Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

11^th & 12^th Meetings (AM & PM)

‘Pivotal Time for Future Health of World’s Fishery Resources’, Review Conference

of United Nations Agreement on Fish Stocks Management Hears at Opening

Fish Stocks Declining, Despite Improved High Seas Governance; Some

Say Fisheries Management, Regional Organizations’ Performance Faltering

Despite efforts to improve the governance of high seas fisheries, global fish stocks continued to decline, with the majority of those covered by the landmark 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement either fully exploited or overexploited, delegates attending the 2010 Review Conference of that legally binding instrument stressed today, as they opened debate on key issues related to the sustainable management of fisheries and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

“This is a pivotal time for the future health of the world’s fishery resources,” said Patricia O’Brien, Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, speaking in opening remarks on behalf of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The Agreement, which took effect in 2001 and has 77 States parties, was created to enhance cooperation in the management of fisheries resources that span wide areas and are of economic and environmental concern to various nations.  It covers highly migratory species, such as tuna, as well as straddling stocks that migrate through, or occur in, more than one economic exclusion zone.  The five-day Review Conference is being held from 24 to 28 May.

A key issue was the lack of progress in reducing fishing capacity and related harmful subsidies, Ms. O’Brien said, noting that direct losses from unreported and unregulated fishing were as high as $24 billion annually. More than 20 million tons of fish and other species were caught as by-catch — 23 per cent of total marine landings.  Moreover, the difference between the potential and actual net economic benefits from marine fisheries was an estimated $50 billion per year, a “substantial” part of which could be captured by improved governance.

Review Conference President David Balton of the United States said that the last review in 2006 had produced a robust set of recommendations for ways to strengthen implementation.  The resumed initial session of the Review Conference, taking place this week, was an opportunity to examine those recommendations and what had been done to implement them.

Much had happened since the Agreement had entered into force, he said, noting that Governments had worked hard to translate its provisions into concrete measures to regulate fisheries and migratory stocks.  New regional fisheries management organizations were coming into existence, with mandates drawn from the Agreement, while many longstanding ones had changed their measures, practices and, in some cases, their charters to conform to the Agreement.  In addition, 20 new States had become parties to the Agreement since 2006 alone; the 77 represented most of the major flag States of fishing vessels and major markets for fish.

In the debate that followed, Government officials and representatives from both regional fisheries management organizations and non-governmental organizations framed their discussions around areas where implementation of the 2006 recommendations was proceeding well, or where little progress had been made and where means could be proposed for strengthening the substance and methods of implementation.  Speakers drew attention to State and regional efforts to address recommendations related to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

Several speakers voiced concern at the worrying status of fish stocks, but differed on the underlying reasons for that situation.  For the European Union, the performance of the regional fisheries management organizations had been uneven and not always effective in ensuring compliance, that delegation’s representative said.  Performance reviews were needed for the timely implementation of recommendations.  Organizations should strengthen their requirements for accurate and timely data to maintain and restore stocks to appropriate levels, and incorporate mechanisms to ensure a thorough review of parties and non-parties at least once a year, with a view to possible sanctions for non-compliance.

The United States’ delegate, in her national capacity, pointed out that themanagement of some fisheries and performance of some regional organizations continued to falter.  For example, nearly two thirds of the stocks were classified as overexploited or depleted, which was similar to what had been described in 2006.  The Secretary-General’s report noted that the status of stocks had worsened.

Taking a different view, Japan’s delegate pointed to progress in the workofregional management organizations, particularly in the conduct of peer reviews and introduction of new tools to promote conservation and management, such as catch documentation systems.  Also, instead of penalizing the non-submission of data, it was important to find out why data was not coming in.  Was there a lack of capacity, or was something very unrealistic being asked of the fisherman?  It was necessary to ask those types of questions, he said.

The Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway said regional fisheries organizations hadmade progress in protecting vulnerable ecosystems and focus should be now on the implementation of General Assembly recommendations.  Similarly, New Zealand, as a member of three regional fisheries organizations, understood that establishing such organizations was one thing, but making them functional was another, that country’s representative added.  Effectiveness and fairness were key touchstones.

For their part, regional fisheries management organizations focused on hard-won gains over the years, their representatives present today indicated.  The representative of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization said that valuable changes were being made to the organization’s convention and that an amended text was under the process of ratification.  During its annual meeting, the organization also had decided to start a performance review process, taking into account the best practices of some such organizations.

The representative of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission drew attention to work done by the regional fisheries bodies, stressing that the fishing community must be allowed to pursue its legitimate business of economic development.

In other business, the Review Conference adopted its provisional agenda (document A/CONF.210/2010/L.1) and its organization of work (document A/CONF.210/2010/L.2).  The President also took note of the report of the ninth round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement.

Also speaking today was the Deputy Director-General of the Fishery Department, Ministry of Agriculture of China.

The Head of Section of the Federal Fisheries Agency of the Russian Federation also spoke, as did the Joint Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture of India.

The Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation, Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada also made a statement.

The Principle Foreign Service Officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa also spoke.

Also speaking were the representatives of Australia (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), Marshall Islands, (on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement), Palau, Republic of Korea, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Senegal, and Mozambique.

Also addressing the Review Conference were representatives of the following regional fisheries management organizations:  the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna.

Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also spoke:  the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; OldePesca; Greenpeace International (also on behalf of Deep Sea Conservation Coalition); International Ocean Noise Coalition, and National Resources Defense Council.

The Review Conference will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 25 May, to review implementation of recommendations relating to monitoring, control and surveillance, and compliance and enforcement.

Background

A Review Conference for a landmark agreement relating to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea began today.  The role of the Conference is to review the implementation of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, which established a legal regime for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  The Conference, which will be held from 24 to 28 May, will provide an opportunity for countries to consider new measures to tighten implementation of the legal regime.

The Agreement is considered the most important legally binding global instrument adopted for the conservation and management of fishery resources since the adoption of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.  As of March 2010, there were 77 parties to the Agreement.  (For more information, please see Press Release SEA/1931.)

Opening Remarks

In opening remarks, DAVID BALTON of the United States, President of the Review Conference, said the last review in 2006 had produced a robust set of recommendations for ways to strengthen implementation.  The resumed initial session of the Review Conference, which would take place this week, was an opportunity to examine those recommendations and what had been done to implement them, as well as an opportunity to consider additional means to give effect to the meeting.

