Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

13^th & 14^th Meetings (AM & PM)

With Three Quarters of World’s Fish Stocks Reportedly in Distress, Ecosystems

Deteriorating, Review of Fish Stocks Agreement Seeks to Tighten Grip

 

Speakers Say Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

Crucial to Progress, but Warn Effectiveness Only as Strong as Members Allow

Amid reports that three quarters of the world’s fish stocks were in distress and nearing depletion while marine ecosystems continued to deteriorate, the Conference tasked with reviewing implementation of the landmark 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement today focused on boosting compliance with regional fisheries management organizations, assessing flag State performance, controlling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and adopting port State measures.

The five-day conference on fish conservation, which opened yesterday at Headquarters, is a resumption of a review of the 1995 Agreement begun in 2006.

Considered to be the most important legally binding global instrument for the conservation and management of fishery resources since the adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982, the Agreement, which took effect in 2001 and has 77 States parties, covers highly migratory species that regularly travel long distances, such as tuna, swordfish and oceanic sharks, as well as straddling stocks that occur both within exclusive economic zones of coastal States and areas beyond and adjacent to those zones, including cod, halibut, pollack, jack mackerel and squid.

The accord requires coastal States and States fishing on the high seas to adopt conservation and management measures based on the best available scientific evidence, in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fish stocks.  And, it includes provisions related to strengthening the responsibilities of flag States, as well as the role of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements.  The Conference aims to review the Agreement’s implementation and consider new measures to tighten its grip.

Today, State and non-State participants considered elements of that text relating to monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as to compliance and enforcement.  Discussion was clustered around, among other issues, strengthening effective control over vessels; assessing flag State performance; adopting port State measures; strengthening compliance and enforcement schemes in regional fisheries management organizations; and consideration of alternative such mechanisms.

Emphasizing the pivotal role of regional fisheries management organizations as the prime mechanisms by which to manage fish stocks, several speakers noted that such organizations were only as strong as their members and that reviews that identified their strengths and weaknesses were necessary to improve their performance.  Encouraging States that had not yet done so to join them, Canada’s representative stressed that cooperation and communication among those organizations was also vital.  While best practices must be shared, they must also reflect the local character of each organization, he added.

Addressing the issue of implementation, Iceland’s representative underscored a need to master basic issues before addressing loftier ones.  Managing a fish stock was not about an ecosystem approach or a precautionary approach, but more about “simple things”, including respect for a scientific basis, and not exceeding the level of exploration recommended by scientists.  If a fish stock could not be managed on its own by respecting the scientific information, then talking about an ecosystem approach was just blurring the issue.

Along those lines, Satya N. Nandan, Chairman of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, who chaired the Conference that adopted the 1995 implementing Agreement, regretted the reluctance of many regional management organizations, including his own Commission, to follow “clear and unambiguous” scientific advice to reduce catches, notwithstanding that such advice was provided through the mechanisms established by the organizations themselves.

Both the 1982 Convention and the 1995 Agreement emphasized the need to make conservation and management decisions on the basis of the best available scientific advice, and it was “simply unacceptable” for regional management organizations to disregard the advice given to them because of political expediency or to accommodate new entrants into the fishery, he stressed.  To ignore the best available scientific advice, or to distort it in such a way that difficult decisions could be avoided, simply undermined the credibility of the regional management organizations and, ultimately, the Agreement itself, he said.

The main problem, however, was that the obligations to comply with the management measures adopted by those organizations rested not with those organizations, but with the States members of the organizations themselves, he said.  Ultimately, it was the States that were required to implement regional measures in domestic legislation or otherwise and to enforce them against their vessels and nationals.

A representative speaking on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Environment Group said that, although only five regional management organizations lived up to their internationally recognized responsibility to conduct performance reviews, it was enough to clearly illuminate the consistent challenges those organizations faced.  Some countries continued to fish with impunity, and some regional management organizations continued to assign quotas far beyond what the science dictated, amid insufficient incentives for those organizations to properly manage stocks.

Several participants also called for strengthening the capacity of developing countries in the area of monitoring, control and surveillance.  The representative of Mozambique said his country was improving its responsibilities as a flag State by organizing sea controls.  It had also set as a priority a review of the licensing regime and procedures for national vessels, which would include sanctions for violations and a review of the penalty and sanction schemes for national and foreign vessels.  He stressed the issue of the financial capacities of African countries, and the fact that a port State measure could not be carried out on a regional basis in Africa.

On the issue of developing States and non-parties, the United States’ speaker called for a discussion about the legitimate aspirations of developing countries to enhance their domestic fisheries as a source of economic growth.  Recognizing that catches for many species should be decreasing, not increasing, in the face of mounting scientific advice, she stressed that room must be made for developing countries so that those nations could also benefit from those fisheries.  That was a complex, but necessary, discussion, in order to meaningfully achieve sustainable fisheries in an equitable manner.

In other business, Conference President David Balton reported that Muditha Halliyadde of Sri Lanka had been elected Chairperson of the Credentials Committee and Dire Tladi of South Africa had been elected Vice-Chairperson, by acclamation.

He noted that the other members of the Credentials Committee are:  Dire Tladi of Germany; Pradip Choudhardy of India; Yousouf Mohamed Ramjanally of Mauritius; Odd Gunnar Skagestad of Norway; Donatus St. Aimee of Saint Lucia; Oleksiy Shapoval of Ukraine; and Gustavo Alvarez of Uruguay.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Panama, Chile, Russian Federation, Japan, Fiji, Senegal, Marshall Islands (on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement), United States, Ecuador, Republic of Korea, Australia, Norway, Peru, China, New Zealand, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Palau, Monaco, Brazil and India.  A representative of the European Union also spoke.

Representatives of the following observer organizations also contributed to the discussion:  the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; the International Collective in Support of Fish Workers; Greenpeace; the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

The Review Conference will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 26 May, to consider proposed means to further strengthen the substance and methods of implementation of the 1995 Agreement.

Background

The Review Conference for the landmark agreement relating to the implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea continued its work today.  The role of the Conference is to review 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 is being held from 24 to 28 May, provides 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 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

Opening the morning meeting, DAVID BALTON of the United States, President of the Review Conference, reported that the first meeting of the Credentials Committee had been held yesterday afternoon, during which Muditha Halliyadde of Sri Lanka had been elected Chairperson of the Credentials Committee and Dire Tladi of South Africa had been elected Vice-Chairperson, by acclamation.

The other members of the Credentials Committee are:  Dire Tladi of Germany; Pradip Choudhardy of India; Yousouf Mohamed Ramjanally of Mauritius; Odd Gunnar Skagestad of Norway; Donatus St. Aimee of Saint Lucia; Oleksiy Shapoval of Ukraine; and Gustavo Alvarez of Uruguay.

He also said that the first meeting of the Bureau had taken place this morning, and that the most important thing coming out of that meeting was that there was agreement within the Bureau that the ultimate outcome of the current Review Conference needed to focus on key issues and not replicate — certainly in length — the outcome document from the 2006 session.

Speaking next, SATYA N. NANDAN, Chairman of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, said the Commission had become operational in 2005, shortly before the first session of the Review Conference in 2006.  Since then, it had rapidly established itself as the newest and largest regional fisheries management organization dealing with the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks.  As of now, Commission membership comprised 25 States and seven territories and possessions in the Pacific.  There were also seven cooperating or participating non-members.  Participation in the Commission, therefore, included all coastal States and territories in the Convention area, as well as all States fishing in the region and having a real interest in the fisheries covered by the Convention.

