Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

15^th & 16^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Midway Through Review of Landmark Fish Stocks Agreement, Debate Yields Panoply

 

of New Recommendations to Ensure Sustainable Use of Significant Food Source

 

Proposals Include Timely, Accurate Fisheries Data, Prior Environmental

Impact Assessments to Detect Already-Depleted Areas, Shark Finning Moratorium

Government officials and environmental experts alike weighed in on the effectiveness of the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement and put forward diverse — sometimes divergent — ideas for improving its implementation, as the Conference to review the landmark global instrument continued into its third day.

Launching the discussion, Review Conference Chairman David Balton of the United States reminded delegates that the current meeting was a resumption of the 2006 Review Conference, where participants had developed a set of detailed recommendations organized around four themes:  conservation and management of stocks; mechanisms for international cooperation and non-members; monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as compliance and enforcement; and developing States and non-parties. 

With those recommendations still in place, he urged participants to come up with a complementary set that would build upon the four years of experience gained since the start of the review process.  With that goal in mind, the task was clear:  to do everything possible to ensure the sustainable use of fish stocks — a significant source of food and livelihood for large segments of the population.  

Setting a tone for lively debate, the United States representative said her delegation would like to see recommendations for strengthening requirements for timely, complete and accurate fisheries data reporting by the regional fisheries management organizations, including by considering failure to provide such data as a type of non-compliance infraction that was subject to sanction.

She said another recommendation should call on States and regional fisheries management organizations to implement species-specific data collection requirements for shark species caught in any directed or incidental fishery.  Requiring that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached as a way to strengthen enforcement should also be considered, as should monitoring of existing measures that prohibited finning.

For sharks, “the science is in”, Palau’s representative declared, and both the Review Conference and the General Assembly must squarely address that reality.  The final report should recommend a moratorium on shark finning, starting in January 2012.  He was intrigued by the United States’ suggestions that performance reviews be conducted by independent external expertise.  He urged that any such reviews be held at a transparent meeting, such as in New York, so that small States like Palau could have some role in the discussions. 

Debate throughout the day also centred on the challenges of pursuing the ecosystem approach, a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.  Some delegations supported a Review Conference recommendation on strengthening that approach, notably through applying risk assessment tools and conducting stock assessments.  Others focused on the challenges of doing so.

The European Union’s representative believed that ecosystem approaches should be incorporated into fisheries management.  But there was certainly a need to understand those approaches better, and to move progressively towards that type of management.  She wished to see a continued commitment in the forum to both the precautionary as well as the ecosystem approaches.

Taking a different tack, a representative of the National Resources Defence Council said that things could not really be managed according to an ecosystem or precautionary approach if there was no grip on what the impacts were of fishing.  If the intent was to manage an activity with an eye towards conserving the other components of the ecosystem, it was necessary to first understand what the impacts were on those components.

She also stressed that a prior environmental impact assessment — an issue raised throughout the day by several delegations — should be required from the start.  If done early on, some of the significant depletion that had taken place and led to so much conflict related to restoring stocks might be avoided.

Zeroing in on assistance to developing countries, the Principal Foreign Service Officer of Samoa’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it was important to consider that their capacity-building needs would be better served if the over-capacity issue was addressed.  That could not be done without the willingness of traditional fisheries partners to reduce their fishing fleets.

She urged all States to consider proposing that future discussions on allocation be fair and equitable to legitimate aspirations.  “We cannot ignore the fact that there are already too many boats netting too many fish,” she said.

Also speaking today was the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofChile.

The Director for Political and Treaties, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Civil Aviation of Fiji also addressed the Review Conference.

The Manager of the Fisheries Division of the Fishing Authority of the Seychelles also delivered remarks.

Also addressing the Conference were the representatives of Iran, Mexico, Iceland, Peru, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, China, Marshall Islands (also on behalf of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, or “PNA” Group), Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Solomon Islands, Norway, Canada, and Brazil.

The Head of the Delegation of the European Union also spoke.

Also speaking were representatives of the following regional fisheries management organizations:  North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).

Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also spoke:  International Coalition of Fisheries Associations, Greenpeace, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, World Wildlife Fund, and the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for Fisheries-Related Activities.

