CAPACITY OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO JOIN, IMPLEMENT FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT IS IN INTERESTS OF ALL, REVIEW CONFERENCE TOLD

Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

7^th & 8^th Meetings (AM & PM)

CAPACITY OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO JOIN, IMPLEMENT FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT

IS IN INTERESTS OF ALL, REVIEW CONFERENCE TOLD

But Several States Not Party to Agreement

Object to Provisions concerning Boarding of Ships for Inspection

To the extent that developing countries were better able to join the Agreement and implement its provisions, all States parties would benefit, said the President of the first Review Conference on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.  In that regard, it was in the interests of all involved to provide further assistance to developing countries in connection with the Agreement.  Nonetheless, several non-party States raised objections to various articles, especially those pertaining to the mechanisms for boarding vessels to rectify compliance with sustainable fishing practices.

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 global 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 elements of the Agreement relating to developing States and non-parties to the Agreement.  Discussion was clustered around recognition of special requirements, provision of assistance and capacity-building, as well as increasing adherence to the Agreement and proposed means of strengthening the substance and methods of implementation of the Agreement’s provisions.

Many speakers today voiced support for the view that developing countries required more assistance in capacity-building, though concerns were also raised that funds made available for that purpose from the Agreement’s Assistance Fund and other sources were not adequately utilized.  The representative of Nigeria added that it was shocking that most States did not know of the existence of the Fund.  He called for an extensive information campaign highlighting its existence.

The representative of Australia stressed that non-financial assistance to developing States also played a key role.  Domestic legislation and processes, as well as expertise in the area of monitoring, control and surveillance, should be supported via a partnership approach.

Several participants said that countries with a historically smaller presence on the high seas needed time to develop their fisheries, especially since those resources were largely exploited by foreign vessels at present.  The representative of Guinea noted that developing countries rarely had full control of their Exclusive Economic Zone and were, therefore, victims of piracy.

Others highlighted the negative effect a lack of access to markets had on access to fisheries.  The representative of Papua New Guinea, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum, said there was a need for ongoing assistance for market access of the Forum’s products, as well as for the elimination of fishery subsidies.

As for increasing adherence to the Agreement, representatives of several non-States parties raised questions about the compatibility of various operative articles in the Agreement with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the sovereign rights of coastal and port States.

The representative of Cuba said the main reason her country could not become a party to the Agreement was its concern about the mechanisms for visits and inspections of vessels.  Those mechanisms did not clearly establish prior requirements for such visits or allow for a flag State to refuse to authorize such inspections, she said.  Wording on whether to use force was also ambiguous.

The representative of Mexico called for revising the Agreement to include the possibility of alternative mechanisms for inspections, such as the presence of on-board observers.  He also suggested creating a technical annex to the Agreement that could address the issue of compensation in case a boarding was carried out contrary to international law.

Other participants, however, said the Agreement reflected a careful balance that should not be disturbed by reopening negotiations.  The representative of the European Community said the Agreement was flexible enough that difficulties could be solved by non-members becoming members of regional fisheries management organizations or by supplementing the Agreement.

Most participants agreed it was important to keep the Agreement under review in some way, though there was no consensus on how to do that.  Some urged holding such reviews in an informal setting, in order to allow for open dialogue, while others wanted a more formal occasion in order to raise awareness about the Agreement.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Spain, Chile, Fiji, India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, China, Austria (on behalf of the European Union), Uruguay, New Zealand, Senegal, Norway, Brazil, Palau, United States, Indonesia, Peru, Canada, Guatemala, Ecuador, Iceland, Colombia, Kenya, Dominican Republic, and Sierra Leone.

Representatives of the following organizations also made statements:  International Collective in Support of Fishworkers; International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; GreenPeace; World Wildlife Fund; Organización latinamericana de desarrollo pesquero; South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organization; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

The Review Conference will meet again tomorrow, 26 May, at 11 a.m. to conclude its work.

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, today will consider elements of the Agreement relating to developing States and non-parties, as well as propose ways to strengthen the substance and methods of the Agreement’s implementation of the provisions.

