of “too many boats chasing too few fish”; it was also a question of increasing technical sophistication of individual vessels.   Impediments to implementing the International Plan of Action on capacity, and reducing and controlling capacity under the Agreement, posed a major threat to its success.  States and regional fisheries management organizations must develop “capacity management plans” that would include ongoing assessment of fishing capacity, rules for Government support to fishing fleets and other measures.  Collectively, the need to regulate capacity should be acknowledged.

Regarding fisheries not regulated by regional fisheries management organizations, she said that, since the Agreement, new management bodies had been established.  However, several fish stocks continued to have no harvest limits.  Regional fisheries management organizations should be encouraged to apply an ecosystem approach to fisheries and manage high-seas fish stocks within their geographical area.  Management modalities for high seas not covered by regional organizations should also be pursued as part of the duty of States to cooperate on management issues.  The management of non-migratory, or “discrete”, high-seas fish stocks should also be addressed.  States should be encouraged to recognize that the principles of the Agreement should also apply to the discrete high-seas fish stocks.  A pragmatic first step was to request FAO to conduct a technical study of identification of discrete fish stocks around the world, with a view to developing guidelines for the application of the Agreement’s principles. 

A. BHATTACHARYA ( India) said he was concerned that non-members had substantial fishing capacities.  In some types of tuna, 40 to 45 per cent of the harvests were by non-members.  While India had extra fishing capacity in its own territorial waters, its capacity was not adequate in the exclusive economic zone.  He said developing nations without adequate fishing capacity should not be penalized for increasing their capacity in the future.

A vessel monitoring system was also in the process of being put into operation in his country, which would make monitoring the limited access fishery in the exclusive economic zone more effective.  Assistance under the Agreement was needed to see that such activities were implemented effectively.

NIGEL FYFE ( New Zealand) said he was not sure there was much objective evidence of the application of the provisions based on the precautionary approach in the management action taken by most regional fisheries management organizations to date.  It was particularly lacking in responses concerning the impacts of fishing on non-target species.  The mandates of many regional fisheries management organizations established prior to the entry into force of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement still did not reflect the minimum requirements and principles set out in that Agreement.  He proposed that the extent of adoption of measures by States and regional fisheries management organizations should be incorporated into any performance assessment of regional organizations or States carried out.  Such an assessment should also evaluate the impact of measures on the status of fish stocks and the state of the environment.  Determining the status of stocks was an essential benchmarking exercise.  Regional fisheries management organizations should consider measures, such as area closures, as being among the tools available to them.

Regarding the effect of fishing on the marine ecosystem, he encouraged efforts to modify existing regional fisheries management organizations to consider the effects of fishing in their management regimes and, when developing new ones, to address adequately the effects of fishing on the marine environment.  Regarding fisheries not regulated by any regional organization or arrangement, New Zealand supported the application of Fish Stocks Agreement principles to the conservation and management of discrete high-seas fish stocks.

A. COUVE ( Chile) said that, unfortunately, the exhaustive list prepared for analysis had been reduced from 30 topics to 15.  He would have preferred that the Review Conference would have gone through far greater analysis than could be done in one week.  Regarding the topic of adoption of measures, he said the principle of compatibility should be respected.  States fishing on the high seas should not undermine activities carried out in the exclusive economic zones.

He said that, so far, there were no conservation measures to be implemented in the high seas, as long as there were no regional fisheries management organizations.  Efforts had been made to cooperate in conservation management regimes in the high seas, but they did not exist.  As one example, he mentioned that, as the swordfish in the South Pacific had been fully exploited, Chile had frozen the size of its fleet in 1990.  However, distant-water fishing nations had increased their fishing in those areas adjacent to Chile’s exclusive economic zone, without any conservation measures that could guarantee the continued existence of the species.  That was not in accordance with international agreements.  The clauses of the Agreement had not been translated into measures that could guarantee survival of the species.

Asking what measures could strengthen the implementation of the Agreement, he said bilateral cooperation had been difficult, and there was no regional organization with competence.  It was, therefore, urgent to get consensus at the international level, to allow for a provisional system of interim measures to guarantee conservation in the high seas.