As one of the regional management organizations to have been established after the adoption of the 1995 Agreement, the Convention of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission incorporated fully the provisions of the Agreement.  Since 2005, the Commission had adopted several conservation and management measures.  At present, there were 24 active measures in place, with 12 related directly to monitoring, control and surveillance.  While the Commission had not yet conducted a review of its performance, it would conduct an overall performance review in 2010, which would include a special vessel monitoring system security audit, as well as audits of the regional observer programme.

Recalling that he was the chair of the Conference that adopted the 1995 implementing Agreement, he said that one of the key objectives of the current Review Conference was to assess the effectiveness of that Agreement in securing the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  In so doing, members should be encouraged by the fact that the Agreement was clearly now widely accepted by States from all regions.  Moreover, as members had heard from the statements made yesterday, the principles of conservation and management set out in the Agreement, including the precautionary approach, were generally accepted, even among those States that had not yet become party to the Agreement.  Furthermore, other fundamental principles found in the Agreement, such as the principle of compatibility in conservation measures on the high seas and in areas under national jurisdiction, were also accepted.

It was also apparent that a great deal of effort had been expended to ensure that regional management organizations were equipped with the tools necessary to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities under the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Agreement, he added.  Most of the recommendations stemming from the last session of the Conference were aimed at improving the efficiency of regional management organizations and ensuring that they established appropriate measures to conserve and manage the fish stocks under their jurisdiction.  Considerable progress had also been made in elaborating best practices for regional management organizations — including, for example, the model developed by Chatham House in 2007 — and in reviewing the performance of regional management organizations against emerging standards.

Regrettably, however, it was equally evident that not as much progress had been made in conserving fish stocks, which continued to decline in the face of overfishing, he said.  That was due to two factors.  The first was the reluctance of many regional management organizations, including the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, to follow clear and unambiguous scientific advice to reduce catches, notwithstanding that such scientific advice was provided through the mechanisms established by the regional management organizations themselves.  Both the 1982 Convention and the 1995 Agreement emphasized the need to make conservation and management decisions on the basis of the best available scientific advice, and it was simply unacceptable for regional management organizations to continue to disregard the advice that was given to them for reasons of political expediency or to accommodate new entrants into the fishery.  To ignore the best available scientific advice, or to distort it in such a way that difficult decisions could be avoided, simply undermined the credibility of the regional management organization and, ultimately, the Agreement itself.

The main problem, however, was that the obligations to comply with the management measures adopted by the regional management organizations rested not on those organizations — which were nothing more than forums for States to agree on measures — but on the States members of the organizations themselves.  Ultimately, it was those States that were required to implement regional measures in domestic legislation or otherwise and to enforce them against their vessels and nationals.  Moreover, a small number of fishing countries and entities — Japan, the European Union, the United States, the Republic of Korea, the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei and, increasingly, China — were members of all regional management organizations, since those countries had the strongest fishing presence in all oceans and controlled the largest fishing fleets and largest markets for fish.  Ultimately, therefore, it was those States that must bear the primary responsibility for the failure of regional management organizations to achieve their conservation objectives.  The regional management organization was only the vehicle by which its members reached collective decisions, he added.

He also stressed that there appeared to be no need to modify or adapt the terms of the 1995 Agreement, or even the rules of the various regional management organizations.  There was, however, a pressing need for regional management organizations to follow the scientific advice that was provided to them through their scientific committees and for all members of regional management organizations to comply with and enforce the collective decisions of the organization with respect to their nationals and vessels.  If States were not able to live up to those obligations, then the consequences were clear:  not only would there be further decline in fish stocks, but there would also be increased pressure to deal with the problems of over-fishing in other forums, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the General Assembly, thus undermining the role of regional management organizations as set out in the 1995 Agreement.  If such issues were not addressed, then such consequences would be unavoidable, he said.

Providing a summary from yesterday’s discussions around agenda item 8(a), Mr. BALTON described areas where there had been progress and said delegations had noted the establishment of new regional fisheries management organizations, particularly in the South Pacific.  Negotiations were ongoing to establish one in the North Pacific and the Southwest Indian Ocean Agreement had been concluded.

Moreover, he said, delegations had noted that existing regional fisheries management organizations had strengthened their mandates.  The Antigua Convention for the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission had been concluded, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) had adopted a long series of amendments to its convention and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) had established a “Future of ICCAT” working group, which could head down the same path.  Many delegations also had mentioned performance reviews — five regional fisheries management organizations had completed them, others were undertaking them, and still others had seen their completed reviews yield recommendations that were being implemented.  Many also had expressed pleasure that some reviews had included an element of independent analysis.

Other progress related to regulation of deep-sea fisheries, he said, adding that delegations had noted the adoption of General Assembly resolutions and of interim measures by regional fisheries organizations to give effect to those resolutions, as well as the adoption by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of guidelines on deep-sea fisheries, which were being implemented.

Delegates had also heard that regional fisheries management organizations were working better together, he said, notably through the Kobe Process.  Speakers had cited the meetings of the regional bodies’ secretariats and ongoing work of both the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic regional fisheries management organizations.  Many speakers had noted progress in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, with many hailing the adoption of the new Port State Measures Agreement; expanded use of catch documentation schemes and other trade tracking initiatives; and reciprocal recognition of “RFMO/IUU” vessel lists.

A final area of progress related to the principle of compatibility, with many delegations describing how it was being given effect, particularly in the Convention of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, which included provisions to provide for compatible measures, he said.  As for areas where little progress had been made, delegations had pointed to the poor status of stocks and in accurate data collection.

Regarding the ecosystem and precautionary approaches to fisheries management, he said delegations had expressed mixed points of view, with some noting progress and others noting a lack thereof.  Many speakers had said that conservation and management measures had not always been based on the best science and that global fishing capacity was still too high.  Some had described progress in using area-based management tools, while others noted a way to go in achieving the goal of a network of Marine Protected Areas.  Several speakers had said more must be done to improve flag State performance and reduce by-catch, particularly of sea turtles and sharks.  Many had raised serious concerns about sharks and the failure of regional fisheries management organizations to conduct basic data collection and assessment.  Many speakers noted that fisheries organizations had banned shark finning, but underlined still-poor enforcement.

He recalled that many delegations had encouraged regional fisheries management organizations to examine allocation questions and to take into account developing countries’ desire to take part in those organizations.  Many had called for more assistance to developing countries to implement the Agreement and recommendations from the 2006 Review Conference.

Speaking before the floor was opened to general debate, Brazil’s representative asked about the status of recommendations emerging from the resumed session, as related to those that had emerged in 2006.  Would they be consolidated with those from the previous session?  The Review Conference was an ongoing meeting, as she understood it.

Responding, Mr. BALTON said the question deserved consideration.  His initial reaction was that the Conference was free to develop a new set of recommendations.  It was his understanding that after four years, the Conference was searching for new recommendations to put forward; however, he would take that question up with the Bureau and respond again at a later date.