He added that the recommendations adopted at the first session of the Review Conference in 2006 had provided a very useful starting point for this week’s work.  As in 2006, he hoped the session would proceed in an open and inclusive manner and that all participants would have a reasonable chance to contribute.

PATRICIA O’BRIEN, Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, speaking on behalf of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement had helped to bring about a fundamental change in the global community’s approach to the management of high seas fisheries, based on the principles of sustainability and on modern tools, such as the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.  Almost nine years after the Agreement’s entry into force, participation was regarded as an important way for countries to commit to responsible fisheries.  Since the Review Conference had convened in 2006, 20 more States had become party, bringing to 77 the total number of States parties, including the European Union.

She said that despite efforts to improve the governance of high seas fisheries, global fish stocks continued to decline, with the majority of fish stocks covered by the Agreement either fully exploited or overexploited.  Factors contributing to that “troubling” state of affairs were multifaceted and often systemic:  excess fishing capacity; illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing; excessive by-catches and discards; and destructive fishing practices.  Climate change also threatened fisheries resources and marine biodiversity.

A key issue was the lack of progress in reducing fishing capacity and related harmful subsidies, she said, noting that direct losses from unreported and unregulated fishing were as high as $24 billion annually.  More than 20 million tons of fish and other species were caught as “by-catch” –- 23 per cent of total marine landings.  Moreover, the difference between the potential and actual net economic benefits from marine fisheries was an estimated $50 billion per year, a “substantial” part of which could be captured by improved governance.

Fisheries were critically important to food security, economic prosperity, poverty alleviation and sustainable development of many States, she said, with the fishing industry contributing more than $200 billion to the global economy every year and almost 44 million people directly engaged in fish production.  For such reasons, the restoration of fish stocks was included as a key objective in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. 

She said recommendations adopted in 2006 had had a considerable impact on States and regional fisheries management organizations.  New regional fisheries management organizations had been established and several had completed or were planning to undertake performance reviews.  Many of the recommendations had also been endorsed by the General Assembly.  “I urge the resumed Review Conference to build on these gains,” she said, noting that progress was particularly needed on flag State performance, elimination of subsidies, data collection and reduction of by-catch and lost and abandoned fishing gear.  It was also important for regional fisheries management organizations to improve management and strengthen decision-making.  Finally, greater assistance for developing States was needed in connection with implementation of the Agreement.

“This is a pivotal time for the future health of the world’s fishery resources,” she stressed.

Review Conference President BALTON said that the discussions were not taking place in isolation and that much had happened since the Agreement had entered into force.  The accord had played a powerful role in influencing those developments, and Governments had worked hard to translate its provisions into concrete measures to regulate fisheries and migratory fish stocks.  New regional fisheries management organizations were coming into existence with mandates drawn from the Agreement, while many longstanding ones had changed their measures, practices and, in some cases, their charters to conform to the Agreement.

He said that there were 20 new States parties since 2006 alone; the 77 represented most of the major flag States of fishing vessels and major markets for fish.  Despite those steps forward, the overall picture regarding fish stocks remained worrying indeed.  The Secretary-General’s recent report on the issue (document A/CONF.210/2010/1) did not fill him with optimism.  While the status of resources could not be attributed solely to the Agreement or to its implementation, this week, members might be able to generate further ideas and commitments to implement the Agreement in ways that would better address the status of resources for the benefit of humankind and the marine environment.

The Conference then adopted its provisional agenda.

The organization of work was also adopted, as contained in document A/CONF.210/2010/L.2, and the President took note of the report of the ninth round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement.

Statements

GARY FRANCIS QUINLAN ( Australia), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, said that economies were dependent on the conservation and shared management of fish stocks.  His delegation had been involved in negotiations leading to the Agreement, which provided framework for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), the latter of which was widely considered a model for its endorsement of the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.  Its robust decision-making processes had raised the legal standard for fisheries management.

Commercial fish stocks were under great pressure, he said, noting that the status of big-eye and yellow fin tuna was of particular concern.  More must be done to raise performance of regional fisheries management organizations.  Measures adopted by those organizations must be consistent with the best scientific information available and the precautionary principle.  Key priority should be given to addressing unreported and unregulated fishing, as no single issue had the potential for greater impact on peoples’ lives.  Measures to fight that practice were high on his delegation’s agenda.  Cooperative management was the key to winning that fight. Critical to those efforts was the delivery of assistance and capacity-building to developing States.

Noting that capacity-building had focused on facilitating developing countries’ participation in regional fisheries management organizations, he said his delegation wished for more emphasis on strengthening their capacity to conserve and manage fish stocks, and to participate in high seas fisheries.  In that context, he mentioned the Part VII Assistance Fund.  The Agreement still offered the best opportunity for the long-term sustainability of fish resources.

CALEB CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands), speaking on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement, said decisions made in the meeting were cross-cutting in nature, reflecting more than just one sector.  Decisions would do much to determine whether States’ ability to reach key global and regional development indicators rose or fell.  In that context, he asked that the Review Conference proceed to agenda item 8 as soon as possible.

STUART BECK (Palau) said that the boat captains in his country had been seeing far fewer sharks than in the past, which saddened and upset them, given the strong cultural connection in Palau to sharks.  His country’s oceans contained one of the last pristine and intact fisheries in the world, but the waters had been targeted by others for the healthy fish stocks — including sharks — for the vain and trivial purpose of obtaining the fins so that they could be sold for soups.  The trade in sharks was driven by the desire for the fins, and generally the bodies of sharks were thrown overboard, still alive.  That cruel and unsustainable practice should be stopped if the species was to survive.  Palau had advocated for adding four sharks to the list of endangered species, but had not been successful in overcoming the super-majority requirement.

He reiterated that international action had been slow and was not keeping pace with the urgency of the issue.  It was necessary, therefore, for nations to act to protect sharks in their own waters.  Happily, Palau was not alone in those efforts; the Maldives, for example, had declared a shark sanctuary.  In addition, Costa Rica, among other countries that had taken action, prevented the finning of sharks, Ecuador prohibited finning and the sale or export of fins, and Egypt prohibited shark fishing in its territorial waters.

