FISHING QUOTAS OFTEN FAVOUR COUNTRIES WITH HIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED FLEETS, FISH STOCKS REVIEW CONFERENCE TOLD

Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

3^rd & 4^th Meetings (AM & PM)

FISHING QUOTAS OFTEN FAVOUR COUNTRIES WITH HIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED FLEETS,

FISH STOCKS REVIEW CONFERENCE TOLD

Participants Examine Role, Functions

Of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

The allocation of fishing quotas by regional fisheries management organizations often favoured countries with highly industrialized fleets, virtually depriving developing coastal States with emerging fisheries of their right to develop their own high-seas fishing capacities, the representative of Brazil told participants in the first Review Conference of the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement.

He said that, in many regional fisheries management organizations, the burden of costs was not proportionally distributed among developed and developing countries, something that prevented the participation of many developing countries in those organizations.

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 establishes a comprehensive legal regime for the conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.  It includes provisions related to the strengthening of flag States responsibilities, as well as the role of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements.

The Conference, officially known as “the 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”, has been convened to assess the effectiveness of the Agreement in securing those goals.  The Conference will also review and assess the adequacy of the Agreement’s provisions and, if necessary, propose means of strengthening them and improving their implementation.

Today, State and non-State participants considered integrity of regional management organization regimes; fishing activity by non-members; functioning of regional fisheries management organizations; and participatory rights.

Speakers emphasized that regional fisheries management organizations were at the very heart of governing the fisheries in the oceans worldwide, and thatcollaboration and transparency were essential elements in creating effective regional fisheries management organizations.  However, functions and statutes should be modernized.  A credible system must include global coverage on a geographic and a species basis, as well as modernized organizations.  Some expressed concern about the lack of financial resources for the organizations, as member States’ contributions were often lacking.

Participants in the debate expressed concern about the growing problem of fishing in regional waters by States who were not members of the regional fisheries management organizations and who did not share a commitment to conservation and management measures.  That practice directly undermined regional conservation and management measures.  Chile’s representative underlined that such a situation primarily harmed the economic interests of the coastal States, but also impacted on the operation of the distant water fishing fleets.

The representative of Papua New Guinea (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum)proposed that the Review Conference strongly urge non-parties to the Agreement and non-members of regional management organizations who were benefiting from shared fish stocks to become parties and members, and to comprehensively implement the obligations and conservation measures of the relevant management bodies.  The Review Conference should also encourage use of regional fishing vessel registers to ensure that those who were not members of the relevant organization and who did not apply its measures were excluded from access to the fisheries managed by that organization.  Other speakers suggested that “white and black lists” of vessels should be shared among fisheries management organizations.

On the functioning of regional fisheries management organizations, the representative of New Zealand urged that the Conference develop recommendations to increase accountability by establishing performance indicators in line with the principles and standards set out in the Agreement.  The representative of the United States said that, at some point, regional fisheries management organizations should undergo an independent and external review based on a uniform set of criteria.   Iceland’s representative, however, said it was up to the member States of those organizations to decide on review criteria.

In addressing participatory rights, speakers stressed it was an important but difficult and sensitive issue.  The question was how to entice non-members to participate in regional fisheries management organizations.  The representative of Japan suggested that that could almost always be done through the “carrot” of allocation.

In other business, the Conference appointed Germany, Norway, Ukraine, Mauritius, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Uruguay and Saint Lucia to its Credentials Committee.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Canada, Norway, Spain, Australia, Namibia, Senegal, China, Peru, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Uruguay, Colombia and Mexico.  The representative of the European Community also made a statement.

Representatives of the following observer organizations also contributed to the discussion:  World Wildlife Fund; National Resources Defence Council; GreenPeace; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN); Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas;Commission for the Sustainability of Southern Bluefin Tuna; and the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific.

The Review Conference will meet again tomorrow, 24 May, at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion

Background

Participants in the first Review Conference of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 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”, will consider ways to address questions relating to international cooperation and non-members, as they assess the adequacy of the Agreement’s provisions.

Discussion will be clustered around:  integrity of regional fisheries management organizations regimes; fishing activity by non-members; functioning of regional fisheries management organizations; and participatory rights.