The discussion on developing States and non-parties will be clustered around the following issues:  recognition of special requirements, provisions of assistance and capacity-building, as well as the need to increase adherence to the Agreement.

After the debate, the Conference is expected to start discussion on its final report.

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

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Fernando Curcio ( Spain), updated the Conference on the work in progress.

DAVID BALTON ( United States), President of the Review Conference, said it was in the interests of all involved that further assistance of many types be provided to developing States in connection with the Agreement.  To the extent developing States were better able to implement the Agreement, all States parties would benefit.  Assistance would also encourage further ratification of the Agreement.

It was important to recognize that there was no universality in the Agreement.  Some non-States parties perceived ratification impediments.  The current meeting was the time to discuss those further.  He expressed the hope that everyone would conclude that it was in the interests of all to bring as many States parties into the Agreement as possible.

He also posed the question of whether there should be regular review conferences at certain intervals, or else a continuation of the current Review Conference.  He also asked whether the annual informal meetings of Sates parties should continue in their present form.  Other ideas for keeping the Agreement under review were also welcomed.

Statements

A. COUVE ( Chile) said the priority goal shared by all was to achieve greater accession to the Agreement, as the low number of parties was the main reason for the Agreement’s inefficiency.  His country agreed with the principles of the Agreement, but had some reservations that prevented acceding.  The Review Conference should give some clarifications about certain articles in the Agreement regarding the proper legal interpretation.  They concerned compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the sovereign rights of coastal States, the rights, interests and obligations of which should always be applicable.  The fundamental principle of compatibility required cooperation with distant and coastal fishing activities.

He also asked for reaffirmation of the full sovereignty of port States for their maritime terminals in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He further wanted clarification on provisions in the Agreement relating to “genuine interest” and boarding and inspection.  In conclusion, he said that the Review Conference should address the interpretation of criteria which flowed from the Law of the Sea Convention.  That would facilitate general acceptability and universality of the Agreement.

I. SAVUA ( Fiji) said his country had always believed that the Fish Stocks Agreement, despite its name, was as much about people as about fish.  The inclusion of a topic specifically addressing the special needs of developing States was a true manifestation of that view.  The special needs of such States to effectively implement the Agreement often reflected the stage of each State’s social and economic development.  In that regard, specialist training and human resource development were crucial for Fiji.   Fiji had a total of 25 officers, most of whom lacked any proper specialist training, looking after all tuna-related activities.  For that reason, it was little wonder that terms such as “ecosystem based approaches” or “best scientific” evidence were met with an almost blank face from Fiji’s people.

One critical factor for developing States, especially small island ones, was the fact that fishing, especially fishing involving stocks under consideration, was the only viable industry supporting their economic survival.  Drastic and heavy-handed demands could distort their attitudes towards global and regional conservation initiatives.  Such nations needed assistance in the administration of their fish stocks and in capacity-building.  Fiji’s Government gave high priority to the development of an aquaculture industry and called on the international community to provide assistance and support to such initiatives.

S. BESLIER, of the European Community, said the Community already substantially contributed to assistance to developing countries.  The Development Fund had already given €140 million to fishing activities.  The same amount was being spent in partnerships.  He invited States and international institutions, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Bank, to start assisting developing countries in formulating their own development policies.  The problem was often not the availability of financial assistance, but policies that made the rational use of that assistance impossible.

He said the financial capacity to take part in the work of regional fisheries management organizations was also an issue for developing countries, and, for some of them, it was an impediment to accede to the Agreement.  Certain developing States, in particular the coastal States, encountered difficulties in establishing regional fisheries management organizations.  Another problem was that when shipbuilders from developed countries could not obtain fishing opportunities because of lack of allocations, they registered ships in developing countries.  Exploitation, however, should be beneficial to the economies of the country that had allocation rights.  He urged that the Agreement not be renegotiated.  Difficulties could be solved by non-members becoming members of regional management organizations and by supplementing the Agreement.  There was room for flexibility in the Agreement.