Since the last review conference, Palau had become a party to the Fish Stocks Agreement, he noted, adding that the Agreement delegated tremendous responsibility to regional fisheries management organizations to conserve and manage those stocks.  He encouraged the establishment of those organizations throughout the high seas.  The key fact remained, however, that the health of shark, tuna and other Annex 1 stocks persisted.  With “RFMO”-delegated responsibility must come accountability, and it was fair to insist on a regional fisheries management organizations performance review in order to take stock at the United Nations of what was working and what must be improved.  His delegation believed that those organizations still represented an experiment that had not succeeded for the Pacific.  It was not possible to wait for those organizations in his region to act before taking measures.  His delegation expected them to cooperate with Palau, and to reinforce, rather than undermine, measures with effective measures of their own.

SHIN BOONAM (Republic of Korea), while commending the Secretary-General’s comprehensive report, reiterated the significant steps taken towards the conservation of fish stocks in the high seas after the 2006 Review Conference.  The Agreement had enjoyed the wider participation of 20 more States — including his own — and considerable progress had been made in establishing new regional fisheries management organizations in the Pacific Ocean region.  In addition, the measures for monitoring, control, surveillance, compliance and enforcement had been strengthened, and valuable progress had been made in the cooperation activities among the regional organizations.

The Republic of Korea was actively participating in global efforts to implement conservation and management measures for the sustainable use of fish stocks in the high seas, he continued.  It had fully implemented its duty under the Agreement since its accession in 2008 and had paid much attention to hold, or actively participate in, the international meetings for the Accord’s implementation.  Overall, despite much progress since 2006, there were still many issues to be addressed in the future for its full implementation, such as the increased transparency of measures by the regional organizations and Member States, capacity-building of developing States, assessment of the effectiveness of measures, and efforts for improving data accuracy and information sharing.  He hoped that the Review Conference would strengthen the foundation to give full effect to the Agreement and be recognized as part of continuous steps forward.

OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ ( Chile) said his country had participated in the creation of the Agreement and would continue implementing its principles at the national and regional levels.  Fishing and agriculture activities were the mainstay for vast regions of Chile.  Indeed, sustainable fishing was essential for national economic development, particularly in the wake of February’s earthquake, which substantially impacted the fishing sector.  Chile supported the recommendations of the ninth round of informal negotiations of States Parties to the “New York Agreement”, held last March, to underscore the importance of the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.  Chile appealed for the entry into force of the South Pacific Regional Management Organisation and asked those countries for strict compliance with measures jointly agreed.

The situation vis-à-vis straddling and migratory fish stocks was the result of overexploitation, he said, citing the Secretary-General’s report and the 4 January report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  Attention should be given to Chilean jack mackerel.  Chile attached importance to the FAO agreement on port State measures, which should be implemented swiftly.  Further, regarding international efforts for a binding FAO agreement on flag State duties, he said a lack of compliance with international obligations was a serious affront to common interests.  Chile insisted on the genuine link between vessels and their flags.

Finally, he emphasized the need to strengthen the principle of compatibility, especially related to measures adopted vis-à-vis the high seas and under the national jurisdiction of States.  He hoped that such concerns would be reflected in the meeting’s outcome document.

LIU ZHENG, Deputy Director-General, Fishery Department, Ministry of Agriculture of China, said the Agreement was important for the conservation and management of fishery resources.  China had participated actively in activities related to the Agreement and was happy to see that, since 2006, the General Assembly had adopted multiple resolutions on the conservation of fisheries resources.  Countries and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations alike had taken measures to boost coordination, promote conservation and strengthen enforcement against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  China was ready to work with all in the framework of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and to exchange views on the implementation of the Agreement.

Since 2006, China had actively participated in the activities of the regional organization, as well as in the activities of tuna organizations, he said.  Moreover, China was participating in negotiations for a North Pacific high seas fishery management agreement.  It had taken utmost efforts to fulfil its international obligations.  His Government looked forward to working with members and non-party participants to promote the conservation of fishery resources.  In that context, developing country needs should be reflected in discussions.  Countries and regional organizations alike should strengthen support to developing nations in a bid to jointly conserve fishery resources.  He urged respecting World Trade Organization principles and preventing the emergence of new trade barriers.

RIKKE NIELSEN, Head of Delegation of the European Union, speaking on the Union‘s behalf, said it was committed to ensuring the effective global governance of fisheries. The Agreement provided the appropriate framework and necessary tools, and thus the Union was in favour of its international application and was committed to work with all parties to improve implementation.  As such, it was concerned about the status of stocks and was disappointed at the lack of sufficient information.  It fully agreed that the quality of future evaluation depended on substantial improvements of the availability of data.  It was known that there had been no major changes in stocks since the last assessment in 2005.  Thus, despite efforts, more still needed to be done to ensure the long-term sustainability of those stocks and of marine biodiversity.

She acknowledged that the performance of the regional fisheries management organizations had been uneven and not always effective in ensuring compliance.  The Union, therefore, supported performance reviews for the timely implementation of recommendations.  In addition, healthy stocks could only be supported by healthy ecosystems, and therefore, the regional organizations should implement adopted measures effectively to ensure compliance by all parties.  Furthermore, they should strengthen the requirements for accurate and timely data to maintain and restore stocks to appropriate levels.  They should also incorporate mechanisms that ensured a thorough review of parties and non-parties at least once a year, with a view to possible sanctions for non-compliance.  In addition, the regional organizations should strengthen their control measures throughout the whole market chain.  In order to ensure greater participation in the agreement, the Union was strongly committed to assisting developing and other States.  She reiterated the importance of the Review Conference and the Union’s preference for a more focused outcome.

ALFREDO GARCÍA MESINAS (Peru) noted that a meeting had taken place in Lima to evaluate a common position of the member States of the Permanent Commission of the South, as well as of the Latin American Organization for Fisheries Development, which consisted of three Latin American countries and also included the organization of the fisheries sectors of the Central American region.  The Lima meeting had drafted a statement, called the Lima Statement, which had reaffirmed the importance of the existence of appropriate and effective management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the high seas.  It also had depicted quite clearly the interest of all of those countries in the Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as in ways to contribute towards its implementation.