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

Drafting Committee Report

The Chair of the Drafting Committee, F. RUIGOMEZ ( Spain), reported that the open-ended Committee to prepare for the Conference’s completion met from 6 to
9 p.m. last night with some 20 delegations participating, including States and non-States parties, non-governmental organization s (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations.  He said there was agreement on many issues.  Swift progress had been made in the spirit of consensus on the assessment and review of the Agreement.

Statements

SERGE BESLIER, of the European Community, stressed that regional fisheries management organizations were at the very heart of the governing framework of fisheries in the oceans worldwide.  As the Agreement had provided many improvements of international cooperation in ocean management, its provisions should be applied effectively to ensure sustainable management.  The European Community attached importance to the open nature of the regional fisheries management organizations, so that each country interested in activities in the areas concerned could take part in the organization’s management.  The expressed obligation under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to cooperate could best be implemented by becoming a contracting party to a regional management organization.  Countries with only temporary interests could make a formal commitment to apply the resolutions of those bodies or declare themselves a cooperating party.

He said the Review Conference should ensure that, if a State expressed “genuine interest” to have ships fish in a certain area, it should also exercise effective control over those vessels.  Flags of convenience should not be allowed.  There was also a need for all entities to effectively participate in the work of the regional fisheries management organizations.  Certain States and entities should not be left outside, either because they lacked the resources to join or because of political or legal reasons.  Pragmatic solutions should be found.

Measures to dissuade illegal, unreported and unregulated activities were an issue of fundamental importance, he continued, because as long as some ship owners could get away with flags of convenience, the activities of the regional fisheries management organizations would be weakened.  The instrument of “white and black lists” enabled those organizations to act at ship levels, and it worked well, provided that it was used transparently.  Prevention of re-flagging and flags of non-conformity represented a situation prejudicial to the international community, as certain States did not have the control or will to control their ships.  The Conference should push to see that the international community would look at the condition of the “genuine link” as provided for under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In general, he said, the mandates and the statutory position of the regional fisheries management organizations were generally satisfactory.  He urged, however, for continuance of modernizing their statutes to take into account progress made.  As for participatory rights, he said those rights were not explicitly provided for in the Agreement.

L. RIDGEWAY ( Canada) said collaboration and transparency were essential elements in creating effective regional fisheries management organizations.  A credible system must include global coverage on a geographic and a species basis, as well as modernized organizations.  Since most regional management organizations predated the United Nations Fish Agreement, many had not been updated to reflect minimum national standards.  If the United Nations Fish Agreement was a global framework for cooperation, then its conventions and agreements provided the minimum guidelines for members and cooperating non-members.

She said there were already plenty of recent political commitments covering a formidable list of States.  Now was the time to put will to the test.  Consensus-building was not the issue -- the greatest need was for minimum national standards and conventions.  To guarantee compliance with the rules, the Conference should recommend strong actions regarding sanctioning.  Regional management organizations also needed timely and adequate resources.  Fisheries governance was under focused on incentives and overly focused on rules.

NIGEL FYFE ( New Zealand) recalled that there were now 19 regional fisheries management organization, but their critical weakness was that they lacked built-in mechanisms for systematic review of their activities and achievements using the yardstick set out in the Agreement.  He said the Conference should develop recommendations to increase regional organization accountability by establishing performance indicators in line with the principles and standards set out in the Agreement and also in line with best international practices.  Then those organizations should be reformed accordingly.  They should conduct an initial self-assessment by July 2007 and, thereafter, should commission independent reviews in accordance with best international practice.

Further, he said a future review conference should be mandated to receive and assess performance evaluations to ensure maximum transparency.  Regional fisheries management organizations should report the results of their assessments and also the actions they had taken to remedy deficiencies.  Cooperation among regional organizations should also be increased for the purpose of harmonizing measures and ensuring consistency.

Finally, he called for more work to be done on considering the principles and criteria to be applied in determining participatory rights such as allocations of allowable catch or levels of fishing effort.  To what extent had regional fisheries management organizations agreed, as appropriate, on those rights, including with regard to new Agreement members or participants?  Much more work needed to be devoted to finding solutions that balanced conservation interests with the economic and social interests of States.  The work could be done either within the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) or mandated to future review conferences, including their preparatory processes.

K.K. EGGE ( Norway) said the reliance of the Agreement on regional fisheries management organizations was essential for the sustainable management of fish stocks.  The sustainable use of fish stocks was a significant source of healthy food.  The right balance between protection and utilization had to be found, and the regional organizations had an important role to play in that regard.  Over the last years, more States had become parties to them; new ones had been established; and some had modernized their mandates.  Still, some gaps existed regarding geographical coverage, scope of mandate and memberships.