A. BHATTACHARYA ( India) said that developing countries would generally require assistance in capacity-building.  He was concerned that the funds available for that purpose were not adequately utilized.  Regional fisheries management organizations should try to bring all States in as members.  Periodically, they should also review how they work and should adopt the best practices of all other regional fisheries management organizations.  All regional management organizations should meet, though not at too frequent intervals.

He said countries that historically had a smaller presence on the high seas should get a better deal and not be precluded from developing their fisheries.  The ecosystem approach should be discussed by concerned States on a bilateral or multilateral basis.

Mr. HETTIARACHCHI ( Sri Lanka) said that combating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing required considerable capacity-building in developing countries, which needed hardware, technology and manpower.  Sri Lanka needed technical assistance even to prepare projects for donor funding in that regard.

MUNESH MUNBODH ( Mauritius) said much of the resources under consideration at the Conference fell under the exclusive economic zones of small island developing States and the adjacent high seas.  Therefore, assistance to such States was of paramount importance if they were to succeed in managing their resources.  Special consideration was needed to allow them to develop their fisheries, bearing in mind that those resources were largely exploited by foreign vessels at present.

The guiding principle for regional fisheries management organizations should be that small island developing States might need time to develop their fisheries.  Mechanisms should be built to allow them to access those resources as national fisheries developed.  He said efforts being made at bilateral and multilateral levels would go a long way in capacity-building for those member States.  The challenge was to maintain the impetus of those initiatives during the lives of those projects.

He said the contribution of member States to regional fisheries management organizations was a constraint to participation, especially for small island development States, which found it difficult to make contributions or become members of such organizations.

F. MAGASOUBA ( Guinea) said articles 24, 25 and 26 of the Agreement mentioned the vulnerability of developing countries.  Those vulnerabilities related to the food needs of the populations.  Fisheries of developing countries were meant to provide for food security, budgetary resources and employment.  However, food security could not be provided as the waters of many developing countries were pillaged, often by vessels that did not come from developing countries.

The Agreement also stated that developing countries must be able to conserve their straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in order to enhance national fisheries, he said.  They needed the means to ensure that the Agreement could be implemented.  There was a pressing need for capacity-building for improving human resources.  There was also a need for assistance in collecting reliable data.  Fishing observatory and research centres, important for setting fishing policies for the future, encountered funding problems.  Also, because of the cost of monitoring, developing countries very rarely had the possibility to have full control of their Exclusive Economic Zone and were, therefore, victims of piracy.

He said the Agreement provided for cooperation of States for special funds for developing countries to implement the Agreement.  Help was needed in setting up regional fisheries management organizations.  Establishment of those funds would encourage developing countries to accede.

J. RAMOS ( Cuba) said the current process must take into account the reasons that prevented a broad acceptance of the Agreement.  It must address the needs of all States, including those not yet party to the Agreement.  Cuba applied the Agreement’s principal conservation and management provisions.  The main reason it could not become a party was the concern about the mechanisms for visits and inspections of vessels, which did not establish the possibility that a flag State could refuse such inspections.

She said the Agreement’s mechanism did not respond to current circumstances nor to developments in international law.  It did not clearly establish prior requirements for such visits.  States who wished to inspect were not required to request prior authorization from the flag State.  The Agreement did not state that there must be suspicions that the vessel had committed a violation of the Agreement, and wording on whether to use force was ambiguous, giving rise to the possibility of subjective interpretation.  The Agreement needed a special description of the use of force, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

LEE HO SUNG (Republic of Korea) said his country gave due regard to the special requirements of developing States in high-seas fisheries.  The Republic of Korea made efforts to provide assistance to developing States through a training programme offered by the Korea International Cooperation Agency.  His country also upheld the objective of conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, as enshrined in the Agreement.  That objective could be achieved by an effective compliance and enforcement mechanism.  Such a mechanism, however, should not be over-ambitious and unrealistic.  The Review Conference should pay attention to the difficulties that non-parties faced with regards to articles 21 and 22.  It should also consider the means for rectifying them in order for the Agreement to reach universal participation.