He added that the meeting had noted that the right to participate in fishing activities in the high seas must take into account the interests of coastal States.  It had called on the regional fisheries management organizations to pay attention to the further strengthening of scientific research capacity in order to preserve or re-establish fishing stocks so as to ensure the provision of the maximum sustainable yield.  With regard to the current Review Conference, it deemed “cautious and necessary” its resumption four years from now, he said.

DMITRY KREMENYUK, Head of Section, Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, welcomed the start of the resumed Review Conference and the Secretary-General’s report.  His Government had helped draft the 1995 Agreement and had been among the first countries to have ratified it.  The accord represented a compilation of standards for cooperation related to fisheries and conservation, and his delegation encouraged its implementation.  Reduced marine bio-resources in some regions of the world’s oceans, caused by overfishing, made the marine habitat a priority.  One step forward had come in 2009, with the agreement on port State measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  That agreement, signed by the Russian Federation in April, would help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by banning the unloading and transhipment of illegal biomarine resources.  Such fishing also harmed global efforts to conserve and regulate marine bioresource capture. 

He said his Government, for its part, was taking steps to implement FAO measures on the management of marine bioresources, and it was also drafting amendments to national legislation.  The Russian Federation supported increased cooperation and an integrated approach to all ocean governance.  It attached importance to activities on the high seas and would help to improve State coordination in that area.  His Government was committed to enhancing regulation established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He hoped that the Review Conference would strengthen future work in that area.

KJELL KRISTIAN EGGE, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said his country had always strongly supported the Agreement and had seen significant progress in various areas, especially related to the role of regional fisheries management organizations, which had been strengthened by the Agreement.  Norway appreciated the focus on regional implementation, including through the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.  There were now 77 States parties to the accord, and he hoped that others would consider joining, as the broadest possible participation was vital.

Despite progress, there was more work to be done, he said, recalling that the reference in the Secretary-General’s report to overexploited and depleted fish stocks underscored the serious challenges faced by fisheries.  The completion of the port State agreement in 2009 was a milestone and its ratification was among the most important actions related to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  He noted State and regional management efforts to address recommendations related to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.  Regional Fisheries Management Organizations had made progress in protecting those ecosystems and focus should be now on the implementation of General Assembly recommendations.  The best format for discussing vulnerable marine ecosystems must be addressed, as those discussions were becoming increasingly technical and the General Assembly therefore might not be the best format.

He urged the Review Conference to focus on incomplete work, and in that context, he emphasized FAO’s work to develop guidelines related to discards and flag States.  Obligations to help developing nations were also an important priority.  Norway had contributed to the fund established under the Agreement and was pleased it was being used to help developing States. Norway had decided to contribute another $100,000 to that fund.  Developing nations should also be considered when discussing implementation of the Agreement, and he reminded developed nations of their duties in that regard.  Indeed, fish was an important and renewable resource that provided food and income for millions of people.  A balance must be struck between precaution and efficient management of fish stocks and fisheries.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand), International Legal Adviser, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said things were “not good” in the fish world.  The state of high seas fish stocks was poor, which was sad but not surprising.  Since 2006, however, there had been some positive developments, the most significant of which was the Kobe process.  There had also been some real changes in behaviour and a common commitment to rebuilding stocks, although some said it was much too little and too late.  His delegation was pleased that the comments made in the performance review had been taken to heart and had helped to bring about a change in behaviour.  However, too often in meetings, members struggled over words, and very little practical action resulted.

He said his country welcomed the developments that were taking place, and urged others to join in working to make the Agreement more universal in membership and more effective in its management.  Turning to regional fisheries management organizations, he noted that New Zealand was a member of three such organizations.  Their establishment was one thing, but making them functional was another.  For New Zealand, effectiveness and fairness were key touchstones, he concluded.

HOLLY KOEHLER ( United States), Senior Foreign Affairs Officer, United States Department of State, Office of Marine Conservation, said it seemed like yesterday that the Agreement had been approved, yet somehow, four years had passed.  There had been a number of very real successes and there were areas in which meaningful progress had been made, which should be recognized and applauded.  But the work was not yet complete and much remained to be done.  The management of some fisheries and the performance of some regional organizations continued to falter or had fallen behind.  For example, nearly two thirds of the stocks were classified as overexploited or depleted, which was similar to what had been described in 2006. The Secretary-General’s report noted that the status of stocks had worsened.

Noting that member countries made up the regional fisheries management organizations, she said they, therefore, were responsible for the organizations’ overall success and performance.  It was their obligation to cooperate and conserve, and each country could and should do better.  Further, since 2006, much work and attention had been devoted to managing fish stocks and the impact of fish stocks on the high seas, but it was also necessary to examine other areas under international jurisdiction.  The resumed Review Conference provided an opportunity to consider additional means to strengthening and implementing the Agreement.  Her delegation hoped that the goal of the resumed Conference would be to identify key areas that would advance implementation of the 2006 recommendations and address new challenges.  It should then focus on a relatively manageable set of concrete outcomes in those areas.  Her delegation was eager to work with all delegations throughout the week to reach that goal.

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

BEN VAN ZYL, South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization, noting that his organization had been modelled on the Fish Stocks Agreement, said the Convention applied without discrimination to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  His organization had implemented modern approaches as outlined in the Agreement and relied on the best scientific advice.  Its conservation measures addressed bottom-fishing activities.  A total of 10 vulnerable marine ecosystems had been closed to fishing.  His organization also was acquiring fishing data from contracting and non-contracting parties, in efforts that were assisted by FAO, among others.  To control fishing in the Convention areas, his organization had adopted conservation measures.  Regarding the challenge of attaining baseline data for fisheries, he said on-board scientific observers were placed on vessels to monitor behaviour.

He said the organization embraced cooperation with other regional fisheries management organizations to boost high-seas governance.  It had been represented at annual meetings, including at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and it worked closely with agencies like the FAO.  It also was undergoing a performance review, for which the following criteria had been agreed:  conservation and management; compliance and environment; global cooperation; and financial and administrative issues.  A report would be tabled in October.

DRISS MESKI, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), said the regional management fisheries organizations had worked in close collaboration with a view to stepping up joint actions.  Tuna organizations also were carrying out important individual actions, in line with guidelines provided by the Programme of Action stemming from “Kobe I” and “Kobe II”.  “Kobe III” would take place in 2011 in the United States.  Those two major meetings had led to actions in areas including the scientific approach, for which a workshop would be organized; oversight; and management of capacity and other aspects of by-catch.  As recommended, the three tuna organizations had evaluated their performance and provided a report on their activities.