Statements

TOMAS H. HEIDAR ( Iceland) said that, following the 1995 Agreement, there was a general feeling that the coastal States had been the winners, rather than the distant water fishing nations.  Following ratification, the picture looked a bit different, in that most of the distant water fishing nations had ratified the Agreement, while many of the coastal States had not.  His delegation hoped that further dialogue would be useful in increasing understanding of the interpretations of provisions, and that the coastal States that had not ratified the Agreement would do so.

He said that the current session of the Review Conference should not be focusing on bottom fishing or on vulnerable marine ecosystems, as there was a separate forum for that.  There should be no duplication of efforts in the session, but rather a focus on the management of fish stocks in a direct sense.  In addition, his delegation was pleased with the 2006 Review Conference, and found that its core had been a reaffirmation of the regional approach to high seas fisheries management, with regional management organizations at the forefront — a notion that his delegation very much shared.  Moreover, the performance reviews that had been conducted were also quite positive, both the ones that had already taken place and the ones that were planned.  Another positive development that had taken place had been the adoption of the Port State Measures Agreement by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The core issues that needed to be addressed were really the basic issues, as it was not about an ecosystem approach or a precautionary approach, but more about the simple things, he said, adding that those things included respecting a scientific basis when a stock was being managed and not exceeding the level of exploration recommended by scientists, as well as reaching agreement on allocation.  If a fish stock could not be managed on its own by respecting the scientific information, then talking about an ecosystem approach was just blurring the issue.  It was necessary to master the simple things first before talking about the loftier issues, he stressed.

JENNY GONZÁLEZ ( Panama) said Panama had become party to the Agreement in 2008 after a long process that involved bringing the country’s legislation in line.  In 2001, Panama had also implemented a standard prohibiting drift nets, and in 2009, legal requirements were implemented concerning transhipping vessels, which established a link with vessels that were traditionally considered mercantile vessels.  Shark finning had also been prohibited in Panamanian waters.  In addition, in 2005, a new body had been established to apply the ecosystem approach and precautionary principle in order to prevent excessive fishing.

Her delegation firmly believed in multilateral actions and in strengthening existing regional management organizations.  It was also necessary to establish criteria for stock assessment and to assist developing countries.  In addition, more must be done to enhance scientific information and information exchange.

MARIA ALICIA BALTIERRA ( Chile), addressing the issue of compatibility, said that her country had regulated mackerel fishing for years.  Its efforts were based on significant scientific research compiled annually and which complied with international criteria.  Such fishing was the main activity to be regulated by the new South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.  However, the interim measures adopted were incompatible with Chile’s internal regime and insufficient to ensure conservation of that species.

She said that the interim measures had been adopted to provide nascent control over fishing, and once they were renewed, more vessels had become active.  Catch control measures had been introduced; however, as they had not been adopted with the original interim measures, those measures would lead to excessive catch.  The interim measures were not aligned with those taken by the port State.  Mortality rates of mackerel were high.  Biomass levels, already low, would continue to fall.  The same situation had arisen with issue of replacement.

That was a clear case of lack of compatibility between two regimes, she said, adding that Chile believed it was necessary for both regimes to implement measures to safeguard that stock and not infringe upon each other.  If measures undermined those taken under national legislation, there must be discussion about what to do.  If a regime was not based on science, it could undermine the internal regime under Chile’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  The concept of compatibility, under article 7 of the Agreement, must be interpreted, and the principle applied should be that which best conserved the stock.

LOYOLA SULLIVAN ( Canada) said the management for highly migratory and straddling fish stocks had been undertaken by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.  Article 10 provided criteria for States in discharging their duties to cooperate.  Since regional fisheries organizations had come into existence after the creation of the Agreement, modernizing them was a priority for Canada.  It was an ongoing process.  With amendments to the convention of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, a modern decision-making process had been established to conserve the stocks under management.

He said that Canada strongly believed that regional fisheries management organizations were the prime mechanisms by which to manage stocks.  By identifying their strengths and weaknesses, performance could be strengthened.  For such reasons, Canada supported the reviews.  Fisheries organizations were only as strong as their members and reviews would only improve their performance.  He encouraged States that had not yet done so to join a regional fisheries management organization or apply their measures in areas where they fished.  Cooperation and communication among those organizations was also vital, as that among tuna organizations had shown.  While best practices must be shared, they must also reflect the local character of each organization.

He said that no single tool would solve illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, but global standards for actions to be taken in ports when “IUU” vessels sought entry had been developed and he urged more effective control in that regard.  Improving flag State performance was fundamental to combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to improving global fisheries management.  He strongly supported FAO in providing guidance on the criteria for what constituted flag State control and actions to be taken for States failing to control their vessels.  States must do a better job of controlling — or being perceived as controlling — their vessels.  States must also clearly demonstrate their actions to address non-compliance in regional fisheries management organizations.

DMITRY KREMENYUK ( Russian Federation) said his country had participated actively in the setting up of regional fisheries management organizations in the Southern Pacific Ocean.  His delegation believed that such organizations were an excellent tool for regulating fisheries as set forth in the 1995 Agreement.  Decisions made by those organizations should be based on scientific data.  There had been significant progress made by those organizations, and there was a high level of participation between them and State members.  He added that it was necessary to work on flag State responsibility measures, while member States of regional management organizations needed to work on regulation.

JOJI MORISHITA ( Japan) said his delegation strongly supported the point raised by other speakers that the regional management organizations were key to the issue of the conservation and management of fish resources.  Thus, his delegation strongly supported strengthening their function and capacity.  The issue of performance reviews was a very positive move towards that goal.

He said his country had taken the initiative of organizing the so-called Kobe Process, and perhaps the Conference might like to also think about coordination between non-tuna regional management organizations, as there was some merit to that idea.  It was also necessary to support the strengthening of Port State Measures.  It was important to note that high seas fisheries were a small portion of fisheries and, as such, cooperation among the coastal States and high seas fishing States, and between the regional management organizations and adjacent coastal waters, was very important.

RIKKE NIELSEN, head of the delegation of the European Union, focusing on areas of progress, noted the creation of new regional fisheries management organizations.  The Union was in the process of ratifying the convention of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization and the amended Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization convention.  The establishment of the Kobe process was also important, as was the fact that five regional fisheries management organizations had undertaken performance reviews.

At the same time, some regional fisheries organizations had not undertaken performance reviews, she said, adding that management measures were not always effective and that decision-making was not sufficiently transparent, which could discourage membership in those organizations.  For its part, the European Union had participated in all fisheries organizations in which it was either a member or cooperating non-member.  It was had been actively participating in the Kobe process and the performance reviews of regional fisheries organizations.

SAINIVALATI NAVOTI ( Fiji) said his country was party to various fisheries instruments.  Since the last review, Fiji had participated in the negotiations that had led to the adoption of the convention of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, and those for the Port State Measures agreement.  In that context, he cited the importance of maintaining the sovereignty of ports, safeguarding the interests of small island developing States and maintaining their aspirations for participating in high seas fisheries.

He explained that there was a difference between participating in negotiations for conventions and implementing national commitments.  In Fiji, implementation was being undertaken in policies, programmes and strategies.  He discussed Fiji’s offshore fisheries management decree, which would be up for adoption later this year.  Fiji’s tuna management and development plan outlined conditions for fishing, as well as for conservation and management.  Fiji was exploring the challenge of implementing the ecosystem approach, which it proposed to do through management plans.  Applications of that approach should be tailored to the national context.  His delegation wished to discuss the creation of supporting mechanisms for least developed and small island developing States at a later time.