He noted that legal fishing activities on the high seas might diminish due to the obtrusive inspection of fishing vessels by authorities of non-flag States.  Articles 21 and 22 might not deter non-flag States from abusing the rights conferred by those provisions and exercising unlawful inspection and boarding.  Safeguards for the protection of human rights were also necessary.  The humane treatment of masters and crews by inspecting States should be guaranteed.  The procedures for the prompt release of vessels and crew should be provided in cases of innocence.

He stressed the need to evaluate the effectiveness of various enforcement mechanisms by regional fisheries management organizations and to reflect the results of such an evaluation in the Agreement.  He also emphasized the need to pay attention to a number of practical, political and legal impediments involving non-flag State jurisdiction.  Few States seemed to have the physical capability to arrest vessels flying another State’s flag on the high seas.  Vast ocean distances might render non-flag boarding and inspection impossible.  The primacy of flag State jurisdiction needed to be preserved in an appropriate and reasonable way.  The law on high-seas fisheries should balance the rights and interests between high-seas fishing States and coastal States in order to acquire universal subscription to that law.

LIU ZHENG ( China) said the more countries joined the Agreement, the more effective it would become.  His country had not ratified it because of its concerns about articles 21 and 22, in particular concerns about possible abuse of flag States.  In China’s tradition, the use of weapons was prohibited except in case of war or criminal activities.  The use of force in the management of fisheries was a difficult concept, and many Asian and developing countries shared that concern.

He said his Government was actively searching for a solution and had agreed to joint inspections with the United States in the North Pacific, finding such joint inspections through bilateral or multilateral agreement acceptable.  The guiding principles should be formulated transparently and clearly, including compensation measures for abuse.  His country supported more assistance to developing countries in order to remove more obstacles to increasing the membership of the Agreement.

G. HAFNER ( Austria ), speaking on behalf of European Union, said he supported a periodical review exercise based on five-year cycle.  Such a meeting should have an official character.

J. LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay) said it was necessary to facilitate the accession of States.  He understood the validity of points submitted by Chile concerning consistency with the Law of the Sea Convention, in particular regarding the sovereign rights of coastal States and port States’ rights.  Boarding provisions should be applied with respect to the rights of the flag States.

NIGEL FYFE ( New Zealand) said it was likely that the final outcome of the Conference would contain a number of recommendations and requests to people or actors other than states parties, for example, regional fisheries management organizations and members of the United Nations family.  It was appropriate to ensure an appropriate means for conveying the report of the Conference and its various requests to those entities.

He said the review process should continue in the future, preferably every four years, and he recommended holding a further review conference in 2010 to include preparatory processes under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General.  He emphasized the importance of the reporting back requirement for regional organizations and members of the United Nations family.  He noted there had been numerous occasions where the General Assembly requested actions from United Nations agencies without apparent follow-up.

Given the paucity of comment in the Convention, he said it was an open question whether States parties must be convened to decide to hold a review conference or if the current one could be regarded as the opening stage of a review conference, which would reconvene in four years’ time.  He said he would welcome advice on that issue from the Department of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

M.D. TALLA ( Senegal) said that, in most developing countries, there was a lack of knowledge about ecosystems and species population and biology.  Especially in the West African subregion, that presented a major obstacle to a sustainable system of managing such species.  States individually could not take effective measures to manage shared resources.  The subregional commission was acknowledged to be more of a discussion body, one without decision-making authority.  The status of such organizations should be reviewed.  Further review conferences would also be effective, and she agreed with New Zealand that such conferences should be held on a periodic basis.

K. EGGE ( Norway) said increased participation in the Agreement was one of the most important means to strengthen it.  One way of broadening participation was increased assistance to developing countries, especially to those countries that wanted to become parties to the Agreement.  As some developing coastal States had the misconception that the Agreement only addressed fisheries on the high seas, the Review Conference should recommend that information on the Agreement be disseminated more effectively.  The Conference should also encourage States to contribute to the Assistance Fund established by article 7.

He saw no need for future conferences in a formal setting, as the formal format of the Review Conference had turned out to have weaknesses, such as blandness of statements.  Future reviews, which were necessary, could fit into the format of the current informal States parties meetings.