He said one fundamental driver behind overfishing was that parties to regional fisheries management organizations had not been able to agree on allocation of quotas.  That also had negative effect on the general functioning and decision-making capabilities of the organizations.  The Review Conference must call on those organizations to intensify efforts to modernize their status and to make sure that they conformed to the standards set by the Agreement.  Performance review was an important tool to strengthen them and secure general public credibility.  The Review Conference should recommend that parties to regional fisheries management organizations take action to initiate periodic performance assessments.  As he welcomed the positive developments in many regional organizations, he highlighted the example of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

PAZ MARTI ( Spain) said she wished to examine the New York Agreement, which was a multilateral instrument covering the conservation of marine birds.  So far, 10 countries had signed the Agreement, and eight had ratified it.  The Agreement was a universal one, not confined to the Southern Hemisphere.  It also included a bird from the Mediterranean.  As a fishing nation which practised responsible fishing, Spain did not want to kill marine birds, particularly albatrosses.  The Agreement should be recognized and adhered to.

She also drew attention to article 6(d), regarding habitats of special concern.  Spain was receptive to the idea of a protected habitat.  There was also such a thing as acoustic pollution, and silence of the seas should be pursued.  For example, France had prohibited military manoeuvres near the Canary Islands.  Tourism should be regulated, and other activities for conservation of the oceans should be examined.

J. MORISHITA ( Japan ) announced that, as his country would soon become Party to the Agreement, it had issued a report on Japan’s implementation of its provisions.  Japan was in a unique position as it was one of the major distant water fishing countries and provided one of the largest markets for sea food.  In order to fulfil its responsibility as producer and consumer, it had managed its fisheries in accordance with the established international frameworks.  Japan had joined numerous regional fisheries management organizations, including the five on tuna.  It would host a meeting of those organizations in January next year.

Addressing fishing activities by non-members, he said that issue was one of the most important ones and included illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  Just encouraging non-participants in the regional organizations to join did not work, as history had shown.  As Japan had one of the largest markets, it had applied “market measures”, including catch certification.  If species did not meet the requirements of such certification, it would not be allowed to be imported.  Although he supported the strengthening and modernizing of the functions of regional management organizations, he said, implementation of existing measures should also be emphasized.

He said the question of participatory rights was an important but difficult and sensitive issue.  How could non-members be enticed to participate in regional management organizations? -- that was the question.  Almost always, that could happen through allocation.  That might imply that some existing members would have to cut down on their own quota or that the regional organization allowed catch to be larger than recommended.  Case studies in that regard should be shared between regional management organizations.

JAMES LARSEN ( Australia) said he was encouraged by the level of participation in regional fisheries management organizations.  Despite good levels of cooperation among like-minded States, he said he was deeply concerned about the growing problem of fishing in regional waters by States who were not members of the regional fisheries management organizations and who did not share a commitment to conservation and management measures.  That practice was unsustainable and directly undermined regional conservation and management measures.

He said regional fisheries management organizations should be encouraged to ensure that they had full catch documentation systems to track fish from harvest to market.  The reach of such organizations was limited, however, to the extent that only their members were bound to implement their rules.  It was up to forums such as the present one to advance the recognition of such fishing practices as illegal.

A key area which required improvement was to secure better harmonization of compliance measures across regional management organizations, including those targeted at non-regional fisheries management organizations members.  He added that capacity-building was also critical.  Clearly, many States had the will but not the means to join regional management organizations and implement their conservation measures.  Participants must work harder on incentives to encourage them to join.

J. PROTHMAN ( Namibia) said his country’s report on the implementation of the Agreement demonstrated its commitment to it, but there was ample room for improvement.  The first priority was to increase participation in the Agreement beyond the current 57 States parties.  Implementation of the Agreement also needed to be enhanced.

He said Namibia was party to all regional fisheries management organizations in whose areas its distant fishing vessels were active.  As a coastal State, it was also a member of the South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO).  Regional fisheries management organizations were only as effective as States allowed them to be.  At its establishment, SEAFO had been signed by nine States, including coastal ones.  Since 2001, only four States had ratified the Convention and were active members, including only two coastal States.  No regional management organization could operate on such a small base, and relevant States, particularly coastal States, should fully participate.  He assured participants that SEAFO could match the obligations of participants with “carrots”.