He said the International Commission had seen major progress in reinforcing the implementation of activities related to blue-fin tuna in the northeast Atlantic.  It also had provided for the obligatory transport of vessel monitoring system data to the secretariat and a system of joint inspections, and it had set up a database on bluefin capture.  Other measures had been adopted with a view to enabling the submission of information on reporting gaps.  The Commission’s transhipment programme provided for the presence of inspectors on all vessels carrying transhipments on the high seas.  The Commission was collaborating with other oceanic commissions on that programme.  In that context, vessel monitoring systems were obligatory for all vessels longer than 24 metres, and all those longer than 15 metres that fished for bluefin tuna.  Finally, the Commission had implemented a “bluefin tuna year” programme to improve knowledge on the habitat of that fish, which involved marking fish and collecting data.

VLADIMIR SHIBANOV, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), said that valuable changes were being made to the organization’s convention and that an amended text was under the process of ratification.  During its annual meeting, the organization had decided to start a performance review process, taking into account the best practices of some such organizations.  Recommendations from a working group would be discussed during the annual meeting in 2010.

KJARTAN HOYDAL, North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), said that he was not speaking on behalf of the commission because the Secretary-General had already addressed issues pertinent to the commission in his report.  He drew attention to work done by the regional fisheries bodies, stressing that the fishing community must be allowed to pursue its legitimate business of economic development.  The Regional Fisheries Bodies acknowledged the importance of regional cooperation.  Such bodies should be strengthened to help them to meet their mandates.

Non-Governmental Organizations

HARLAN COHEN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), shared the concern about the poor state of stocks under review.  Indeed, the real way to assess implementation of the Agreement was to look at the health of stocks, and there were no areas in the world where there was not one or more States fishing in the same area for the same stock.  States had a duty to cooperate in that regard — where there were no management or conservation arrangements, there should be no fishing.  He hoped for a recommendation calling on States to prohibit vessels from fishing in areas for which there were no conservation measures in force.  His organization shared the view on the importance of using marine-protected areas to conserve and manage fish stocks and to protect vulnerable marine environments.  He noted General Assembly resolution 61/105 (2006) calling for reliance on the best scientific information, among other things.

Under the Agreement, he said it was necessary to assess the impacts of fishing on target stocks and species, and he hoped for a recommendation calling for such assessment prior to the onset of fishing activities.  He also shared the concern about shark finning and called for improving shark-related measures, including the prohibition of on-board transport of fins separate from shark carcasses.  He noted the difficulty of acquiring data and hoped to see a recommendation requiring full data collection, including for by-catch.

ANGEL RIVERA, OldePesca, renewed his organization’s commitment to sustainable development, saying that the Latin America and the Caribbean region was complying with the Agreement.  Many regional countries had sought answers to concerns raised in 2006, and the presence of new regional fisheries management organizations had allowed many of those concerns to be resolved.  There was a new scenario in place for the Agreement’s implementation and he called for enhancing State cooperation in that regard.  His organization supported Peru’s statement.

DUNCAN CURRIE, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace International and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, said he was encouraged by recommendations that had been made and by the clear statements that stressed that prior assessments were required before fishing commenced.  It was critical that recommendations made in reports were implemented and that reviews were conducted regularly.  Measures must be devised and implemented, and assessments must be carried out.  In addition, marine-protected areas in the high seas should be respected.  He joined Australia in calling for rigorous measures, and the United States in calling for concrete outcomes.

INGRID OVERGARD, International Ocean Noise Coalition, said the coalition was a partnership of more than 150 non-governmental organizations that were concerned with the impact of ocean noise pollution on marine ecosystems.  There was a growing recognition that human-generated underwater noise posed significant threats to marine biodiversity.  Noise pollution interfered with fish life, schooling and possibly migration.  She called on States to support the inclusion of a paragraph in the General Assembly resolution that would encourage FAO to carry out studies on the socio-economic impact of underwater acoustic pollution on fish and catch rates and to report on that.

MATT RAND, a representative of the National Resources Defense Council speaking on behalf of the Pew Environment Group, said the future of the high seas was of the highest priority because it related to the very future of food security for more than 1 billion people whose primary protein source was from the sea.  The current regional management system was not living up to its potential, and it was necessary, therefore, to take steps to strengthen the current high seas governance system, including by improving those organizations.  The Review Conference should make several recommendations, including that measures adopted by the regional management organizations should always follow scientific advice, and that fishing efforts and capacity must be reduced to levels consistent with the long-term sustainability of stocks.  She also urged a recommendation to prohibit retention of species at risk, and stressed that the regional management organizations should also adopt measures to preserve marine-protected areas.

Statements

MARIATERESAMESQUITAPESSÔA ( Brazil) said her delegation considered the Agreement to be one of the most important multilateral legally binding instruments for the conservation and management of high seas fisheries since the conclusion of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  It was essential for the mobilization of international efforts towards the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources.  She drew attention to the application under article 6 of the Agreement of the precautionary approach as a main pillar of the Agreement.  In that context, the management of fishing capacity should not occur in detriment of the capacity of developing States to participate in high seas fisheries.

Much needed to be achieved, she said, including the implementation and strengthening of timely, complete and accurate fisheries data reporting.  The elimination of harmful fishing subsidies was a condition for addressing fishing capacity, and the reduction of excess fishing capacity in a transparent and equitable manner remained a priority.  Regional management organizations should promote scientific research so as to provide a solid scientific basis for the adoption of management and conservation measures. A strengthened interface between science and policy was a condition for overcoming the implementation deficit and would have direct impact on the performance of regional management organizations.  Moreover, regional management organizations should implement species-specific data collection requirements for shark species caught in either directed or incidental fishery, and should also conduct biological assessments and develop associated conservation and management measures for shark species.

She said that the debate on issues relating to the strengthening of regional management organizations and to the eventual enlargement of their mandates should take into account that the increase in duties and responsibilities on the part of those organizations must not be detrimental to countries where fishing was still being developed.  The possibility of a freeze in the present proportionality between fishing quotas established in the scope of the regional management organizations — which would perpetuate a situation of inequality in favour of the traditional fishing countries — was a matter of great concern for Brazil.