CARLOS DUARTE ( Brazil) reiterated that efforts to reduce excess fishing capacity should not occur to the detriment of developing countries that were establishing their own fleets.  Developing countries also had concerns regarding the funds required to establishment new regional fisheries management organizations, and measures to strengthen the mandates of those bodies should also not be detrimental to developing countries that were establishing fishing activities.  Addressing such matters should not be limited to rhetorical statements, but should find concrete expression.

He said part 7 of the Agreement should not be subject to a narrow interpretation regarding assistance to developing countries to implement the Agreement.  It must also allow for measures to enhance developing countries’ ability to participate in high-seas fishing.  Overexploitation or depletion of fishing stocks should not be used as a pretext to prevent newcomers from participating.  The situation where some States had fishing rights in distant zones, while States closer to those zones were denied fishing rights, should be addressed and resolved.

As for further review, he said the Agreement allowed for only one Review Conference.  He would be interested to see how such events could take place without amending the Agreement, as the Agreement allowed for only one conference.

C. DENGATE ( Australia) said widespread adoption of the Agreement was essential, and working with developing countries was critical to achieving that goal.  Non-financial assistance to such States played an important role.  Domestic legislation and processes, as well as monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities, should be supported.  Developing States often needed know-how, which required taking a partnership approach.

He said Australia had provided training and encouragement to members of regional fisheries management organizations in developing targeted capacity programmes.  The current Conference should encourage the development of similar programmes in other regional organizations.

PETER PROWS ( Palau) said his country expected to accede to the Agreement in 2006.  As a small island developing country, Palau had an irreducible stake in the health of the ocean and its fisheries.  The ocean was life and breath for island countries, which had the most intimate relation in every direction with the sea.  Palau could take only small comfort from the provisions within its exclusive economic zone, as activities outside that zone had a sharp impact on its waters.

The Agreement was unproven, he said.  Reliance on regionalism could be appropriate, but, without international baselines, it left behind significant regional gaps in practice.  It was striking that developed countries tended to be covered by regional management organizations, while developing countries disproportionately lacked them, and were thus exposed to a greater degree to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.

Regional fisheries management organization coverage should be universal, he said.  International consensus was the most appropriate way to achieve interim measures on bottom trawling.  Also, he would favour annual reviews of regional management organization coverage and effectiveness, to be held at least annually.

BILL GIBBONS-FLY ( United States) brought attention to the Fund set up by the Agreement and administered by the FAO, which currently had $353,457 available.  He noted that Canada had pledged Can$ 500,000 over the next two years, and that Iceland, Norway and his own country had contributed.  Assistance could be used for travel to regional fisheries organizational meetings or to support negotiations for the establishment of other such organizations.  It could also be used for capacity-building, improving data collection and scientific research, for monitoring, control and surveillance activities or for information exchange and technical training.

He said there were other vehicles of assistance for developing countries in the relevant areas of fisheries, including funds established by regional management organizations, international financial institutions, the FAO and bilateral programmes.  While the number of States parties to the Agreement had increased recently and more States had indicated they would accede or ratify in the near future, a key to increasing the membership even further was to aggressively publicize the Fund in a targeted way so as to provide an incentive for other developing countries to become parties, including through website linkages.  Also, the review and award process could be improved and made simpler to make the Fund more useful.

Finally, he said the Agreement had established recognized norms for the conservation and management of key fish stocks throughout the world.  It had successfully balanced the interests of coastal States and States whose vessels fished in the high seas.  Implementation would benefit from further increases in the number of States parties.

NARMOKO PRASMADJI ( Indonesia) said assistance to capacity-building of developing countries in order to assist them in implementing the Agreement was important.  Recognizing that the right to fish in an exclusive economic zone or high seas should be accompanied by the responsibility to ensure sustainability of resources, assistance was required in building capacities for monitoring, control and surveillance, training of observers, data collection and strengthening of port States control.  Strengthening of those capacities should also be facilitated by regional fisheries management organizations or other institutions.