MARIEME DIAGNE TALLA ( Senegal) said that Senegal actively participated in the African regional fisheries management organizations.  Vessel monitoring systems had been implemented in 2006, and all national vessels now had such systems, which were also required for all vessels in Senegalese waters.  Senegal was also working to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and a national action plan had been elaborated against that.  Work was being finalized on the plan, which should be concluded shortly.

In terms of scientific data, he said there was a need for scientific and technical assistance for developing countries, as those countries did not have the necessary capacity in place.  There was also a need for true synergy and coordination among the regional management organizations.

CALEB CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands), speaking on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement, said that performance reviews and best practice guidelines had proven to be valuable tools for improved public accountability.  Performance reviews, in particular, also served to identify areas where further work was needed.  In the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, more was being done to address that, and to improve information flows.  There should be consistent approaches to performance reviews and enhanced cooperation among regional management organizations.

In addition, he said that the Kobe Process had been very useful, although better dissemination was needed to best connect it with a broader array of information and forums.  Perhaps the possibility also existed for further instruments or initiatives between and across regional management organizations.  Initiatives such as the Kobe Process, however, should not exist in isolation.  Regarding the effective control by flag States, he said that vessel monitoring technology could lead to better transparency with respect to vessels.

HOLLY KOEHLER, Office of Marine Conservation, Department of State of the United States, said some regional fisheries management organizations had taken steps to reform or strengthen their mandates, while others, like the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), must consider basic reforms to reflect the range of functions outlined in the fish stocks Agreement.  Some organizations had adopted measures to take account of the best science available or revised their measures in light of other scientific advice.  But for many, that was not the usual practice, and the United States was frustrated that action had not been taken to prevent further declines in the status of key fish stocks, even when the need for such measures had been clearly shown by the science.  The United States was concerned that for many, short-term economic interests outweighed the long-term sustainability of resources on which so many nations depended.  That situation must be corrected.  Regional fisheries organizations were only as effective as their members allowed them to be.

She said that a key 2006 outcome had been the call for regional fisheries management organizations to conduct performance reviews, and while the United States was encouraged that five organizations had undertaken them — and that some had included an independent evaluation — the Secretary-General’s report underscored that further efforts were needed.  She agreed that reviews could strengthen operations and enhance credibility; they provided valuable insights that served to modernize practices and could form part of those organizations’ work programmes.

On the issue of cooperation, the United States was pleased to see progress since 2006, particularly among tuna organizations, which had met twice.  She welcomed that initiative to strengthen communication to better preserve highly migratory stocks.  The United States had participated in the Kobe process and noted that the Secretary-General’s report offered details on other cooperative research programmes and memorandums of understanding that had been reached.  There was great value in sharing best practices, and the United States encouraged straddling fish organizations to pursue options for doing that, following the lead set by tuna organizations.

Regarding non-members of regional fisheries organizations, she said those wishing to attain cooperating status must undertake commitments commensurate with the benefits they received.  In most cases, cooperating status should not be indefinite, but rather serve as a stepping stone to attaining full membership.  In that light, she underscored that only those States agreeing to apply conservation and management measures could access fishery resources to which those measures applied.  The United States applauded the use of illegal, unreported and unregulated vessel lists, non-discriminatory trade measures and port State measures.  However, the effectiveness of “IUU” actions could be strengthened to ensure that subtle variations among various fisheries regimes were not exploited.

Finally, she welcomed progress on negotiations in the Regional Fisheries Management Organization in the South Pacific to constrain the ability of parties to opt out of measures.  In cases where opts-outs were still possible, States should be required to provide explanation for why they were doing so.  Also, in some cases, opportunities for participation by intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations remained unduly burdensome.  Those bodies provided important expertise in the work of fisheries management organizations.

WALTER SCHULDT (Ecuador), speaking about agenda item 8(a), said that, while Ecuador was not party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the New York Agreement, it had participated in negotiations related to both accords.  Ecuador applied the principles of those instruments through national initiatives and regional agreements.  Since 2006, Ecuador had taken steps to meet the objectives.  Ecuador’s Constitution included a chapter on the rights of nature and the ability to apply the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach.  The Government had broadened the reach of marine protected areas governed by the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach.  For sharks, Ecuador had in place legislation to reduce their incidental by-catch and to prohibit finning.

He noted that Ecuador had implemented a plan to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as part of a regional plan for South Pacific fishing.  It continued to actively participate in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IAATC) to attain a commitment on conserving tuna and associated species in the Eastern and Central Pacific Ocean.

Regarding the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean, Ecuador had participated in almost all processes since 2005, he said, and was now analysing results of the recent review conference.  Regional fisheries management organizations were the appropriate framework for the adoption of measures to conserve highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, but many did not acknowledge differences between developed and developing nations.  There was a lack of commitment of both parties and non-parties of those organizations and the New York Agreement.  In closing, he underscored the FAO’s adoption of port state measures and agreed with Chile on the issue of compatibility and harmful fishing subsidies.

HYUN-SOO KIM ( Republic of Korea) said his country had positively participated in the Kobe Process and had also implemented flag State control through national laws and regulations.  It also welcomed cooperation among the tuna organizations through Kobe II.  However, the ineffectiveness of certain measures should be overcome through cooperation among the relevant organizations.  In terms of the Kobe Process, his delegation welcomed the workshops concerned with scientific advice-sharing, by-catch reduction and fisheries management.

He urged transparent, objective and reasonable preparation of the standards and procedures for decision-making and quota allocation in regional management organizations.  For its part, the Republic of Korea was strengthening the activities of inspectors, whom it expected to jointly enforce boarding and inspection procedures.  It was also conducting research projects regarding the impact of the fish stocks Agreement.

SIMEAO LOPES ( Mozambique) said his country was strengthening the effective control of its vessels and continually improving its responsibilities as a flag State by organizing sea controls and implementing a vessel monitoring system.  It had also set as a priority a review of the licensing regime and procedures for national vessels.  That would include sanctions for violations and a review of the penalty and sanction schemes for national and foreign vessels.  The penalty schemes being prepared would include heavy fines for illegal and unreported fishing.  Regarding the adoption of port State measures, Mozambique was working on the implementation of initial port inspections.

He said his country had been instrumental in the development of the Port State Measures of the FAO as a leader among African countries.  He stressed that the constrained financial capacities of African countries did not enable such a measure to be carried out on a regional basis in Africa.  There should be standards for regional operations with respect to fisheries inspectors and compliance observers, and assistance was needed to establish such measures at the regional level.  Lastly, he said that Mozambique was working to establish a cost-effective subregional vessel monitoring system in partnership with the Seychelles.

ANNA WILLOCK, International Fisheries, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, underscored it was the responsibility of the State, acting through a regional fisheries management organization, that remained paramount.  She had found interesting the range of issues raised on shark protection, and noted that protection measures often had not been “translated up” to those organizations.  Fishermen and conservation groups alike could see there were significant problems with those measures achieving what was needed.