M.D. TALLA ( Senegal) reviewed the present state of progress within her country’s subregion.  A draft revision of the relevant regional fisheries management organization was currently being elaborated.  Non-member countries, each meeting in subregional organizations, had also concluded fishery agreements with other countries.  Plans were afoot to establish a coordinated policy of regulated access for foreign fisheries.  Among member countries of the regional management organization, only Guinea and Senegal had signed an agreement on straddling fish stocks.  She encouraged others to sign.

Within the ministerial conference of African States on the Atlantic Seaboard, members had affirmed their solidarity with landlocked States.  The main problem inhibiting the function of regional fisheries management organizations was that those bodies existed mainly on the contributions of member States, and such contributions were often lacking.

L. ZHENG ( China) said regional fisheries management organizations had done much in implementing regional agreements.  Participation should be more equitable, and more scientific distribution standards and principles were needed.

High-sea marine resources were the common heritage of all countries, and all countries had the equitable right to conserve those resources.  In the future, the distribution system should epitomize the principle of optimal and equitable use, as provided for in the Convention.  The FAO should conduct the necessary assessments and studies to come up with fair and reasonable standards.

Ms. VELASQUEZ ( Peru) said article 11 addressed the rights of new members and participants.  It required that in the reform and modernization of regional fisheries management organizations, special attention be paid to the rights and obligations of new members.  Rights of participation, however, had to be approached “holistically”, taking into account also the needs of coastal States and the interests of developing countries in whose areas of jurisdiction the stocks existed.  Without such an approach, the results would not be equitable and would discourage participation.

She said her country was a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.  It supported the initiative of New Zealand and Australia regarding the establishment of a regime based on respecting the rights of coastal States.

A. COUVE ( Chile) said the mechanism for international cooperation increasingly required management of fish stocks in the high seas.  Regarding the presence of straddling fish stocks in the high seas adjacent to Chile’s Exclusive Economic Zone, his country had appealed to States whose flag ships operated in those areas, to conserve and manage the resources, such as horse mackerel stocks.  Unfortunately, such international cooperation had not been effective, and the sustainability of the stock’s exploitation was endangered.

He said that situation primarily harmed the economic interests of the coastal States, but also impacted on the operation of the distant water fishing fleets.  Chile had co-sponsored an initiative to establish an organization for the unregulated high seas areas.  The lack of international cooperation by non-members of regional management organizations completely undermined the purpose of the cooperation mechanisms.  The rights and duties of States in their capacity of port States and coastal States had to be addressed.

Regarding the integrity of the regional fisheries organizations, he said that, for countries that wanted to participate in fishing on the high seas, the concept of “genuine interest” had been established.  In decisions on conservation, however, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea had to be taken into account, and only coastal States and those fishing could participate.  He announced that he would submit a proposal on the interpretation of the provisions in that regard.

NARMOKO PRASMADJI ( Indonesia) said the existence of regional management organizations was important to Indonesia, given its access to several oceans where such organizations were applicable.  Indonesia had been active in supporting the establishment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission process, and was also in the final process of becoming a member of the World Conservation Union, with whom it had cooperated in refining the tuna data-collection system.  Indonesia had also started to recruit and train observers, and was focusing on industrial fisheries.

Given Indonesia’s efforts, regional management organizations should address efforts by non-members who were cooperating with them, he said.  More active participation by developing countries would strengthen the missions of such organizations.

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY ( United States) said that, while some regional management organizations had made good progress in cooperating with mandates, many were slow to implement the full range of functions in the agreement.  Many did not collect fishing data or only requested that it be provided voluntarily.  Some were slow to adopt international standards for responsible fishing operations.  To date, there was no systematic effort to review or assess the performance of regional fisheries management organizations.  He proposed that the Conference recommend that all parties and other participants in regional organizations call for performance reviews of those organizations and also set the guidelines for such reviews.  At some point in the process, there should be an independent and external review based on a uniform set of criteria.

Regarding the problems of non-member fishing, he proposed that all regional organizations establish mechanisms to promote cooperation with non-members.  Such status should be conditioned on the status of compliance, contributions to the organization and efforts to become parties within a reasonable time, where possible.  All regional fisheries management organizations should adopt effective measures to deter fishing by non-members.  There remained significant issues on participatory rights.  There had been significant advances in transparency in recent years, but sometimes opportunities for observers to participate were overly burdensome.  All regional management organizations should streamline their observer procedures.