The Review Conference will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, 27 May, to discuss the summary of discussions under item 8(b), prepared by the President, as well as the final report of the Review Conference.

Background

The 5-day Review Conference for the landmark agreement relating to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea continued today.  (For more information, please see Press Release SEA/1931.)

Statements

Speaking on agenda item 8(a), ESMAEIL B. HAMANEH (Iran) said the Secretary-General’s report noted that 78 per cent of tuna or tuna-like species had been either fully or over exploited.  Such estimates were “alarming”.  One way to control shark finning was to implement market control measures.  Noting that Iran had become party to the Fish Stocks Agreement in 1998, he said measures had been taken to implement it, and he cited the Preservation of Marine Resources Act in that context.

He said his country attached importance to the implementation of the Agreement, he said, which, among other things, recognized the special needs of developing countries in the conservation and management of fish stocks.  As such, the Agreement had to be implemented in its totality.  One convenient way to promote adherence by developing countries was to show that members actually benefited, including through the provision of financial, technical and other assistance.  Iran welcomed cooperation to upgrade its capacity in the conservation and management of marine resources.  Underlining the importance of regional fisheries management organizations, he said Iran, a member of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, had participated in a tagging project.

Also, he noted, the Iranian Fisheries Organization had established a legal unit to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, both in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.  A special commission had also been established for that purpose.  Iran supported the ecosystem approach and was implementing it.  As part of a five-year fisheries plan, the Fisheries Organization would examine fish habitat.  Iran had no bottom-trolling vessel in the high seas.  To reduce by-catch, the Government had implemented a joint programme with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  The management of fishing capacity should not impact developing States’ rights to develop that capacity.  While endorsing the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, Iran believed those activities should be accompanied by port and market measures.  Iran had adopted measures to promote proper management of fish resources to ensure long-term sustainability.  But, the marine environment in the Persian Gulf still faced challenges, including high commercial traffic and construction building of artificial islands.

LISA SPEER, speaking on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that many good ideas had been floated over the past few days.  However, she asked why members focused so much time and effort on high seas fisheries when it was coastal fisheries that accounted for the majority of the world’s catch.  An issue that had been addressed during the Conference was the slow progress on environmental assessment after the adoption of the Agreement.  In addition, there was no reason why bottom fisheries should be subjected to prior assessment and other high seas fisheries should not.  That did not strike her as a reasonable proposition. The next step in environmental assessment needed to be a specific resolution calling on countries to conduct prior assessment of all high seas fisheries, not just bottom fisheries.

She also pointed to the gap between South Pacific and North Pacific regional fisheries management organizations, as well as the gap in the Arctic, where there was an area of the high Arctic where no such international organization existed.  In addition, she said there were a lot of different regional management organizations with very different approaches to transparency, and that the open and free access of non-governmental organizations to all parts of both the negotiating process and the operation of regional fisheries management organizations, once they were in place, was necessary.

STETSON TINKHAM, speaking on behalf of the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations, said his group strongly supported those who had spoken on the need for focusing and prioritizing the recommendations arising out of the Review Conference.  One focus should remain on the key role of regional management organizations, as it was necessary to continue to address the gaps in regional fisheries governance.  Implementation of regional management organization decisions was critical, and States should take their responsibility to strengthen their organizations seriously, as they required effective tools with which to make their decisions.  In addition, he said that the number of calls throughout the week from Governments seeking capacity-building underscored the need to focus on that key issue as well.

ALEJANDRO ALDAY GONZÁLEZ ( Mexico) said that Mexico was applying measures to ensure conservation and management, including that of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and to ensure the stocks’ sustainable use.  Mexico had implemented public policies in line with its commitments.  Although it was not a party to the fish stocks Agreement, it had adopted several of its provisions.  It also participated in regional management organizations, and had taken on the provisions of their agreements in its national policies.  It participated in the Inter-American Commission on Tropical Tuna in the Pacific, among other commissions.  It also participated in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission as a cooperative member, and was cooperating with the United States on issues of mutual interest.

Turning to fishing legislation, he said that Mexico promoted regulation to ensure sustainable fishing, and had incorporated measures to ensure conservation and management of the ecosystem to minimize by-catch and over-fishing and to ensure the protection of the habitat as well.  It also carried out technological and scientific research, and with regard to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, it had several provisions in place to implement the FAO’s plan of action to ensure that such fishing did not occur.  In fact, there was a scientific investor on board on 100 per cent of the Mexican fishing vessels in international fishing waters.  Mexico intended to work with other States to ensure that vessels complied with international legislation.