Mr. VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) addressed the issue of the establishment of new regional management organizations and specifically described the experience of the South Pacific Regional Management Organisation.  Participants in that organization had agreed to put in place data standards very early on, and quite detailed procedures were put in place, and the compatibility principle was reflected in the convention as derived from the Agreement.  Perhaps most significantly, the convention broke new ground by providing allowances for a total allowable catch or fishing efforts to include both high seas and coastal seas.

States had a long way to go before the precautionary approach became a reality in international fisheries management, he said.  The South Pacific organization showed that it was possible to develop a regional management organization that built on the key aspects of the Agreement, and to include in negotiations both parties and non-parties to the Agreement.  Also, data collection agreements could be put in place even before a final agreement.  The South Pacific organization also showed the importance of data collection requirements for existing regional management organizations.  Even when the words were on the page, however, there was still a long way to go, he concluded.

Ms. KOEHLER (United States) said it was evident that there had been widespread commitment by States and regional management organizations since 2006 to improve the conservation and management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, as well as habitats of concern and associated and dependent species like seabirds, sharks, marine mammals and sea turtles, through the adoption of various conservation and management measures.  However, States and regional management organizations had not adopted conservation and management measures that were, in all cases, consistent with the best available scientific information on the status of the stocks and the provisions of the Agreement with respect to the precautionary approach.  Further, in some cases, those conservation and management measures that had been adopted had not been fully implemented by all those active in the fishery.  More effort was also needed to meaningfully address the impact of fishing on non-target species and associated and dependent species, and to manage currently unregulated fisheries, as part of an ecosystem-based approach.  Relevant regional management organizations had a responsibility to do so under article 10 of the Agreement and, in many cases, as part of their own mandates.

With respect to the conservation and management of sharks, she said that FAO, through the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, called for nations to complete a national plan of action for sharks no later than 2001.  A national plan of action would help form the basis of a strong management plan for sharks, including the collection of species-specific shark landings data and monitoring of shark catches.  The United States was concerned about the number of nations that had not yet developed such a plan of action for sharks and at the fact that implementation had been uneven.  Her delegation stressed the need for flag and coastal States to cooperate in relation to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  The United States supported efforts to promote compatibility in existing regional management organizations and those under negotiation.  The adoption of compatible measures was essential to the long-term conservation and management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, which could not be adequately managed on the high seas or within areas under national jurisdiction alone.  She urged States to work together, and with regional management organizations, to ensure the sustainable management of those resources throughout their range.

In addition, she said that while some States addressed excess fishing capacity prior to 2006 and some regional management organizations had considered the issue since then, the capacity of many of the world’s fishing fleets continued to be too high, well above levels commensurate with the sustainability of certain fish stocks.  More work was needed by States and regional management organizations to give full effect to 2006 recommendation 18(f) on that important fisheries issue, as well as the FAO International Plan of Action on Fishing Capacity.  The United States also strongly supported the FAO in its role in assisting States and regional management organizations in the management of deep sea fisheries in the high seas and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, and encouraged it to continue its work on the Programme for Deep Sea Fisheries in the high seas.

TARUN SHRIDHAR, Joint Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture of India, noted the generally “pessimistic” and “gloomy” scenario around fish stock management.  But he urged a focus on positive developments, as the success of the Review Conference would depend on building on those events.  Many speakers had mentioned that the performance of regional fisheries management organizations had left much to be desired.  While they were not models, he cited India’s limited experience in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, voicing appreciation for the consistent improvement of that organization.  The reliability and timeliness of its data had shown “remarkable” improvement.  While that organization was still “data poor”, he urged that when such organizations had shown improvement and their member States had shown more commitment, their aims should be encouraged.

Management and conservation issues had figured high on the agendas of international forum, he said, noting that fisheries subsidies negotiations in the World Trade Organization had not centred on trade issues, which was another positive.  The spirit of cooperation emerging among regional fisheries management organizations should be encouraged, as many of those organizations must reinvent themselves.  India was active in two major programmes:  the Bay of Bengal programme and another in which eight countries managed resources through the precautionary and ecosystem approaches.   India had a large sense of ownership in those programmes, as there had been tangible management results.  He urged working together, rather than individually collecting data and disseminating it.

Drawing attention to articles 24 and 25 of the Agreement, which covered building the capacities of developing countries, he said that area must be addressed.  Management and conservation measures would invite serious commitment from everyone.  There had been visible and appreciable progress in implementing the Agreement, but it was still painfully slow, and work should be accelerated.  India would engage constructively to strengthen the management of highly migratory species and straddling stocks.

LOYOLA SULLIVAN, Ambassador, Fisheries Conservation, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, urged finding ways to better implement the Agreement, which, along with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, was a key legal instrument in the suit of tools for the governance of living marine resources, which were critical to the livelihoods of people around the world.  Since its 1995 adoption, the Agreement had ushered in a modern approach to the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, outlining widely recognized principles for how those stocks should be managed.  But, “we are still in the process of collective learning” for making those principles operational.  Implementation of the Agreement’s two cornerstones — the precautionary and ecosystem approaches — was still a “work in progress” for States, endeavouring individually, bilaterally and within regional fisheries management organizations.

As a responsible fishing nation, Canada could not ignore the impact of General Assembly resolutions on sustainable fisheries on high seas governance, notably 61/105 (2006) and 64/72 (2009).  Congratulating those organizations that had taken action to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, he said more had to be done.  The development of risk assessment and impact assessment tools was still in its infancy.  Additionally, the precautionary and ecosystem approaches demanded the creation of policies and practices on issues such as by-catch and non-directed catch species.  Moreover, improving stock conservation and management depended on the best science available, and more efforts were required to ensure that the scientific advisory bodies that supported the organizations received timely and accurate data from member States.

Discussing progress made by those regional management organizations, he said that parties to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization had adopted a modernized convention, which Norway and Canada had ratified, and there was broad support within the organization for better flag State control.  Moreover, contracting parties had worked jointly to identify and close seamount, coral and sponge areas to bottom-contact fishing.  Also, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna had made significant advances, notably with the initiation of a performance review.  In other areas, more work was required, particularly in developing ecosystem expertise needed by fisheries managers to provide accurate and timely data.  When non-compliance was evident, the means available to sanction vessels and States must be considered.