On the issue of boarding and inspection, he said on-board inspections should be conducted in full conformity with the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention and should only cover vessels that were directly engaged in activities described by that Convention.  Enforcement action by the inspecting State should only take place with the authorization and cooperation of the flag State.  Authorization of the flag States was required before boarding.  Use of force should only be allowed to ensure the safety of inspectors.  Personnel should be treated in a manner that preserved dignity and was in accordance with human rights.  A mechanism for compensation should also be included in order to ensure a fair and transparent process.

He said it was premature to discuss continuation of the review process.  The informal consultations process could be used to discuss the effectiveness of the Agreement.

E. VELASQUEZ ( Peru) said that if provisions in the Agreement regarding the respect of the sovereignty of coastal States were clarified, accession would be facilitated.  A relationship of trust among States concerned in that regard should continue to develop.  She also asked that the FAO correct some mistakes regarding her country in one of its reports.

LOUISE SIMARD ( Canada) said her country had emphasized the need for building a comprehensive and integrated fisheries governance system that would be as strong as its weakest link.  To be effective, all States had to play their full role in addressing the problems faced, and developing States had to be enabled to build sufficient capacity in areas of policy, science, management and enforcement.  The Trust Fund set up to assist implementation of the Agreement was a great resource that had yet to be fully tapped.

Recalling that the Fund was accessible only to developing States, she called for more developing States Parties to apply to the Fund and more developed country donors to contribute.  She said her own country was contributing Can$ 500,000 over the next two years.  Iceland, Norway and the United States had also contributed.  But other States, intergovernmental organizations and international financial institutions should also invest in the Fund and all other available sources of funding should be mobilized to help build the capacity of developing States in fisheries conservation, management and enforcement.  In particular, the Review Conference could call for developed countries to ensure coherent approaches to international fisheries issues.

For her own part, she said her country would develop a multifaceted strategy for working with developing countries under the umbrella of the International Fishers and Oceans Governance Strategy.  In part, that would entail working with the Canadian International Development Agency in areas related to fisheries since the importance of policy coherence between developing States’ Fisheries Administrations and national donor agencies had already been raised.  Developing States must make known their specific needs and priorities.  A fuller exchange on the matter could take place in another forum such as the Informal Consultative Process.

R. PINEDA ( Guatemala) said it was not easy to conclude that countries must live with the Agreement its current form.  While the means of implementation were indispensable for developing countries, that was not Guatemala’s primary reason for non-accession.  A discussion was needed to approve or mitigate the effects of articles 7, 21 and 22.  Guatemala agreed with the objective and spirit of the Agreement.  While accession to the Agreement was desirable, it was not indispensable for conservation and management.  A country did not need to be a party to the Agreement to comply with it, and that was the path Guatemala had taken until now.

She said it must yet be determined whether the current Conference had a mandate to decide on future review conferences.  Article 36 only envisioned a single review conference.  Guatemala suggested, without prejudice to States parties and regional organizations holding their own periodic reviews, that a future review conference should not take place before 2016.  It was important that such a conference be able to take into account future progress, such as the review of the Millennium Development Goals.

V. GOMEZ ( Ecuador) said she agreed with Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico and other countries in the area of concerns that prevented full accession to the Agreement.  She said she hoped those concerns would be duly taken into account, with a view to assuring the suitability and effectiveness of the Agreement.

R. AISI (Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum, said long-term conservation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean was vital for the economies of the region.  In that regard, he expressed the Forum’s appreciation for the support received from multilateral and bilateral donors, including Australia and New Zealand, regarding the preparatory work of establishing regional fisheries management organizations, which had enabled the region to be at the forefront of innovations regarding fisheries.

He said members of the Forum had also benefited from the article 7 Assistance Fund, as it had enabled them to attend the Review Conference.  As many of the measures foreseen in the Agreement were costly in implementation, continued support of the developed partners was necessary.  Although some developing countries might lack the capacity to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement, it was essential that they participated in regional management organizations, and incentives to that end should be developed.

There was a need for ongoing assistance for market access of the Forum’s products, he said, as well as for the elimination of fishery subsidies.  He stressed that developing States members of the Pacific Island Forum viewed their participation in the processes of the Agreement as a fundamental right.  As for another meeting, he said there would be value to review the Agreement in the future, for instance, over four years.