On overfishing and overcapacity, he said Chile had eliminated industrial overcapacity with high social costs.  The fleet was monitored regarding allowable catch.  Increased capacity in the high seas adjacent to the Chilean exclusive economic zone had been aggravated, however, by subsidies given by some countries to their fisheries.  Subsidies created overfishing that undermined the effectiveness of the regulations implemented by the regional fisheries management organizations.  He recommended that the Review Conference call on countries to eliminate fishing subsidies and establish a plan to reduce fishing capacity.

Guinea, Brazil, Spain, Fiji, the Russian Federation, China and Chile were elected Vice-Presidents of the Review Conference.

W. HOGARTH, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), said that, as a regional fisheries management organization, it had a keen interest in the outcome of the Conference.  The importance of the Agreement could not be overstated.  ICCAT had adopted many measures consistent with the Agreement.  It had often been a leader in meeting the fisheries management challenges, but it still faced a number of challenges.  It had serious problems with fish stocks.  Although measures concerning swordfish could be called successful, bluefin tuna remained overfished.

He said the two key elements to fisheries management were science-based management programmes and their implementation and, for ICCAT to be successful, members needed to commit to those elements.  Reporting was perhaps the most serious implementation problem, and ICCAT now faced a data crisis for some fish stocks.  Members must find ways to address the causes of that serious problem.  He hoped that an honest assessment of the Agreement could be made at the end of the week, and that the Conference would reinforce the notion that efforts were needed by all parties.  It was the primary responsibility of members of regional fisheries management organizations to ensure that their measures were compatible with the provisions of the Agreement.

I.R. SAVAN (Fiji) said his country had implemented numerous precautionary approaches, including establishing a national allowable total tuna catch, licensing long-line fisheries and creating a robust tuna offshore database, a national fishery observance programme and an enforcement programme.  On overfishing and capacity management, it had issued capacity cutbacks on fishing vessels.  He called on other countries to do the same.

In the area of effective fishing and marine environment, Fiji had exceeded several international treaties and conventions.  Fiji’s exclusive economic zone had been declared a whale sanctuary.  As for unregulated fisheries, Fiji had participated in the establishment of a new regional fishery management organization for the South Pacific.  There were issues under consideration that were important to Fiji, particularly the areas and the species concerned.

V.A. CHARLES ( Saint Lucia) said that there were some important developments made in the Caribbean region.  With assistance from FAO, Saint Lucia had updated its national fisheries registration.  It was also continuing to address the environmental provisions of the Agreement, but, as always, the problem of resources was a challenge.  He, therefore, welcomed the FAO assistance.

He said Saint Lucia had designated a number of landing sites to officially gather data.  It had also implemented a registering system for vessels and increased the number of reporting systems to regional fisheries management organizations.  As Belize, Saint Vincent, and Trinidad and Tobago had also implemented such systems, those actions demonstrated the level of commitment to the Agreement in the region.  Any assistance in implementing provisions of the Agreement would be appreciated.

Mr. AGUILAR ( Mexico) said it was important to identify the aspects that had so far prevented a greater number of States from joining the Agreement and taking measures to make it universal.  Lack of universality was the main deficiency of the Agreement.  Article 36 conferred on all States the right to full participation, on equal footing at the Review Conference, and that should be reflected in the rules of procedure and in all agreements that might be reached.

In looking at the adequacy of provisions, the Agreement should be applied in the context of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Fisheries on the high seas should be subject to the rights, interests and duties of coastal States.  The port State authority had full sovereignty over marine terminals, including restrictions on their use when fishing activities existed that were not compatible with measures under its national jurisdiction.

Decisions on conservation measures and self-determination should be taken by all coastal and fishing States, as stated in the Law of the Sea Convention, he said.  Criteria for managing fisheries should respect the rights of coastal States.  They should also take into account the interests of all States, even those with no coast.  Measures applied on the high seas should not undermine those in place in waters of coastal States.