He noted with concern that, in the first few days of the resumed Conference, efforts had been primarily focused on identifying proper implementation.  He hoped the Conference would provide an opportunity to look at the appropriateness of the Agreement’s provisions.  In particular, his delegation had some concerns in the areas of the compatibility of legal regimes, and regarding issues of non-compliance.

Providing a summary, Chairman DAVID BALTON of the United States said comments made yesterday and this morning had touched on some of the same topics discussed since the start of the Conference.  Regarding areas of progress, he said one new area mentioned was that the Agreement itself “was doing better”; 20 new parties had been added since 2006 and standards outlined in the Agreement were appearing in the charters of regional fisheries management organizations.  Even among the non-parties, there appeared to be a willingness to follow the Agreement’s main provisions, and while it had not attained universality, its use had been proceeding “relatively well”.

As for where there had been little progress, he said a few new ideas had been mentioned.  In the area of using science, he had heard calls to take account of environmental factors, like climate change, in fisheries management, as well as calls for prior assessments in the area of fisheries.  Many speakers had focused on the need to impose greater discipline on subsidies that had contributed to overfishing.  Others had reiterated concerns about non-compliance.

Further, delegates had called for more stringent controls on transhipments.  Other concerns had focused on the insufficient implementation of the compatibility principle, embedded in the Agreement, while other concerns centred on the need for regional fisheries management organizations to revise their mandates, undertake performance reviews, implement recommendations stemming from those reviews and share best practices.  There also had been calls for greater participation in the International Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Network and implementation of the recommendation related to the global record of vessels.

Introducing agenda item 8(b) — proposed means for strengthening the substance and methods of implementation of provisions of the Agreement — Mr. Balton recalled that yesterday, a question had been raised about how any recommendations adopted this week would relate to those adopted in 2006.  The Bureau had considered that question this morning and recommended that, as this was a resumption of the 2006 Conference, recommendations adopted in 2006 continued to exist.  The outcome document of the 2010 resumed Conference could reaffirm the validity of those recommendations.  Also, building on four years of experience, he urged participants to develop a set of recommendations to complement those adopted in 2006.  What proposed means of strengthening would the 2010 Conference recommend? he asked.

TOMAS H. HEIDAR, Iceland, said some issues noted in the Chair’s summary fell under agenda item 8(b), such as the idea of prior environmental assessments.  Some non-governmental organizations had proposed taking recommendations on bottom fishing and vulnerable marine ecosystems, for example, and applying them to the “whole column”.  He was puzzled by that idea.  The focus should be on other issues; there was a separate venue for the bottom fishing issue.   Iceland could not go along with the notion of a general prior assessment in fisheries.

ALFREDO GARCÍA MESINAS ( Peru), focusing on conservation management, said that the situation of fish stocks and highly migratory stocks was disturbing.  It was necessary to measure the progress of the fish stocks Agreement on fish populations, and there should be measures regarding the recovery of those populations.  At every review meeting, members should try to determine whether the Agreement was working or not.  Most delegations had pointed to the shortage or lack of efforts put into investigation, primarily on the high seas.  If there was no solid scientific evidence, then good conservation measures could not be adopted.  There was very little that could be done for related fish, and conservation could not be ensured without investigation or information about how the ecosystem actually functioned on the high seas.  Fishing organizations and States must invest more in investigation and update their fishing data banks and complete any biological data that they had on fish.

With regard to the conservation and management of stocks within the regional management organizations, he said that the current focus was on determining permissible catch.  That seemed to be the paradigm for conservation, and quite often there was no other scientific data provided, although it was essential for determining quotas.  Very little effort was put into implementing other biological measures that would really ensure conservation and management.  In addition, there had been no discussion of reproduction measures or of the minimum size of catch in order to increase fish stocks.  Capturing the catch of small fish would not allow the fish population to reproduce.  Allowing the capture of small and young fish was a serious matter that, hand-in-hand with overfishing, reduced the population.  At the end of this year, the regional management organization in the South Pacific would be assessing the situation of jack mackerel and would also determine the minimum size for the catch.  Other management organizations should also look at permissible catch and at other measures in order to achieve the Agreement’s primary objective, which was to ensure the long-term conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish.  In implementing measures, it would be appropriate to look at other mechanisms for determining quotas, he added.