ANDRÉS COUVE (Chile) said an undeniable achievement had been the establishment of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.  However, it faced two major problems.  First, the process of adherence had been slow, as only five coastal States had signed on to the organization.  Therefore, there was an urgent need during this first stage for at least three additions of distant-water fishing States to adhere to the body.  Second, the interim measures that had been adopted were insufficient for the conservation of straddling pelagic fishing resources and were incompatible with the internal fishery regimes.  Unfortunately, there had been non-compliance in the context of pelagic resources, a point to which his delegation planned to return during the Review Conference.

He said his delegation agreed with the statement made by the representative of Canada in acknowledging another important achievement since 2006, namely the establishment of new norms and standards.  He also welcomed the reception that the Port State Measures had received in the international community.  In particular, he welcomed the establishment in 2009 of a binding agreement concerning Port State Measures aimed at combating illegal, unregulated and undeclared fishing and providing for additional measures to be adopted by the Port State to guarantee conservation.  His delegation hoped for and encouraged further progress in the ratification among the States parties.  In addition, his delegation hoped to see that achievement further reflected in the outcome document of the current Review Conference.

JOJI MORISHITA ( Japan) said there had been many positive achievements in terms of the work of regional management organizations.  There had been many areas of progress, such as concerned the tuna regional management organization.  In addition, many such organizations had conducted peer reviews and, as a result, many had improved their mechanism and system.  They had also introduced new tools to promote conservation and management, such as catch documentation systems.  Also, from a global perspective, a discussion about Port State Measures had been completed, and talk had started about flood State responsibility and marketing measures.  That constituted a more organized way of looking at the whole issue of fishery.  However, as had been widely reported, 80 per cent of the fish stock was either over-fished or fully utilized, while fishing capacities in many parts of the world were increasing.

While there were many fine and good words in many of the legal instruments and guidelines, their actual implementation or compliance was missing, he said.  From his perspective, several issues or elements might be preventing implementation or compliance in the documents or legal instruments that had been produced during the past several years.  For example, often, the words in the conventions, agreements or guidelines were not easily understood, or were simply misunderstood.  At times, some situations were micromanaged, and moreover, different situations required different approaches.   More positive incentives for implementation and compliance were needed, rather than penalties or sanctions

The importance of data collection was well recognized; it was known that in many fisheries there was not enough data, he said.  However, instead of penalizing the non-submission of data, it was important to find out why data was not coming in.  Was there a lack of capacity, or was something very unrealistic being asked of the fisherman? Was a very small boat involved, operated by a 75 year-old man who had to submit the data through the Internet on a daily basis?  It was necessary to ask those types of questions, he said.

ANNA WILLOCK ( Australia) spoke about the usefulness of performance reviews, saying that those including an independent aspect were particularly important. The reviews in which Australia had participated had resulted in detailed work plans and continued to guide business behaviour.  Also, there had been advances in monitoring, control and surveillance.  On the implementation of stronger catch document schemes, she noted comments made by Japan’s delegate, saying that other tools might be required, including reciprocal recognition of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing lists.  Reviewing the compliance of members and non-members in terms of implementing obligations had been identified as a focus for regional fisheries management organizations’ future work.  The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna had agreed to interim building targets for southern bluefin tuna and was considering rebuilding its strategy, which would be the basis for setting global catch levels from 2012 and beyond.  A main question centred on making the precautionary approach more relevant to decision-making.

In the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, steps had been taken vis-à-vis the overfishing of big-eye and yellow fin tuna, she said, urging the stability of participatory rights.  In recent years, the doors to that commission had been forced open by new entrants and attacks on science.  Such behaviour created a problem for everyone and must be identified as a priority area of work.  Also, communication among Regional Fisheries Management Organizations was increasingly important.  New agreements were being created and awaiting entry into force.  The Kobe process was helping tuna organizations, but more work was needed.  On the ecosystem-based approach, Australia had struggled to put in place approaches for troubled species, like sea birds and sharks.  Her delegation looked forward to further discussions under agenda item 8b.

MARIEME DIAGNE TALLA (Senegal), outlining progress, said that since May 2007, the Government had reviewed the fisheries code.  In the area of conservation and management, Senegal renewed its commitment to transpose into national law measures related to vessels flying the Senegalese flag.  Senegal also sought to better regulate the exploitation of fishery resources and planned to adopt a comprehensive ecosystem-based approach to those resources.  Marine-protected areas would also be created.

She said that in order to improve fisheries policies, member States of the subregional Fisheries Commission had worked to define minimal criteria for access.  Referencing a meeting in Accra, Ghana, earlier this year, she said the draft text from that meeting contained recommendations by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.  She also discussed a subregional action plan on sharks, saying that national activities in that area would continue until December 2011.  Activities included developing an overview of shark exploitation, and a breakdown of statistics on shark species, size and gender, among other data.  On the specific issue of data collection, investigators had been trained to complete surveys on shark areas.  Protected species had been identified.

Mr. LOPES ( Mozambique) said his country was taking seriously the recommendations made regarding fishing law and maritime fishing regulation.  At the beginning of the year, Mozambique had changed all commercial fishing agreements, and was improving its vulnerable marine ecosystem to comply with requirements.  In addition, it had set up a fisheries management plan for shallow ocean fisheries.  It was committed to the application of a precautionary approach, but faced some difficulties in effectively implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management because of a lack of capacity and resources.  However, his country was still involved in regional scientific projects in the Indian Ocean and other current initiatives, and was therefore trying to meet the recommendations, although it recognized its limitations, especially regarding capacity-building.

He said that measures to reduce fishing capacity had been introduced in the country, especially for shallow ocean fishery.  But that was actually a very tricky issue to address, as it sometimes implied compensation that the country could not afford, which was a big debate currently under way.  Asking other countries to share their experiences, he stressed that regarding data collection and information sharing, Mozambique was very committed to joining the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.  While Mozambique was not yet part of any regional management organization, it was now prepared to join the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.  The country was also now improving and preparing to use the regional database of statistics to enable it to share data with all of the regional management organizations, especially the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, with which it had been fully cooperating.  Next year, when Mozambique submitted its request to join, it hoped that it would be accepted.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands), speaking on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement, said that some critical progress had been made in adopting conservation and management measures in accordance with best science, but there were some persistent gaps between science and decisions that might complicate measures.  The actions of the parties to the Nauru Agreement would have to be examined to better understand where and why they had missed the mark.  Regarding the application of precautionary and ecosystem approaches, the application was also related to the achievement of compatible measures.  Some progress had been made in discreet situations regarding precaution and ecosystem approaches; however, the achievement was still not quite there and was a bit imperfect.