F. ‘UTOIKAMANU (Tonga) said her country had implemented its obligations under the Agreement, as far as it was able, given its limited human and financial resources, through enactment of legislation and in participation with regional fisheries management organizations.  It had also participated in the first meeting of the newly established South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.  Management measures adopted by the Pacific Community addressing the issue of overfishing and overcapacity had been endorsed by Tonga.  Member States of the Forum Fisheries Committee had also approved implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management.

She said that, at the national level, the management of Tonga’s fisheries was based on several pieces of legislation, including the Fisheries Regulation Act, the Fisheries Protection Act and the Fisheries Management Act.  Tonga had recently completed the “Fisheries Corporate Plan for the period 2004-2007:  a blueprint for sustainable development of Tonga’s aquatic resources”.   It had also approved the measures adopted by the Pacific Community relating to the fishing activities of its vessels.  It had, to a large extent, fulfilled its obligations regarding licensing and authorizing vessels and was in the process of adopting legislation for use by port States.

Regarding the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, Tonga needed more international cooperation to support its national efforts, she said.  She recognized the support of international and regional organizations for Tonga’s efforts to fulfil its obligations.  However, a clearer definition of areas of support was required, particularly with regard to recognition of the special needs of developing fisheries for food security in grass-root communities.  She called on all that had not done so to become party to the Agreement.

F. MAGAFFOUBA ( Guinea) said monitoring was an important problem.  At the national level, effective legislative action had to be taken to set up efficient monitoring systems and research centres.  In order to ensure adequate data on fish stocks, permanent surveillance was necessary.  All of that involved substantive resources, which were not always available to developing countries.  However, through regional and subregional cooperation, joint monitoring missions could be established.

Countries in his subregion had found that foreign ships often entered their waters and pillaged them, he said.  Guinea had concluded an agreement with Sierra Leone, allowing each country to enter each other’s waters in pursuit of such ships.  He hoped that such concerns would be taken into account when the Agreement was assessed.  He also urged States that had not yet done so to become party to the Agreement.

Mr. E. JINADASA ( Sri Lanka) said the importance of the Agreement could not be overemphasized for an island nation like Sri Lanka.  His country was fully committed to implementing the Agreement.  Its fishing law was now being amended to comply with international obligations.  Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing must be addressed effectively.  Sri Lanka allowed foreign fishing vessels on high seas to land their catches on its shores and process them for export.  In issuing fish landing permits to foreign vessels, Sri Lanka took care not to do so to vessels that engaged in illegal, unregulated or unreported fishing.

NARMOKO PRASMADJI ( Indonesia) said that, although his country had yet to ratify the Agreement, its fisheries management had substantially adopted and implemented the provisions of the Agreement in its regulations and policies.  Less than one third of the members of the international community had become party to the Agreement.  Consequently, the meeting should formulate more incentives for non-party States to join, and not create additional obligations that would discourage them from doing so.

More initiatives should be introduced to assist developing States in enhancing their capability for sustainable use and management of fish stocks under their jurisdiction.  The Review Conference should avoid imposing embargoes or other trade restrictions on coastal developing States that were still struggling to meet the Agreement’s expectations.

The articles in the Agreement pertaining to ship-boarding inspection presented problems to some countries that were considering whether to accede to it, he said.  It was important to reflect on that regulation.  The right should not infringe on the freedom of navigation, as stipulated by the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

B. QIBBANS-FLY ( United States) stressed the importance of science for conservation and management decisions.  Even in cases where there was scientific advice, however, States had taken decisions that fell short of such advice.  He hoped the Review Conference would address that matter.  Where measures had been adopted, compliance with those measures by non-parties or members of certain organizations was problematic.  He hoped the Conference’s outcome would reflect the will to strengthen the science, to adopt measures consistent with science and the precautionary approach, and to enhance compliance by members and non-members.  Noticing that the provisions of the precautionary approach had been negotiated carefully, he said that efforts by States to implement them had been haphazard.

As for capacity, he said that organizations and arrangements responsible for straddling fish stocks should develop plans that would reduce levels of fishing capacity by 2012.  Organizations for highly migratory fish stocks should, by 2007, adopt a plan for capacity management.  Positive steps had been taken regarding the effects of fishing on the marine environment, but more could be done, including on application of an ecosystem approach.