HOLLY KOEHLER (United States) said that, regarding the conservation and management of stocks, the United States would like the resumed Review Conference to include recommendations related to the strengthening requirements for timely, complete and accurate fisheries data reporting by the regional fisheries management organizations, including by considering failure to provide such data as a type of non-compliance infraction that was subjected to sanction.  There should also be a recommendation related to the reduction of excess fishing capacity transparently and equitably, including through capacity assessments, establishing target levels, and developing capacity management plans.  Another recommendation should relate to strengthening implementation of the ecosystem approach through applying risk assessment tools and conducting stock assessments to conserve and manage associated and dependent species and vulnerable habitats, and adopting management measures for currently unregulated directed fisheries, or for those species that were by-caught and then commercially traded.

In addition, she said the Unites States would like the Conference to include a recommendation related to a call for States and regional management organizations to implement species-specific data collection requirements for shark species caught in any directed or incidental fishery, conduct biological assessments and develop associated conservation and management plans or measures, and consider requiring that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached as a tool to strengthen enforcement and monitoring of existing shark measures that prohibited finning.  The Conference should also include a recommendation that called for States and regional management organizations to determine, as a matter of priority and on the basis of the best scientific information available, stock-specific reference points and the action to be taken if they were exceeded.

On the proposed means of strengthening, she said the United States would like the Conference to include recommendations that called for capacity-building within developing States to facilitate a greater level of participation in, and benefits from, the cooperative and sustainable management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks.  There should also be a recommendation that called for focused assistance to enable developing States to implement the Agreement, particularly in the areas of science, data collection and reporting, port State control, fisheries management and governance structures, and improving regulatory mechanisms.  Another recommendation should urge regional management organizations — particularly the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunasand the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission — to modernize their mandates.

JAIRO HERNANDEZ (Costa Rica), referring to proposed measures to strengthen the content and implementation of the Agreement, noted the importance of having more States involved in the Agreement and greater commitment among Parties to implement their common but differentiated responsibilities.  Cooperation must be promoted among all countries.  There was also a need to boost scientific investigation and information on highly migratory and straddling fish stocks.  To ensure sustainable conservation and management, measures must be adopted on endangered fish stocks.

On that point, he said the Secretary-General’s report had made clear that some fish stocks and species of sharks were unknown.  He supported the idea for there to be great caution in fishing any type of shark.  To implement that precautionary approach, it was important to acknowledge that fact internationally, and prohibit both shark finning and the transhipment of shark fins.  Efforts must focus on ensuring that fins were still on the shark in its natural condition, and that sharks were appropriately transported.  Costa Rica wished to see a recommendation on the need to take appropriate measures to avoid shark finning.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) broadly supported all suggestions made by the United States representative.  He agreed on the need for timely, complete and accurate data, saying that had to be a core outcome of the meeting.  Failure to comply must have consequences and the entire question of compliance was an issue to be examined thoroughly.  A bad track record on one issue should be borne in mind on other issues.  The question of assessments was difficult.  The critical problem was strengthening the ecosystem approach, and New Zealand’s support for risk assessments posed a big challenge in the South Pacific, notably for bottom-fishing.

He said “sharks are fast becoming the new turtles”.  New Zealand had healthy shark fisheries, and management measures seemed to be working “quite fine”.  He recognized that shark issues must be addressed, but it also was important to remember that some gill netters, for example, were catching sharks for oil, not for fins, and different considerations should be applied in that case.   New Zealand agreed with the idea of establishing stock-specific reference points.

Commenting on the role of science, he said that New Zealand was not amenable to the idea that, in the absence of the best science, nothing should be done.  In the South Pacific, some interim measures had been put in place on a voluntary manner.  Some in the North Pacific might be under consideration as well, and he called on States that had undertaken those commitments to give effect to them.  He also called on States to provide full and accurate data.  Inadequate mandates affected governance, and while there had been issues around the International Commission for the Conservation of Tuna (ICCAT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), he reminded others to adhere to that call.  He endorsed calls for bringing new Regional Fisheries Management Organizations into force.  Finally, he said much could be learned from meeting with developed institutions, like those participating in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and he welcomed the idea of joint consultations.  Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations should expand the use of the Kobe II matrix.