She stressed the importance of sharing experiences between tuna organizations and those dealing with straddling stocks.  At the same time, she did not wish to see cooperation confined to only that between those two groupings.  Control of flag States was crucial, and it was unfortunate that FAO’s initiative in that regard was being delayed.  Control of nationals should be discussed under agenda item 8(b).  Provisions related to developing coastal States were being exploited by developed States.  That also was the situation in the Antarctic waters.  To comments by Mozambique’s delegate on data-sharing in the Southern African region, she said the mobility of products that moved through trade must be matched by information sharing.  Global information exchange must be enhanced.  The International Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Network had a role in that, and she hoped discussions could be taken forward into item 8(b).

HARLAN COHEN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), welcomed the development of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization and negotiations to create a North Pacific regional fisheries management organization.  However, he voiced concern at the potential for a 10-degree gap between those two arrangements.  Specifically, the North Pacific arrangement, if only focused on bottom-fishing, would not fulfil the 2006 recommendation that all stocks be conserved and managed.  If fisheries developed for other stocks, the idea to establish another agreement must be examined, and it would be better to have just one agreement covering all stocks in that area.  There was a duty to cooperate and manage all stocks.  If a 10-degree gap remained, then high seas in that area should be closed to all fishing.  The South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement was not yet in force, and some members had expressed concern about high seas fishing in the Indian Ocean.

For the Arctic Ocean, he welcomed the interest in cooperative arrangements, saying that the best course of action would be to cut greenhouse gas emissions to quickly reduce geographic changes.  Absent that, there should be a move towards ecosystem-based management of ocean resources.  States should prohibit vessels from fishing in high seas areas or others where there were no conservation and management areas.  The Union was concerned that data collection was clearly a problem, especially as the Agreement provided for obligations in that regard.

Recalling another 2006 recommendation that States provide catch data and fishery-related information in a timely and accurate way, he said he hoped to see forward movement on that front.  Another recommendation concerned the development of management tools, and he welcomed efforts to better protect the Southern Shelf in South Orkney Islands.  There was a need to create measures, like marine reserves, to conserve highly migratory stocks and to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, in line with the precautionary approach and international law.  He noted that the 2006 Conference had urged States to cooperate with the FAO in developing a global record, by 2012, of fishing vessels, and he welcomed steps to develop such a record, which would assist in tracking vessels, especially those involved in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  The Review Conference should endorse such efforts.  It was also important to address developing country interests to participate in regional fisheries management organizations.

SEBASTIAN MATTHEW, of the International Collective in Support of Fish Workers, said that there were an estimated 2 million small-scale and artisanal fisheries, particularly in developing countries dependent on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks for their livelihood.  Some of the indigenous peoples and coastal communities in small island developing countries were primarily dependent on tuna resources for their lives and livelihoods.  Large numbers of women were dependent on processing tuna in many coastal communities.  Recent reports from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas indicated high socio-economic relevance of small tuna fisheries for many coastal countries and local communities, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean and West Africa.  The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission reported that more than 50 per cent of the total catch of Indian Ocean Tuna Commission species was taken by artisanal fisheries.  Recent reports also indicated the importance of small-scale artisanal tuna fisheries to the Western and Central Pacific Ocean countries.

He said it was a matter of concern, however, that there were no reliable estimates of catch and effort data for highly migratory stocks caught, in particular, by artisanal fleets.  It was important to find cost-effective means to get such estimates.  In the absence of timely and reliable data, States and regional management organizations should assess how traditional knowledge of small-scale artisanal fishing communities could be applied to sustainable fisheries conservation, management and development of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  Respecting the social pillar of sustainable development and human rights was integral to the success of long-term fisheries conservation and management.  That would involve addressing safety and ensuring better working and living conditions in fisheries and establishing mechanisms for social security.  It was important to take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers and indigenous people, as well as to consider consultative and participatory regimes for fisheries conservation and management that would involve all relevant parties having a legitimate interest in the use and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, he said.

SUSAN LIEBERMAN, speaking on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and of the Pew Environment Group, said that, although only five regional management organizations lived up to their internationally recognized responsibility to conduct performance reviews, it was enough to clearly illuminate consistent challenges that such organizations faced.  Regional management organizations needed to take seriously the impact of their fishing fleets on vulnerable species such as sharks.  Referring to the intervention by the delegate of Japan yesterday who had asked all participants to look into why the good recommendations and measures of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement had not been implemented, she said the groups she represented believed that incentives and disincentives were missing.  Some countries continued to fish with impunity, some regional management organizations still assigned quotas far beyond what the science dictated, and there were insufficient incentives for them to properly manage stocks.

Regional management organizations should require completion of an environmental impact assessment before allowing fishing to take place on any stock, she continued.  Where no conservation and management plan was in place, and no environmental impact assessment had been undertaken, no fishing should be allowed for either target or associated species, including sharks.  The current system, whereby there was no regulation of shark fisheries on the high seas, and continued fishing of other species without environmental impact assessments, was one of many reasons for the deplorable state of high seas fisheries, she stressed.

DUNCAN CURRIE, Greenpeace, discussing the 2006 recommendation on the establishment of a global record for fishing vessels, said that the FAO expert consultations in 2008 had been welcome, but there was still a need for funds, which was a real concern. He suggested that the Review Conference recommend that a global record be established as matter of urgency by the end of the year.  In that context, he highlighted the need for tamper-proof vessel monitoring systems coverage, with 100 per cent independent observer coverage on vessels, and harmonized catch documentation schemes.  Domestic legislation should prohibit the export and trade of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and discourage entities, like banks, from dealing with vessels involved with such fishing.  He encouraged additional refunding of the monitoring and controlling network.

KJELL KRISTIAN EGGE, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that regional fisheries management organizations were key elements in global fisheries management under the Agreement and, therefore, were expected to meet huge expectations.  Processes to strengthen mandates served as a clear sign that fishery nations recognized regional fisheries management organizations as key elements and would be willing and able to adjust tools in an effective way.  In that regard, the Review Conference should recognize those as areas where implementation was well under way.

While some performance reviews had been undertaken, he urged those who had not already done so to undertake them.  The decision as to whether or not to implement a review, he noted, was in the hands of the regional fisheries management organizations’ governing bodies.  While external advice within that process could be requested, it should not act as a deciding power in a way that dictated the process of the organization.  Furthermore, in cases where recommendations were not acted upon, transparency was critical.

He noted that several speakers had voiced concern that regional fisheries management organizations were “as good as Member States allowed them to be”, highlighting that it was important to keep that in mind when discussing the issues.  In contemplating each State’s individual responsibilities, it was important to contribute to and strive for consistency between different regional fisheries management organizations, regardless of the type of role they played.

ALFREDO GARCÍA MESINAS ( Peru) noted several speakers’ comments, stressing regional fisheries management organizations as primary vehicles for implementation of measures for highly migratory species of fish. The development of regional fisheries management organizations was based on the provision of scientific data; however, the political interest of States — often given priority — had led to a serious divorce from the scientific components.

Ecosystem approaches, he said, should be spelled out in an appropriate fashion, noting that “in order to run, you must first learn to walk”.   As coastal States were concerned primarily with compatibility measures, he urged a measure of realism, which should include consistency and balance with regard to the Agreement’s article 7 and particularly article 16, which underscored that priority should be given to the interests of coastal States.  He reaffirmed that the principle of compatibility was fundamental, particularly with regard to the high seas.  His delegation was of the view that the Review Conference should fully comply with article 4 in efforts for further implementation.