He said that the development of area-based management tools had been successfully pursued in an integrated approach.  However, the management of fishing capacity, the elimination of subsidies and overcapacity remained pressing problems, and global fishing pressure in the region had intensified over the past few years, he added.

Ms. NIELSEN, Head of the Delegation of the European Union, citing comments on the importance of building on improvements, said that while she agreed, the list of issues on which there had been a lack of implementation was longer than the list of successes.  Where implementation had been proceeding well, advances had been made in the establishment of regional fisheries management organizations, including the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.  Following the adoption of Assembly resolutions of 61/105 (2006) and 64/72 (2009), action had been taken on the need to perform prior impact assessments.  She also highlighted FAO guidelines on deep sea fishing.

Regarding the areas where progress had been slow, she said the status of stocks had not improved, and she also cited poor knowledge of the stocks and fisheries in question.  Data collection and transmission was still insufficient and the obligation of States parties to comply in a timely and accurate manner was not being met.  Considerable improvements should be made to management plans for the conservation of sharks and deep sea species.  In that regard, the scientific advice used as a basis for adopting conservation and management measures was being hampered by the incomplete or incomprehensive nature of data.  Also, States were still far from achieving a globally comprehensive network of marine-protected areas, and global fishing capacity was still too high.

KJELL KRISTIAN EGGE ( Norway) said that in examining the number of replies to the Secretary-General’s requests for information, not all parties had made their views known.  Regarding conservation and management measures, steps had been taken, which was a positive.  On issues related to the ecosystem approach, the Secretary-General had reported that substantial activities in that area were under way.  In Norway, the ecosystem principle was built into national legislation for ocean management.  Moreover, there were three management plans for three ocean areas off the coast.  Norway had also been working to establish marine-protected areas.  The 2006 recommendations relating to the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems had been adequately implemented in most Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.

On capacity and subsidies, and specifically, the report’s mention of a lack of information, he said that issue was particularly sensitive and the lack of information was likely a reflection of that situation.  For its part, Norway had eliminated subsidies.  The country also had put in place measures for retrieving lost fishing gear.  In addition, the Government had worked in the General Assembly to increase attention to the problem of discards and had initiated work in the FAO against their use.  The Secretary-General had pointed out that data collection and reporting was of concern, as data collection was the basis for all management and an area in which progress could be made.

ALFREDO GARCÍA MESINAS ( Peru) said the recent events in the field of international fishery signified the great progress achieved since the last Review Conference.  That progress included the adoption by FAO of Port State Measures and the establishment of new international organizations, including the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the South Pacific and other regional organizations, such as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.  Focusing on the compatibility of measures, he said that issue required intervention from two sides:  the coastal States and the regional management organizations.  Each must adopt compatible measures concerning straddling and migratory stocks.

As a coastal State, Peru was deploying significant efforts aimed at the conservation of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, he said.  Those efforts were based on reliable scientific research, aimed at advising decision-makers through a fluid exchange between the research bodies and the decision-taking entities.  As a result, it had been possible to adopt measures such as arrangements for the various straddling stocks, including horse mackerel, which were of particular relevance to the southern regions.  Peru was prepared to adopt those measures and ensure that they were compatible.  At that level, however, there could be high costs and other difficulties that arose in conveying the basic scientific and biological information necessary to ensure an ongoing analysis.  As such, the measures adopted did not always achieve the desired results.  Any measures adopted regarding the high seas by regional fisheries management organizations must not undermine the efforts adopted by the coastal States for areas under national jurisdiction.

KUK-HYUN AHN ( Republic of Korea) commended efforts to establish a regional management organization to manage tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean.  He stressed that efforts were needed in order to obtain the full implementation of the Agreement.  It was also necessary to strengthen measures leading to the Agreement’s effective implementation, he added.

MATILDA BARTLEY, Principle Foreign Service Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa, said her country had a vested interested in ensuring the sustainable management of fish stocks and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.  She urged parties and non-parties alike to apply the ecosystem approach to fisheries management and the precautionary principle.  She commended new efforts to assess flag State performance and the adoption of port State measures, such as the Port States Measures Agreement developed by FAO, to which Samoa was a signatory, which she encouraged all States to consider signing.

She said Samoa would table in Parliament a new “fisheries management bill 2010”, which incorporated core conservation and management principles, flag State responsibilities, enforcement measures and port State enforcement obligations to better recognize legal obligations. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and other unlawful activities were prevalent in high seas pockets enclosed by national waters of Forum Fisheries Agency members.

Though the new South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization was a step towards addressing gaps not covered by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, she said a key concern was that the northern boundary of that organization excluded or split the national waters of some Forum members.  The southern boundary of the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization had yet to be finalized.  If the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization did not extend 10 degrees north, the ocean between 10 degrees north and the southern boundary would be unregulated.  She urged that organization to extend its southern boundary to 10 degrees north to ensure that those waters were regulated.  In closing, she expressed hope that discussions would build upon recommendations made in 2006 to address gaps.

Mr. CURRIE of Greenpeace, speaking also on behalf of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, focused on issues under agenda item 8(a), welcoming discussion on the creation of new regional fisheries management organizations and calling for robust measures to address bottom trolling.  Following resolution 64/72 (2009), he said that no new acts should be taken unless efforts to address vulnerable marine ecosystems were agreed and implemented.  In the Indian Ocean, he cited the adoption of an accord in 2006, but four years later, said there were no agreed interim measures to implement resolution 61/105 (2006).  He called for a meeting to agree on such measures to cover bottom trolling.  Also, no fishing should be undertaken until measures were developed for the stocks in question.

He said that creating global network of Marine Protected Areas was critical and underpinned an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.  As such, he urged the Review Conference to recommend that all regional fisheries management organizations establish them.  He also urged using the internationally agreed Convention on Biological Diversity, and other guidance, no later than 2012.  Noting that environmental impact assessments were required under the Agreement’s article 5(d), he said those should be made for all fisheries to comply with the Agreement.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record