RIKKE NIELSEN, Head of the Delegation of the European Union, restated the Union’s firm belief that the fish stocks Agreement was the appropriate framework and provided the necessary tools for the long-term management of fisheries on straddling and highly migratory stocks, and in the pivotal role of regional management organizations as the major tool for international cooperation for the conservation and management of those stocks.  However, echoing other delegations, she said that regional management organizations were only as strong as the actions of their members.  She reiterated the Union’s support for updating the mandates of those organizations, as well as the carrying out of regular performance reviews.  The conclusions of such reviews should be implemented within a reasonable timeframe.  In addition, the Union fully subscribed to the requirement for management organizations to base all of their measures on the best available scientific advice.  That could only happen if all parties met their obligations to provide complete and accurate fisheries data, particularly on highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, in a timely manner.  The Union was also in favour of the collection of data by FAO.

She said that measures, once adopted, should be implemented effectively by all members and enforced by the organizations, which should consider mechanisms for the review of the actions of parties and non-parties at least once a year, with a view to possible sanctions in cases of non-compliance.  In that context, she highlighted the need for specific measures for two groups of species that merited specific mention:  sharks and deep-sea species, since those species were particularly threatened for a variety of reasons.  No evidence had yet been seen that the adoption of the recent General Assembly resolutions had resulted in any improvement in the status of the deep sea species and, consequently, the Union would like to retain a recommendation concerning the matter.

Furthermore, she said that the Union believed that ecosystem approaches should now be incorporated into fisheries management.  There was certainly a need to understand those approaches better, and to move progressively towards that type of management.  Consequently, the Union would like to see a continued commitment in the forum to both the precautionary as well as the ecosystem approaches. The Union encouraged the establishment of globally representative networks of marine protected areas, as well as judicious use of environmental impact assessments, where appropriate, particularly for other uses of maritime space besides fisheries.

JOJI MORISHITA (Japan) stressed that the final report or recommendations from the current session should be as concise and concrete as possible, rather than just being a list of many different independent and sometimes isolated items.  Some of the key concepts around which general agreement was coalescing could be highlighted, and there could also be a list of specific recommendations.  By so doing, the changes or progress in fisheries conservation management that had been made since the last meeting in 2006 could be reflected.

He reiterated that the key role of regional management organizations was the implementation of requirements under the fish stocks Agreement.  Those organizations should be strengthened so that they could play a central role, and that should be emphasized independently from a list of recommendations in some part of the report.  He also noted that the aspirations and needs of developing countries was also a very important and urgent issue that must be addressed when promoting better conservation and management of fish stocks, as was the issue of fishing capacity reduction.

ANNA WILLOCK (Australia) supported the stock-specific reference points and suggested that, where stocks had been identified as overfished, regional fisheries management organizations created rebuilding targets, complete with ongoing evaluation of efforts towards reaching them.  Where appropriate, those organizations also must consider mechanisms related to participatory rights, including consideration of how new members and contracting non-members would be accommodated.  They should also recognize the aspirations of developing States.  She supported a free-standing recommendation on sharks but wished to consider further the language and objective of such a recommendation.

Where negotiations were under way to establish new agreements, she said discussions should include the creation of modern and innovative mechanisms related to the precaution and ecosystem approaches and ensure that no gaps remained between new and existing organizations.  Australia supported a possible recommendation for globally represented areas that supported the ecosystem approach, echoing calls made both in General Assembly fisheries resolutions and FAO guidelines, which had been concluded last year.

She broadly supported other proposals on cluster II, including the idea for regional fisheries management organizations to undergo performance reviews and for those reviews to include some independent components.  She supported strengthened cooperation among fisheries organizations, with a view to pursuing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.  She also called for stock regional fisheries management organizations to cooperate through the Kobe process.

STUART BECK (Palau), focusing on elements to be reflected in the final report, reiterated the call that the best science available must be used to make decisions on managing stocks.  For sharks, “the science is in”, he said, and both the Review Conference and the General Assembly must squarely address that reality.  The final report should recommend a moratorium on shark finning, starting in January 2012.  He was intrigued by the United States’ suggestions that performance reviews be conducted by independent external expertise.  He urged that any such reviews be held at a transparent meeting, such as in New York, so that small States like Palau could have some role in the discussions.