LI LING ZHAO ( China) said she had been listening carefully to statements made.  On the whole, progress had been made since the Agreement, and both States parties and non-States parties had been complying with it.  On the issue of international cooperation, China agreed that regional fisheries management organizations were important tools and that their functions and responsibilities should be strengthened.  All States parties with activities on the high seas should join corresponding regional fisheries management organizations.  China had done so.  It also had joined negotiations related to the conventions of some of those organizations and carried out corresponding measures.

However, he said, simply joining such organizations was not enough; members should comply with regulations of their regional fisheries management organizations because problems were related, not to a lack of management, but to strengthening existing measures.  Strengthening performance reviews was also very important.  A review of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission had been carried out and the expert report contained various recommendations.  Since then, all members of that organization had taken steps and, during the March 2010 meeting, had adopted measures, including to protect seabirds and certain fish stocks.  For the first time, protection measures for sharks had been adopted.  Members of such fisheries organizations should assist developing countries in their scientific research.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN International Adviser, Foreign Ministry, New Zealand said interesting ideas had been put forward throughout the day.  While regional fisheries management organizations were key, States’ performances was the prime determinants.  There were mechanisms that made some organizations more problematic than others.  Some had revisited rules and ameliorated their problems.  Membership, and the ability to attain non-party status, was critical.  Membership should be the goal.  One disincentive to allowing new entrants was the consensus rule, which seemed to work against the interests that organizations were trying to promote.  A consensus that worked to keep countries out only encouraged illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  The biggest problem was the rational allocation of fish.

Reflecting on flag State performance, he said the problem was that “people can switch flags very easily”, noting that flags were being used to facilitate illegal, unreported and unregulated behaviour.  Describing one incident in New Zealand, he said a vessel had courted its ports flying a developing country flag.  Records confirmed that the crew was from a northern hemisphere developed country and connected to a well-known operator whose behaviour had been subjected to criminal charges.  The Southern Pacific Ocean was becoming a “pirate” place for operators.  It was the behaviour of nationals that was at the heart of the problem.  Without addressing that issue, the problems would not be fixed.

ROY CLARISSE, Director, Fishing Authority of the Seychelles, believed progress had been made in regional fisheries management organizations.  The Seychelles had been involved in a performance review of one such organization and some changes had been implemented.  As for the ecosystems approach, the Government was reviewing legislation, which was in the final stage of re-drafting.  Fishing methods that impacted the ecosystem, like trolling, were prohibited.  As for data collection and information sharing, there had been an increase in data submission to the Commission.  Data, however, had to be accurate.  Regional fisheries management organizations had to deal with non-compliance, rather than just reporting it.  The non-reporting or under-reporting of catch data impacted the ability to make decisions based on the best scientific advice.  Regional fisheries management organizations were as strong as their membership.  In the last Indian Ocean Tuna Commission meeting, only half of its members were present.  Members were not honouring their obligations.  More should be done to facilitate their participation.

On illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, he highlighted the need to improve flag State responsibility, as such activities violated the Law of the Sea Convention.  On the management of fishing capacity, he acknowledged developing States’ aspirations to develop their fleets, but they did not have the resources to do so.  The ability of Indian Ocean member States to access the high seas was limited.  The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission had implemented a time and area closure in part of the high seas.

ANDRÉS COUVE ( Chile) highlighted the importance of considering the best scientific information and recommendations when determining conversion measures, saying that not doing so would lead to an over-exploitation of resources and a very serious prejudice.  He cited the example of the South Pacific regional fisheries management organizations, noting that the discussion for measures regarding pelagic resources had taken four years.  Among the agreed interim measures, some encouraged or allowed an increase in fishing in the South Pacific, resulting in a considerable increase in vessels and heavy tonnage capabilities.

Additionally, he noted that all fishing States were obtaining the same resources, particularly the South Pacific mackerel.  Therefore, Chile, Colombia and Peru, among others, were greatly concerned with the state of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory stocks with a particular focus on the South Pacific and urged strict compliance with interim measures.  Despite the call for strict compliance, a 15 per cent increase in mackerel fishing occurred, running counter to new rules adopted in November 2009.  In that regard, he stressed that States that had adopted interim measures must adopt strict compliance rules.

Regarding the implementation of measures, the voluntary nature of implementation and method of approval by consensus were inadequate and represented a “bare-bottom” perspective that was truly ineffective, he said.

HELEN BECK ( Solomon Islands) said that to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, her country had encouraged rigorous implementation programmes and vessel monitoring systems requirements for domestic and foreign shipping vessels.  Regarding the transhipment of catch on the high seas, she recognized that there were limitations for monitoring and policing activities in high seas pockets adjacent to its Exclusive Economic Zone.  She urged that transhipment be done in designated ports.  In terms of monitoring and attaining catch data, and ensuring that it was also qualitative, she encouraged that such activities to be taken up rigorously, given the limited capacity of many small island developing States to do such work.  She urged flag States engaging in that activity to comply with rules, particularly in her region.

To deal with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, she urged looking at the landing and sale of the catch resulting from such activity.  That spoke to the responsibility of port States to implement measures as well.  Most small island developing States depended on fisheries as their only livelihood. The management of such resources must be addressed seriously, and it was important to ensure that the economic benefits of those resources were shared equally.  That could only be done through effective governance.

JOAN YANG ( Palau) reiterated the need for regional fisheries management organizations performance reviews.  While Palau understood that States determined the path of those organizations, her Government did not agree that capacity limitations meant that developing nations did not have ability to voice their views.  There were 18 regional fisheries management organizations that met around the world and it was not possible for her country to participate in all discussions.  If language in the fish stocks Agreement on ecosystems and the precautionary approach were to be given meaning, actions must be taken to prevent or limit overfishing of Annex I stocks.  In that respect, she reiterated the call for a moratorium on shark finning.

JOHANNES DE MILLO TERRAZZANI ( Monaco) voiced his delegation’s support in conducting the work of the session.  The Agreement, he said, served as a cornerstone in regulating specific fish species, including those of deep concern to Monaco.  Given the inadequacy of data on deep sea stocks, it was crucial that more efforts be made towards its enhancement.

He also underlined the importance of environmental impact studies and the adoption of measures based on independent studies.  Viewing a broad accession to the Agreement as critical to success, he welcomed the 20 new States parties to it.

ULISES MUNAYLLA ALARCÓN, Adviser of the Plan of Action of the South-East Pacific, Permanent Commission for the South Pacific of Peru, noted that more focus was needed on the allocation of fishing quotas.  The central purpose of regional fisheries management organizations was resource conservation, he said, noting that that must be founded on scientific investigation and an exchange of information, as provided by the New York Agreement.

He said that article 10 of the Agreement had established certain principles, namely that regional fisheries management organizations should agree upon and adopt measures on fishing quotas, while also agreeing on the rights of participation.  Article 10 did not, however, specifically say how or under what conditions those quotas were to be allocated.  In that regard, he stressed that measures on participation should not become a fishing right or, conversely, an impediment or restriction for developing or coastal States.  As all States had the right to fish in the high seas, he urged interested States to ensure that measures would not run counter to the needs of fishermen or discriminate against fishermen of other States.  He added that the foundation of conservation was not the adoption of discriminatory measures but the participation of all States in fishing resources.