He hoped that the Conference would endorse plans to establishing an organization that would manage and regulate high-seas fisheries.  As for data collection, he said scientific advice was only as good as the data that supported it.  Countries should, therefore, provide full and comprehensive data.  Although he had addressed a number of problems, he acknowledged that the Agreement had resulted in many positive things.  However, the Agreement’s implementation by States and regional fisheries management organizations had been uneven.  He supported calls for objective criteria to assess implementation. 

T. H. HEIDAR ( Iceland) said the Agreement provided the legal framework for fisheries management on the high seas, and it should be enhanced through greater implementation.  Members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission had negotiated several amendments to establish performance reviews.  The organization demonstrated that States could take such positions in their own region, without the interference of the global community.

The Commission had taken measures to protect sensitive ecosystems from destructive fishing practices.  He was encouraged by the reviews of other regional fishery management organizations, as well as the steps taken to establish new organizations.  The conference should welcome that as a positive development and encourage further steps in the same direction.

JAMES LARSEN ( Australia) said there remained clear gaps on the question of international conservation efforts, including limited participation and adoption, gaps in flag and port State controls, and overfishing of relevant fish stocks.  Regional fisheries management organizations that predated the Agreement focused on management of specific stocks rather than entire ecosystems.  Much more could be done in that area. 

There was a lack of consistency in measures between regional organizations, he said.  Existing organizations should be modernized, and it was important to increase communication and cooperation between them.  A model regional management organization could be a benchmark to determine areas where modernization could be readily achieved. 

K. EGGE ( Norway) said that, according to articles 5 an 6, States were obliged to promote the protection of ecosystems.  Those articles were being implemented to some degree, but more must be done.  The duty for such protection must also be reflected in the mandates and practices of the regional fisheries management organizations.  One particular issue was the use of fishing practices that might impact sensitive environments, such as bottom trawling.  That issue was dealt with in the General Assembly and should not be an issue in the Review Conference.

Regarding waste discards and catch by abandoned gear, he said huge amounts of fish resources simply vanished, by being thrown overboard.  Measures to address that practice could increase fish stocks.  The Conference should welcome such measures as a contribution to implementation of the Agreement, and call for measures to intensify States’ obligations in that regard.  Overcapacity was also linked to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and reducing overcapacity would reduce pressure on fish stocks.  The Conference should recognize attempts to curb it and welcome them as contributions to implementation of the Agreement.

M. MUNBODH ( Mauritius) said that much of Mauritius’ economy depended on fisheries.   It was, therefore, important that its fish resources were exploited in a sustainable way.  His country had joined the Agreement, as well as numerous other international agreements and organizations, and was committed to participation in several regional fisheries management organizations.  His country further contributed to combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

He said the Agreement had set a firm basis for cooperation at the regional and international levels, but steps should be taken to improve implementation.  Assistance in that regard to developing countries should continue and be reinforced.  The regional fisheries management organizations should assess the status of stocks, as no single country could do that on its own.  They should also take measures to address overfishing and capacity management.  Data collection and sharing was a basis for management and should be pursued at the national, regional and international levels. 

M.D. TALLA ( Senegal) said her country set great store by the Agreement.  As for fisheries and their effect on the marine environment, regulations had been established to ensure sustainable use and conservation.  The same applied to the collection and distribution of information.  The terms of the Agreement had been fairly well integrated into legislation within the subregional fisheries commissions.  Each country could not operate alone, and measures must be taken within the framework of a regional committee.  Senegal did not have the resources to carry out the measures, and she supported action that would ensure the provision of necessary resources for implementing the agreement.

Mr. BESLIER, European Community, said the precautionary approach and its complementary approach, ecosystem protection, were fundamental.  There was no need to wait for regional organizations to adopt statutes, and there could be no false pretexts for not implementing those approaches.  The Conference was not aiming to establish overall policy for capacity management.