HO SUNG LEE ( Republic of Korea) said his country had joined 16 international or regional fisheries management organizations, thereby attaining membership in all such bodies that had purview over the waters where Korean fishing vessels operated.

He said his country would participate actively in regional efforts to establish a new regional fisheries management organization on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.  There was also cooperation with Japan and the Russian Federation to discuss the regulation of bottom trawling in the north-western Pacific Ocean through establishment of a new regional organization in that regard.

Despite efforts of the international community, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing still threatened the sustainability of stocks, he said, and the Review Conference should address that matter.  Although his country was not yet party to the Agreement, it had prepared and distributed its report on implementation of its provisions.

R.G. AISI ( Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, said substantial progress had been made in implementing the Agreement in his region.  The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was a flagship organization under the Agreement.  The Convention establishing that organization now had 23 States parties.

He said there was a need to secure full participation in the WCPFC of all States whose vessels participated in the fishery.  Certain non-parties continued to benefit from the shared fish stocks of the region.  He proposed that the Review Conference strongly urge non-parties to the Agreement and non-members of regional fisheries management organizations who were benefiting from shared fish stocks in any region to become parties and members, and to comprehensively implement the obligations and conservation measures of the relevant organizations.  The Review Conference should also encourage use of regional fishing vessel registers, as the WCPFC had done, and other mechanisms to ensure that those who were not members of the relevant regional organization and who did not apply its measures were excluded from access to the fisheries managed by that organization.

He said the Forum also proposed that all regional management organizations be encouraged to work to identify the principles and criteria that should be applied to determining participatory rights in the shared fish stocks managed by them.  Equitable allocations, taking into account the developing economies of small island developing States, were an important factor in that work.

Mr. HETTIARACHCHI ( Sri Lanka) proposed that regional fisheries management organizations should have their own monitoring systems to enforce management measures.  Regarding participant rights, he said that production levels should be taken into consideration.

T.H. HEIDAR ( Iceland) said that one serious issue was the failure of fishing States to agree on conservation and management measures, that is, total allowable catches and their allocations.  The Conference should recommend that States show increased political will in that respect.  Regarding performance reviews by regional management organizations, he said it was up to the member States of those organizations to decide on the criteria for such reviews.

CARLOS DUARTE ( Brazil) said that in many regional fisheries management organization regimes, the burden of costs was not proportionally distributed among developed and developing countries, something that prevented participation of many developing countries.  There was also uneven distribution in the allocation of quotas between members.  Often, the allocation favoured countries with highly industrialized fleets.  That situation virtually deprived developing coastal States with emerging fisheries of their right to develop their own high seas fisheries.

He said article 7 of the Agreement was often quoted in the context of assisting developing countries to help them implement the Agreement, but it also provided for cooperation that would help them to participate in fisheries for high-seas stocks.  A fair mechanism for allocation of fishing possibilities was crucial for the conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks.

Article 11 of the Agreement set out detailed criteria for extending participatory rights for new members, he stated.  He associated himself with Spain on the importance of the agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels.

S. NAVOTI ( Fiji) said his country had been duly submitting a list of its flagged vessels fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission area.  Cooperating non-members were given assurances for participation in the Commission as long as they complied with the Commission’s measures.  While that situation was somewhat acceptable, non-parties and cooperating non-members were strongly urged to join the club.

To deter fishing activities by non-members, Fiji only licenced member vessels.  For regional fisheries management organizations to function effectively, collection and sharing of data were vitally important.  A uniform standard of reporting, data collection, verification and exchange procedures was needed, as well as minimum standards on responsible conduct of fishing.  He encouraged all regional fisheries management organizations to work towards identifying principles and criteria to be applied in determining participatory rights in shared fish stocks.

J. LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay) said that since joining the Agreement in 1999, Uruguay had implemented measures aimed at a sustainable exploitation of resources.  It implemented double control of fishing fleets by maritime and fishing authorities, which could simultaneously access all points.  Uruguay also cooperated in other States’ research in cases of suspicions of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  Uruguay had a firm political determination to eliminate from its flags ships that violated standards, and strived to implement the FAO code of conduct for ports and those who flew the Uruguayan flag.  The country had also implemented an action plan to reduce incidental deaths of sea birds.