Mr. MORISHITA, Counsellor, Fisheries Agency of Japan, speaking about assistance to developing States, said his country depended on international organizations to promote capacity-building in developing countries.  Japan had been contributing to the FAO trust fund, which had good relations with many developing States.  Such tools helped build capacity in those nations.  Japan had also contributed to its neighbours, including through the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre.  Regional fisheries management organizations could play a role in capacity-building.  Japan had contributed to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and initiated similar programmes in the International Commission for the Conservation of Tuna.

Turning to monitoring, control and surveillance, he said Japan supported the regional fisheries management organizations as key to the conservation and management of stocks.  He emphasized that the catch documentation system was a useful monitoring tool.  It had a long history, having started as a statistical documentation system about 12 years ago.  Today, it helped countries with huge secret markets, like Japan, to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing products from entering the country.  The Kobe Process had helped tuna organizations coordinate their work.  Such tools were effective, but a capacity-building programme was needed for developing States to apply such systems to their activities.  Finally, he clarified that the new fisheries management organization in the North Pacific had agreed to apply its jurisdiction to all non-tuna species.  It could have a wide coverage, he added.

Mr. HEIDAR ( Iceland) said that the interventions made by the delegates of Palau and Peru were quite different, but shared a common element.  With respect to the Peruvian intervention, that delegate had spoken as if there was still an unqualified freedom of high seas fisheries, and as if there had not been any progress over the last decade.  One of the main objectives of the fish stock Agreement was to limit that freedom.  When there was a fully exploited stock, the fisheries were not open to newcomers.  Members of a regional fisheries management organization could agree to cooperate with new entrants, but, according to the fish stock Agreement, those entrants would not have a right to start fishing from a fully exploited stock.

Mr. VAN BOHEMEN ( New Zealand) said the issue was not quite as simple as whether stocks were fully exploited and who could have access to them.  It was an unfortunate reality that a developing State with no prior fishing history was seen as being in a different category than a State that had a tradition of fishing.  It was necessary when grappling with such issues that members did not make the fish the consequence of their decisions.  It was necessary to find a way to deal with the issue realistically, so as not to create bad conservation outcomes, and that meant making room for people.  It was a difficult thing to say to the developing world that the oceans were “all locked up”, and members should reflect on that very deeply, he said.

The issue of the North Pacific-South Pacific boundary was very important in fishery management terms and in policy terms, he said.  It was necessary to reflect quite seriously on how far north the boundary of the South Pacific should come.

Ms. KOEHLER (United States), focusing on the monitoring control and surveillance cluster, said the United States was generally pleased with the reported range of tools and measures, whose mandates States and regional management organizations sought to strengthen, and the measures adopted by those organizations to implement and enforce modern approaches to fisheries management.  The United States had more than 20 domestic laws and regulations in place to control the activities of vessels flying the United States flag, and implement conservation and management measures adopted within regional management organizations.

She said that, although several measures had been put in place since the 2006 session to encourage compliance, lack of compliance had been reported by several regional management organizations, as well as other independent sources, as the single largest impediment to the successful conservation and management of fish stocks.  Shortcomings in compliance with agreed conservation and management measures were also a key cross-cutting theme in the results of the regional management organizations’ performance reviews completed to date, she said.

Turning to developing States and non-parties, she said her delegation believed that there had been some important progress and useful developments with respect to the 2006 Review Conference recommendations for developing States.  A total of $800,000 had been donated to the Part VII Assistance Fund as of the end of 2009.  She noted that in the early years of the Fund, most of its expenditures were used for travel expenses, but, since 2006, more of the monies available in the Fund had been used for capacity-building initiatives; to support negotiations for regional management organizations and to strengthen existing organizations; human resource development; and technical training and assistance.

She said her delegation was also conscious of the legitimate aspirations of developing countries to develop their domestic fisheries as a source of economic growth, and of their interest in gaining a fair share of the high seas fisheries.  Her delegation understood and supported those legitimate aspirations, and recognized that in the face of mounting scientific advice that catches for many species should be decreasing, and not increasing, room must be made for developing countries so that those nations could also benefit from those fisheries.  It would be a complex discussion, but one that was necessary in order to meaningfully achieve sustainable fisheries in an equitable manner.  Everyone had rights, but everyone also had obligations, and must cooperate to conserve and manage the highly migratory species, and share and benefit from them, she said.

MICHAEL PEARSON, Director-General, International Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, focusing on compliance and enforcement, said that provisions in the fish stock Agreement had been drafted to provide an effective regime.  He highlighted the need for States and regional fisheries management organizations to successfully implement the Agreement.  There was a clear and warranted expectation that States do a proper job with compliance.  Regarding flag State performance, he said responsible use of oceans, including robust fisheries governance, was predicated on adequate control of fishing vessels of those States.

He said that, while flag States had the primary duty of monitoring, control and surveillance with respect to high seas fishing, there were concerns that such control was not being universally enforced.  Those States were obliged to ensure compliance with the conservation and management measures relating to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.  The 2006 Conference rightly highlighted that that flag States had made notable improvements in the areas of monitoring, control and surveillance.  The failure of some States to control their vessels was rightly receiving increasing international attention.  In 2008, Canada had hosted an international expert workshop on flag State responsibilities; a meeting report was available on the websites of the FAO and Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  Actions must be taken against non-compliant vessels.  He urged ongoing collaboration between the FAO and the International Maritime Organization on issues related to combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

Port States also played a key role in improving fisheries governance, he continued.  Their conduct was an important determinant of their commitments to ensuring good governance.  The International Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Network had grown and he urged States that had not done so to join it.  On the critical role of regional fisheries management organizations, he said that States working within those organizations had developed more effective monitoring regimes, including mechanisms to coordinate and exchange information on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing with other organizations.  Successful measures included vessel monitoring schemes, national and regional records of authorized vessels and catch documentation schemes.

Regarding developing States and non-parties, Canada recognized that developing States needed and wanted to build the necessary institutional, scientific, management and technical capacity in order to sign, implement and benefit from international tools, including the fish stocks Agreement, he said.  The Part VII Trust Fund had been created to help developing States parties in implementing the Agreement, but it was almost depleted and he urged developed States, intergovernmental organizations and international financial institutions that had not yet done so to contribute to it.

MARIA TERESA MESQUITA PESSÔA ( Brazil) said it was a concern for Brazil that the Agreement be applied and implemented in its entirety and in a non-selective manner.  That entailed granting Part VII the same weight as other parts of the Agreement, notably concerning the need to cooperate with developing countries to enhance their capacity to participate in high seas fisheries.  The need to combat overfishing and over-capacity, however, should not impinge on the right of developing countries to participate in high seas fisheries.  As recognized in the 2006 Conference, such rights were consistent with article 25 of the Agreement.  She underlined the need to keep in check the development of transparent criteria for allocating fishing opportunities.  A fair mechanism for the allocation of such possibilities, therefore, was crucial.

She said that the implementation of Part VII was contingent on assistance extended to developing countries under articles 25 and 26.  In that context, she emphasized that participatory rights, both in the Exclusive Economic Zones and on the high seas, were subordinate to the obligation to adopt compatible measures for the conservation and management of stocks.  Without the fair allocation of participatory rights, there was little incentive for the participation of members with emerging fisheries.  With a view to strengthening the substance and methods to implement the Agreement, there was a need to increase understanding about ecosystem approaches.  Efforts were also needed to ensure that fisheries and other ecosystem data collection was performed in a coordinated and integrated manner.  She reiterated that expert consultations on flag State performance should evolve into technical consultations, leading to the development of guidelines on criteria for assessing performance.  Brazil viewed fisheries in the context of sustainable development, and as such, paragraph 2(b) of Part VII of the Agreement was particularly important.  Cooperation and exchange of best practices through South-South cooperation could help strengthen the Agreement’s implementation.