It was clear that the role of regional fisheries management organizations was particularly important, he said.  To properly govern the high seas and arrive at effective solutions, a legal centre for decision making in conservation and management of such resources was essential.  The Law of the Sea Convention gave pride of place to regional fisheries management organizations for that purpose.

The collection and sharing of data was a key element, both for definition of decisions to be taken and in terms of transparency of such management.  There was a problem of developing countries not having the capacity to collect data.  The European Community was working on an action plan to improve such data collection.

A. WRIGHT, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, said that, in 2005, the Commission had adopted several binding measures, as well as non-binding ones.  Those non-binding measures concerned, among other things, seabirds and sea turtle by-catch.  Reporting procedures had also been developed.  In 2006, the Commission would consider the effectiveness of the reporting obligations. 

Challenges involved the vigorous debate regarding development of measures that sought to limit harvest, he said.  It would be a challenge to implement such measures.  Other challenges were to ensure that decision-making was based on the best available science; deliberations were transparent; monitoring was efficient; and members were accountable.

He said that, in 2002, the Commission had reiterated the concerns of continued capacity increases and had urged restraint.  In December last year, the Commission had adopted a resolution requiring a reduction in capacity.  The Commission was also in the process of addressing an ecosystem approach that probably would be based on the approach of the Pacific Island Forum.  However, implementation of such an approach would be contingent on adequate resources.  The Commission was addressing data collection and sharing, through creative arrangements with existing organizations.   Existing data gaps were associated with inadequate data submissions, including from developing members, and also with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

FELETI TEO, Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency, said his members had a role in ensuring balance and would loathe seeing that finely crafted balance unravelled.  The enforcement provisions represented a new direction.  Agency members would hate to see strong enforcement provisions replaced by something weaker than what currently existed.

One of the major challenges for small island developing States was implementing the Agreement, he said.  The issue was particularly acute in the South Pacific, because of the vastness of the region and the small size of States there.  Agency members were, nonetheless, at the forefront of efforts to implement the Agreement.  The success of any arrangement depended on the goodwill of parties and the extent to which initiatives were implemented.  Innovative but important initiatives ensured that members were not just bystanders. 

Mr. H. COHEN, World Conservation Union/IUCN, said the state of the world’s fisheries was of grave concern.  The population of high-value fish, such as tuna and cod, had declined by up to 90 per cent.  The world community could not wait for full implementation to take effect, but must take steps now.  Not enough had been done to ensure sustainability of the world’s fish stocks.  States should ensure that the ecosystem and precautionary approaches were adopted by all regional fisheries management organizations.  Coverage should be extended to all catches on the high seas.  States should eliminate destructive practices, and impose an interim ban on bottom trawling.

Provisions that allowed States to opt out of management measures should be abolished.  States should build cooperative programmes and eliminate subsidies in overcapacity.  They should discourage the use of destructive fishing gear and establish marine protected areas by 2012.  Governments should set aside test or pilot areas.  Since some regional fisheries management organizations covered only certain highly migratory species, new or existing regulations should be established to cover all such species. 

J. GARAT PEREZ, International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA), said the organization brought together national fishing organizations of the main fishing regions of the world.  ICFA recognized that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was the foundation document for marine governance.  The Agreement clarified the Convention and provided principles for managing fisheries on the high seas.  ICFA members came from countries that were both parties and non-parties to the Agreement, but were committed to being responsible fishers and to comply with the requirements imposed by flag States.  Non-compliance undermined the rights and viability of compliant fishers.  The organization required a level playing field, and Governments needed to take firm action to eliminate flags of convenience and illegal fishing.

He said ICFA urged all States to recognize that the difficulties that responsible fishing States faced in ratifying the Agreement were genuine and needed to be addressed.  Several older regional fisheries management organizations had yet to bring their rules into line with the expectations of the Agreement.  He fully supported efforts to complete the development of those organizations or arrangements to address gaps in regional fisheries governance, including for discrete stocks in the high seas. Fishing entities were becoming increasingly important, and he urged States to ensure that they were recognized as stakeholders in fisheries governance.