T.H. HEIDAR ( Iceland) associated himself with the statement made by Norway’s delegate regarding developing countries.  As in Norway, a considerable part of his country’s contribution to development assistance was dedicated to the area of fisheries, he said.  The Review Conference was successful in reaffirming the regional approach to high-seas fisheries management, and he welcomed the fact that the Conference was striving to increase ratification of the Agreement.

Regarding future reviews, he said his delegation had a similar position to that of Norway.  There was a need to strike a balance between informal consultations between States parties, which provided an opportunity for open dialogue, and a more formal format such as the Conference, which served to promote awareness and increased participation.  Informal consultations between States parties should take place every second year, with every third meeting being formalized.

A. SANDOVAL ( Colombia) said her country supported all measures to improve the efficiency of the Agreement, even though it was not party to it.  Some elements of the Agreement could be improved and revised, in order to remove obstacles and allow some countries to accede.  Equitable criteria that took the interests of the coastal States into account should be established for boarding procedures.  Access of developing countries to the Agreement should also be improved.

K. ODABA MOSOTI ( Kenya) said part 7 of the Agreement was explicit on the need to assist developing countries not just in fulfilling their obligations, but also in realization of their rights.  That assistance could be financial or in the form of human resources development, technology transfers, and facilitating access to fisheries.  That was a total package, and there should be no preference for one type of assistance over any other, unless the country has raised a specific preference.  Each country seeking assistance should be given the opportunity to identify its specific needs and determine its own priorities.

She said she was grateful to the States and organizations that offered assistance to developing States in developing and managing their fisheries, and urged them to continue with that positive effort.  The most effective way to ensure all encompassing assistance was through the part 7 Assistance Fund established through the General Assembly, which was broad enough to cover a wide range of assistance activities.  She also called for increased consultation among various States providing assistance in order to guard against overlap and duplication.

N. BERAS ( Dominican Republic) said it was necessary to pay particular attention to the concerns of the several Latin American countries that had given reasons for not acceding to the Agreement.

M. AGUILAR ( Mexico) said that year by year the General Assembly talked about the need to increase the participation in the Agreement in order to achieve universality.  The inclusion of a large number of provisions, however, prevented a large number of accessions.  It was regrettable that the obstacles for acceding were not directly related to the management of resources and conservation, the substantive part of the Agreement, but were of an operative nature.  Taking into account what was at stake, he proposed a process of informal consultations to look into specific points that had obstructed accession.  The Conference, therefore, needed continuity.

He said the main obstacles concerned the subject of boarding, and the provisions in articles 21 and 22 should be revised to include the possibility of alternative mechanisms for inspections that might even be more efficient.  In that regard, he mentioned the presence of on-board observers.  A technical annex to the Agreement could be developed that would address the issue of compensation in case a boarding was carried out contrary to international law.  Necessary safeguards included:  security for boat and crew; due legal procedures; compensation for damages; and abstention from the use of force except in self-defence.

As for compatibility, he said the Agreement did not resolve the differences between the norms of the coastal States and those of the flag States.  In that regard, he asserted the pre-eminence of the coastal States according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  It should be recognized that article 7 of the Agreement, as well as articles 63, 64 and 118 of the Convention were an integrated system that could not function separately.  He informed the Conference that, due to problems with the interpretation yesterday, where the word “landings” had been said in English, it should have been “boarding”.

G. ISONG ( Nigeria) said consistent and sustained technical assistance and adequate funding played a central role in building and sustaining capacity for developing countries.  Capacity determined the extent to which States could effectively implement the Agreement and the requirements of regional fishery management organizations.

He said it was shocking to note that most States did not know of the existence of the Assistance Fund.  He called for an effective dissemination of information on the existence of the Fund, and suggested regular seminars and workshops at regional and subregional levels to draw attention to its existence.  The media and United Nations Information Centres needed to be used in that regard.  He supported Japan’s call for a meeting of all regional fisheries management organizations.  He agreed with Papua New Guinea’s call for market access for the fish products of developing countries, as well as the abolition of fisheries subsidies, which were detrimental to the fishing efforts of developing countries.