In reviewing the Agreement, he said it was important to consider the statements of other delegations calling integration of the greatest number of countries and to generate an indispensable climate to make measures effective and efficient.  The constitution of regional fisheries management organizations should be in line with conventions that take into account the rights of coastal States.

A. SANDOBAL ( Colombia) said that, as a State with coasts on two oceans, Colombia was interested in the orderly use of highly migratory fish stocks.  Although it was not a party to the Agreement, it supported all initiatives to improve the interests of coastal States and had signed a statement by South American States who were non-parties.

He said allocations were being distributed in a discriminatory manner and with a complete lack of transparency.  Allocation often depended on the historical size of a country’s fishing fleet.  Historical participation was also determined by subsidies to fishing.  Those practices did not favour the goal of achieving universal adherence to the Agreement.  The international community should find multilateral mechanisms to establish a rational system of participatory rights that would not favour subsidy policies.

Statements by Non-States Parties

A. GRAHAM, of the World Wildlife Fund, said he welcomed the emphasis that Governments placed on regional fisheries management organizations, but suggested that that mechanism should also be used for all member-Governments’ international obligations stemming from other agreements, for instance, from the Agreement on Albatrosses and Petrels.  The time had also come for States to recognize that, where there was no management arrangement in place, there should be no fishing.

He said there was a strong case to be made for international oversight of regional management bodies.  Although he welcomed the fact that Governments were addressing the issue of allocation, he asked for a clear commitment that Governments would not allow their concerns about their allocation to interfere with catch limits proposed by scientific advisory bodies of the regional management organizations.

L. SPEER, of the National Resources Defence Council, said that a review of regional fisheries management organizations was critical.  She recommended that one independent panel review all regional management organizations.  Legal and scientific expertise could be included on the panel.  Given the status of fish stocks and current trends, time was of the essence.  The international community must devote the resources to complete a review within two to three years.  The criteria should draw from the best practices of regional management organizations from around the world, and the review should start with the largest such organizations.  Future meetings of the current group would be the logical venue to address the review.

She said that each regional management organization should be assessed in detail against base practices, and detailed recommendations should be offered concerning how the organizations and the international community could make improvements.  Inter-organization issues, such as data collection, should be addressed.  Transparency should be the key issue in any review.

DUNCAN CURRIE, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace, said that many States had argued that the creation of new regional fisheries management organizations was the best solution to the problems caused by fishing, including illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  There were cases where regional solutions did work.  But illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing was a global problem that required a global solution.  A new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea implementing agreement, which required the implementation of measures based on the precautionary principle, ecosystem approach, prior environmental impact assessments and an agency to coordination international action to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, was the clear way forward.

In addition, regional fisheries management organizations needed to be fundamentally changed to become regional ecosystem management organizations.  They needed international guidance and a framework for governance.  They must shift from single species management to precautionary ecosystem management, and must be given the functional ability, capacity and mandate to address the broader ecological impacts of human activities on and under the oceans.  Greenpeace was calling for, among other things, an elaboration of the genuine link between flag States and fishing vessels; immediate measures to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; and a General Assembly moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling to ensure that States met their existing obligations under international law to conserve the marine environment, including the sensitive and diverse ecosystems of the deep sea.

H. COHEN, of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), said many regional fisheries management organizations predated the Agreement and even the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Their conservation and management structures, therefore, varied.  The IUCN had developed and published 43 practical steps reflecting modern best practices that regional management organizations could use to modernize.  Given the differences between those bodies, not all steps were relevant to every organization.  One of those steps would consist of posting conservation and management practices on organization websites, in order to improve transparency.  Another step would involve establishment of marine protected areas as part of the regional management organizations’ ecosystem approach.  There should also be provisions to ensure that scientific advice and recommendations were taken fully into account in adopting conservation and management measures.  Moreover, the relationship between the governing and scientific advisory body should be transparent.

ROBIN ALLEN, representing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Chairman of the sixth meeting of Tuna Regional Fishing Bodies, said the Commission had adopted a new Antigua convention to implement provisions of the Agreement and to provide a mechanism by which non-members of the 1949 Convention could become cooperating non-parties through the Commission.  Cooperating membership gave them the right to participate in Commission meeting and bound them to certain reporting and management requirements.