A. GRAHAM, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), said his organization had produced a report, bringing together some suggestions on how Governments, working through regional fisheries management organizations, could make the most of experience and best practices.  He urged Governments not to underestimate the scope of the task taken on.  While undertaking reforms, interim arrangements were needed.  The destructiveness of some fishing practices needed to be addressed, including, in some cases, through prohibiting them.

He said the responsibility of Governments to take ecosystem management seriously was a big challenge.  Many organizations were expecting the Conference to take concrete measures.  There already existed a commitment to eliminate overcapacity.  That commitment, however, did not mean “sweeping it under the table”, or passing it on to one’s neighbour.  Overcapacity had to be removed, and a scrapping programme was necessary.

R. ALLEN, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) said his organization had one of the most comprehensive data sets on highly migratory fish stocks, and it had provided that data to Governments and organizations.  It had published advice regarding some tuna species, including the status of the stocks of tuna and consideration of the effects of fishing on the marine ecosystem.

IATTC had implemented conservation measures based on the best scientific advice for over 45 years. Over the long term, the conservation programme had been successful.  As there were too many vessels operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, IATTC had, in 2005, adopted a plan for regional management of fishing capacity.  That plan set a target for capacity.  Only vessels registered with the organization were permitted to fish in the region.  New vessels could enter the organization’s register, only when vessels of equal size were removed.  That management of capacity had provided a restraint on the growth of the fleet, but did not meet the goal of reduction.

SEBASTIAN MATHEW, International Collective in Support of Fish Workers, said States were required to ensure access by small scale, artisanal and women fishers.  In the background materials, there was scant reference to such groups.  While providing employment to thousands of fishers from poor communities, artisanal fishers for tuna stocks were particularly selective.  In several countries, artisanal and small scale vessels were not allowed to fish in waters beyond their jurisdiction.  The Agreement did not make provisions for those groups.

GONZALO PEREIRA, Permanent Commission for the South Pacific, said her group carried out coordination efforts to agree on joint strategies for the meeting.  One of the main concerns was the role of non-party States at the Review Conference.  He regretted that such matters had not been taken into account in the rules of procedure. 

LISA SPEER, National Resources Defence Council, said there was not a lot to point to in terms of conservation measures.  Even where measures had been taken, effectiveness varied widely.  Limits were often at odds with scientific advice and, even when they were not, they were often not enforced.  One very important recommendation would be for the establishment of terms of reference and a timeline for regular assessment of regional management organization actions.  Such a process could be done in a number of different ways, including by establishing a standing committee.  Criteria could be developed from the model regional management organization.  It was important to level the playing field and ensure that consistent conservation measures were adopted uniformly. 

She said it was not clear what the benefit of establishing FAO guidelines for management of high-seas discrete fish stocks would be.  She said it would be simpler for the group to agree on applying the provisions of the high seas agreement to all stocks.

D. CURRIE, Greenpeace, emphasized that, those who wished to use high-seas resources must show that they would not cause harm to the marine environment and that their activities would be sustainable and equitable, before they undertook such activities.  Prior environmental impact assessment was essential.  It was not acceptable that damage to marine biodiversity occurred before rules were implemented and enforced.  That meant that new and exploratory fisheries must be closed, until they had been assessed.

He said that high-seas bottom trawling was a clear example of the failure to adopt measures required by articles 5 through 7 of the Agreement.  As ongoing damage to high-seas fish stocks was a major concern, he urged the Conference to find a way to subject those stocks to the Agreement.  While governance reform was ongoing, damage to vulnerable marine ecosystems was also ongoing.  That was why a moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling was essential until concrete and effective measures were in place to conserve vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems.

He said there had been little or no progress towards adoption of effective interim protection measures in areas where new regional fisheries management organizations were being established.  A regional organization on paper was ineffective, without actual appropriate and effective measures.  The conclusion of negotiations on agreements regarding conservation and management issues did not mean that they had been satisfactorily addressed.  Only actual implementation and enforcement of those measures would suffice.  Development of technical guidelines by FAO would take time, and there was no time.  For all those reasons, a moratorium was essential in the short term, and binding measures were essential in the medium and longer term, to govern the vulnerable ecosystems sustainably.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record