S. MATHEW, speaking on behalf of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, supported statements by developing States that allocation for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks should not be based only on historical catch data and that developing States should be given the opportunity to develop fisheries for such under-exploited fish stocks.  He said artisan and small-scale fisheries should receive preferential treatment over fisheries that had historically enjoyed almost exclusive access to those stocks, which would support the Millennium Development Goals to eradicate extreme poverty and ensure environmental sustainability.  Also, as Norway had proposed, a legally binding instrument on port State control should be elaborated.

D. MESKI, of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, said he wished to highlight the importance of the contribution of all contracting parties for better understanding of the zone covered by the Commission.  A regional fisheries management organization was a reflection of the actions of its members.  Collecting data was fundamental in understanding the stocks and kinds of species.  Contributions from all parties were needed.  The Commission sought to involve developing countries in all activities in improving data.  It had provided funds to organize regional workshops in Africa and South America to educate and train people in improving data collection.  Those efforts had yielded excellent results.

D. CURRIE, representing GreenPeace, recalled that the organization had presented two case studies over the past two days to show how illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and pirate fishing vessels were stealing fish from rich fishing ground and from the coastal communities dependent on those fish for food.  The organization had also proposed a “one stop shop” form of a centralized monitoring, control and surveillance agency with a single public list of vessels authorized to fish on the high seas by meeting minimal criteria, along with a blacklist of undesirable vessels disregarding laws and conservation measures.

Three steps should be taken relevant to developing States in that regard, he continued.  First was to build their capacity to implement flag State, port State and national control measures with international support.  Second was to base participation in regional fisheries management organizations on criteria other than historical catch to avoid the need for developing States to engage in unsustainable fishing to build a track record.  Conservation and management of stocks should also be considered, along with the needs and interests of coastal fishing communities.  Finally, effective measures must be taken to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and enhance the capacity of developing States to implement port State control measures.  Annual review meetings should continue along with four-year conferences, with two-week meetings to be considered if participation increased considerably.

A. GRAHAM, of the World Wildlife Fund, said he would like to see an agreed outcome text that committed Governments to provide for new entries in their allocation rules.  It was also important to emphasize the importance of all States becoming party to the Agreement and members of those regional management organizations where they had interests, so that all States would have binding obligations.  Until universality was achieved, there should be annual meetings.

A. RIVERA BENAVIDES, of the Organizaci ón latinamericana de desarrollo pesquero, said the organization was a regional fisheries management organization in the Caribbean with 14 member countries.  The organization could accept the Agreement, but there were a number of concerns, mainly regarding articles 21 and 22.  The interests of coastal States should be reflected in the criteria for management of fishery stocks.

H. HAMUKUAWA, representing the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization, said the organization had applied for financial assistance from the Fund on behalf of two parties to the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating participation in scientific and Commission meetings later in the year.  Processing the applications had been completed in two days.  Additional applications would be submitted to strengthen capacities in the priority areas of monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as in data collection and analysis.

H. COHEN, of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, recommended that articles 7 and 11 be fully implemented.  Historic allocations should be adjusted to allow developing States an equitable share of resources, while heeding the suggestions of scientists and conservationists to conserve fish stocks.  By making use of best practices, fish stocks would be able to recover.  The Union was developing information concerning vessels for national fisheries administrators so that countries would be able to check on status compliance.  It was very important that the present Conference provide guidance on the need for and frequency of review conferences, or else recommend the resumption of the current Conference at a later date.

ROBIN ALLEN, representing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, said one important way to provide assistance to developing countries was through scientific staff, who served the interest of all members equally.  Wealthier members contributed disproportionately to such assistance.  The Commission was active in coastal developing countries.  It trained local observers and required funding from a variety of partners.  Regional fisheries bodies had the necessary skills to provide a variety of external sources of funds for conservation ends.  Fisheries bodies should be creative in developing such partnerships.

A. KUNI ( Sierra Leone) said that, despite the shortcomings of the Agreement, his country had started proceedings to accede.  It was startling to learn that in his region, enormous amounts were lost to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, which had a great impact on the economy.  He associated himself with statements from other African delegations regarding technical assistance.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record