He said the commitment to cooperative efforts between Commissions and actors in regional bodies would have to be strengthened.  For example, a meeting of Tuna Commissions to be held in Kobe next year would involve the Antigua convention and also conventions adopted by regional bodies in the Pacific Ocean.  All provided for cooperation with related organizations and for implementation by both the Inter-American and Pacific Commissions.

Regarding the sixth annual meeting of the Tuna Body Secretariats, he said the meeting on 21 May had included representatives of his own Commission and those on southern bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas and Pacific fisheries.  The agenda had covered topics such as a resource monitoring system, an update on trade documentation, addition to a global list of tuna-fishing vessels and a website.  Also covered were the issues of international observers for fishing and reefer vessels, standard codes for dealing with data, and next year’s meeting of tuna commissions in Kobe.  Among the highlights of accomplishments since the meetings began in 1999 was the compilation of a global list of fishing vessels that would be made available for member consideration later in the year.

W. HOGARTH, of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, said the Commission’s membership included a large number of coastal States and States with fisheries in remote areas.  A considerable number of small island States had not yet become members, because of their low levels of tuna catches.  Many of the States, nonetheless, respected the group’s conservation measures.  Activities of non-members were monitored through statistical documents, which were now being updated.  The group granted status of cooperator to all parties and entities who so requested.  Each year the statute was reviewed to see whether entities were respecting the Commission’s management measures.

He estimated that between 90 and 95 per cent of tuna catches covered by tuna conventions were carried out by contracting parties or non-contracting parties who participated.  The Commission was open to any governmental or intergovernmental organization that wished to send representatives to attend meetings as observers.  Non-governmental organizations could also attend and participate according to directives laid down by the group.  Regarding assistance to developing countries, he noted that last year the Commission had adopted the necessary number of Madrid protocols, which brought down the contributions of developing countries so that they could accede to the Commission.

B. MACDONALD, of the Commission for the Sustainability of Southern Bluefin Tuna, said one of the problems with regional fisheries management organizations was that they did not have an operational structure to carry out day-to-day work.  They tended to work from year to year.  Participants might consider that part of improving the performance of such organizations was through establishment of operational infrastructures, such as a secretariat that would carry out the operations decided on by the organization concerned.

M. AGUILAR ( Mexico) said the scientific advisory bodies of regional management organizations were the best vehicle for exchange and analysis of scientific information.  Their advice was also the best opportunity to fix catch limits.  The multilateral character of those organizations also fostered adoption of measures that would have a true scientific foundation and taking corrective measures aimed at achieving sustainability of resources.

He said the regional fisheries management organizations were an excellent way to achieve sustainability of species and to ensure protection of non-fished species.  The ecosystem approach must, therefore, be central in all their programmes.  Transparency engendered trust, improved predictability and allowed for the best use of resources.  As participation was indispensable, regional management organizations should facilitate accession of States.  Non-governmental organizations with a real and legitimate fishing agenda and expertise should be welcomed.  Addressing the establishment of eco-labelling and certification that some regional organizations were implementing, he urged that such labelling and certification should follow guidelines established by the FAO.

Regarding the integrity of regional fisheries management organizations, he noted that some of them predated the Agreement. Their integrity should, therefore, not be merely judged on their compliance with the Agreement.  It should be considered on the basis of the principles the organizations themselves had and the achievement of their goals.  On the subject of quotas, he said the seniority of some should not cause the exclusion of others.

Mr. PEREIRA, of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific, said his group was effective at coordination among large States.  Its activities included workshops on eco-labelling guidelines and the implementation of all guidelines, as well as adoption of a model on the role of ports in fighting illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  The Commission had held meetings over the last two years to evaluate and exchange information on swordfish in the South Pacific.  It was also in the process of assessing evaluations of other species.

Ms. RIDGEWAY ( Canada) said she appreciated the National Resource Defence Council’s comments and its helpful and proactive suggestions on the review of regional fisheries management organizations.  She said she wished to clarify a misunderstanding on the model regional fisheries management organization standard.  While terminology such as “high experts panel” and “model standard” were commonly used, Canada championed those initiatives without prejudice.  No particular use was envisaged for those institutions.

Regarding ecosystem-based management, she said sectoral management and integrated management should be understood as separate but linked debates.  The debate over sectoral management for ecosystem-based outcomes related to understanding the impacts of ecosystems and other impacts on fishing.  On the question of integrated management, fisheries Governments played a critical part.  The challenge was to have adequate ecosystem-based management within a sector for a future foundation of integrated management.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record