TARUN SHRIDHAR ( India) said his delegation was in full agreement with the various suggestions offered with respect to measures required for the conservation of straddling and migratory fish stocks.  The ultimate outcome was long-term conservation and sustainable use of the stocks, which were straddling and highly migratory.  The two things that required attention were the need to minimize land-based pollution that affected marine resources and the impact of climate change on stocks.  While there had been discussions in terms of policy and regulations, it would be worthwhile if the impact on marine biodiversity was discussed.  Moreover, there was very little understanding on what an ecosystem approach was, and it was necessary to address that.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER ( Marshall Islands) said that the intersection between the issue of strengthening effective control over vessels and other fish stocks Agreement provisions should be examined.  Regarding strengthening compliance and enforcement schemes, important measures had recently been adopted in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but some important challenges remained.  The members had very little capacity to boost enforcement on their own, and it was necessary to discuss how assistance could be directed in a practical and sustained manner.  There was also a need to understand in an integrated fashion the transnational aspects of some illegal fishing activities, he said.

Ms. NIELSEN, head of delegation of the European Union, spoke about the cluster related to monitoring, control and surveillance, and compliance and enforcement, pointing to the adoption of FAO’s Port State Measures Agreement, for which the European Union actively participated in drafting.  The Union was in the process of ratification.  The Kobe Process aimed to achieve improvement, harmonization and compatibility of monitoring, control and surveillance measures, including monitoring catches from catching vessels to markets.  She also noted the FAO expert consultation that had taken place in June 2009 on flag State performance.  She also noted that 20 States had become parties to the Agreement since 2006.  The issue of broader participation should be addressed, however, in order to determine reasons for non-participation by non-State parties.

Mr. NAVOTI, Director, Political Treaties, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Fiji, discussed Agreement article 24 through 26, saying that they provided practical principles for the recognition of developing States.  However, only those elements relating to developing country participation in the meetings of regional fisheries management organizations were being effectively implemented.  He urged that other elements contained in those articles be made operational.  In that context, he discussed capacity development; provisions of technical assistance and technology transfer; and facilitating access to high seas fisheries.

He noted the survey carried out by FAO and the United Nations on assistance to developing States and he thanked all States that had contributed to the Part VII fund.  The Conference would need to decide on the best way to make operational the elements previously discussed and whether that was best coordinated at the international, regional, subregional or national levels.  At the regional level, regional fisheries management organizations could play a significant role in the recognition of those elements.  There was also a role for subregional institutions.

Mr. EGGE, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, turned to vessel control, saying his country had implemented provisions related to flag State responsibilities.  Licenses were granted annually, only if that vessel had rights in a regional fisheries management organization in which Norway was a party.  Regarding illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, regional fisheries organizations had implemented measures against such fisheries and developed blacklists of vessels involved in such activities.  Many such vessels now were moving to areas of the world where those measures were not being fully implemented.  Regarding flag State performance, he said the flag State implementation process in the FAO should be revitalized and financing must be secured through State contributions.  Norway had participated actively, where appropriate.

On that point, he said that for June consultations, Norway was the only State that had offered financing in the time limit set by the FAO.  States wishing to see work carried through must commit to such funding.  A main priority for Norway at the 2006 Conference had been the port State agreement, and work had successfully concluded in a short period of time. It was now time for States to sign and ratify that agreement.

Regarding developing States, he said the first session of the Review Conference had adopted recommendations for management and control measures, and as those measures had grown more complicated, the burden had increased to undertake research.  That must be kept in mind in recommending future measures.  Norway had assisted several African developing countries via a programme aimed at self-sufficiency through the strengthening of institutions.  For the last two years, Norway had worked to define the outer limit of the continental shelf.  In discussions with African States to help establish control in their waters, Norway had learned that some States lacked basic requirements like base lines or economic zones.  In some cases, national legislation to prosecute and follow up on arrests was not in place.

Mr. HEIDAR, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iceland, focused on flag State performance, agreeing with the United States’ representative that there were clear criteria outlined article 18 of the Agreement.  The focus should be on what would happen when there was proof that a flag State was not living up to its obligations.  Possible actions to be taken must be a priority.  No vessel should be allowed to hide behind an incompetent flag State.  If there was such proof, there was no “flag State”.  In such a situation, coastal States, in particular, must be allowed to take action against the vessel in question.  In that context, he urged moving from stringent principles of flag State duties to providing opportunities for other States to take action.  A recommendation to that effect should be outlined.

Observers

BRIAN HALLMEN, Inter-American-Tropical-Tuna-Commission, said that many regional fisheries management organizations were doing good things.  If they were not making an “A”, they certainly were not failing.  The Antigua Convention would enter into force in August.  On the issue of increased transparency, he said that in his organization, there were some 20 permanently accredited non-governmental organizations permitted to attend its meetings.  The fish stocks Agreement supported a more open membership and the Antigua Convention spoke to that.  In the Pacific, highly migratory stocks “were not doing so badly”.  Big-eye tuna was a concern, but also a subject of a management plan.  Albacore, yellow fin and swordfish stocks, among others, were not overfished.  It was not useful to lump together fish stocks that were fully and overly exploited.  Having fully exploited stocks was a goal.  To lump those stocks together did not make much sense.  For example, yellow fin tuna stocks in the Pacific had been fully exploited for years, but that did not mean they would become overexploited.  Sharks, however, needed more attention from the regional fisheries management organizations.

In addition, progress had been made in the area of by-catch, with stringent rules to protect turtles, he said.  Seabirds needed more work.  In other areas, he said the Commission had excellent science, obtained from a permanent scientific staff that served members well.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries needed more work, but strides had been made.  Most all fisheries management organizations had “IUU” lists and the port State agreement would be another step to block landings and imports of tuna by such vessels.  The global fishing register and unique vessel identifier were also parts of that process.  Compliance needed constant attention.  Strides had been made in transhipment controls.  Regarding allocations, he said it had not been seen as necessary to have allocations.  No one had successfully attained a good allocation scheme among highly migratory species.  His organization had implemented closed seasons, which seemed to work best.  Port State controls were a problem and more must be done to follow scientific recommendations.

DRISS MESKI, speaking on behalf of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, said the Commission had 48 contracting parties and was the largest of the regional fisheries management organizations.  The Review Conference needed to correctly assess a number of actions that were being carried out by such organizations.  The actions carried out by his Commission included the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  Within his Commission, decisions had been made with a view to reducing capacity, and the Commission had closed fisheries for certain species, notably swordfish, bluefin and other forms of tuna.  The Commission was also improving its follow-up of capture documents.  Thanks to that documentation, some contracting parties were able to control the tonnage of tuna introduced in their markets.

In addition, he said, the Commission had set up a network of international observers who boarded the vessels that caught bluefin tuna.  From 1999 to 2001, major discussions had taken place within the Commission with a view to adopting a recommendation on criteria, and that recommendation was being implemented in various manners by the contracting parties.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record