LI LING ZHAO ( China) said that the issue regarding the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission establishing a new convention was quite complex and required cautious consideration.  Any changes would have to go through approval and ratification procedures by different member States.  Regarding the timely and accurate reporting of data, she noted a suggestion made previously that while it was important for States to strengthen data collection, a more encouraging attitude — and not one that penalized — would assist all member States in their reporting.

Speaking for a second time, Ms. SPEER of the Natural Resources Defense Council said that the discussion this morning had been very helpful in clarifying some of the steps that could be taken to improve implementation.  On the issue of prior environmental impact assessment, she stressed that such an assessment should be required at the start; if done early on, some of the significant depletion that had taken place and had led to so much conflict and activity related to trying to restore the stocks might have been avoided.  Moreover, things could not really be managed according to an ecosystem or precautionary approach if there was no grip on what the impacts were of fishing.  If the intent was to manage an activity with an eye towards conserving the other components of the ecosystem, it was necessary to first understand what the impacts were on those components.

The Council also urged the Review Conference to recommend to the General Assembly that it include in the 2010 annual fisheries resolution a call on States and regional management organizations intending to conduct or participate in any high seas fishery to assess, on the basis of the best scientific information, whether individual high seas fishing activities would have significant adverse effects on target or by-catch fish stocks, habitat or marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and to ensure that if it was assessed that those activities would have no significant adverse effects, that they were managed to prevent such impacts, or that they not be authorized to proceed.  With respect to shark fishing, she said that while the United States did participate in such activities, the activities were subjected to a management plan and environmental impact assessment.  There should be no shark fishing if there was no management, and there was no management on the high seas right now, which was the issue.

DUNCAN CURRIE Greenpeace recalled that article 5(d) of the Agreement stated that coastal and fishing States must assess the impacts of fishing.  States must also take steps to protect biodiversity.  The Review Conference must include paragraph 5(d) if it was to strengthen the implementation of the Agreement’s provisions.  He reaffirmed earlier comments made by his delegation and the need for the Conference to strengthen the substance and implementation of article 5(d).  While pleased that five performance reviews had been carried out, more than 12 others had not.  Such reviews should be carried out every five years, and he urged the Conference to include a call for a December 2011 deadline for all regional fisheries management organizations to complete and submit them to the General Assembly.

Also, he suggested that uniform criteria be created for assessing the consistency and independence of those reviews and that a systemic process be created to ensure implementation of recommendations stemming from them.  There should also be focus on implementing resolutions 61/105 (2006) and 64/72 (2009).  On capacity, he urged the Conference to recommend that all regional fisheries organizations ensure that fisheries under their control were reduced to sustainable levels.  Finally, on area-based measures, he urged the Conference to recommend that all organizations establish high seas marine protected areas, using Convention on Biodiversity criteria, no later than 2012.

HARLAN COHEN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, said one recommendation could reflect the duty for State-to-State cooperation.  Regarding the recommendation related to article 18(c), calling for the establishment of new regional fisheries management organizations, he suggested building on that to call for coverage of all areas — all highly migratory and straddling stocks not currently covered by a regional fisheries management organization or the Recreational Fishing Alliance.  The recommendation on the establishment of marine protected areas could be reiterated.  He had followed with interest the discussion of prior assessment, saying that there should be a recommendation to reflect article 5(d) of the Agreement.  He agreed with many of the suggestions he had heard in that regard.  He also emphasized the importance of fisheries data, reporting and the need for conservation and management measures, notably related to sharks.  Finally, he called on regional fisheries organization members to take all diplomatic action to implement existing shark-related measures.

Speaking again, Mr. HEIDAR of Iceland said his delegation would like to see written proposals of many of the suggestions that were being made, including the one on sharks.  He also highlighted two issues, namely, environmental and impact assessment and area-based management tools.

CALEB CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands) asked the Conference President for permission to come back to the clusters relating to the management of stocks, and mechanisms for international cooperation and non-members at the start of the afternoon session.

MARIO AGUILAR SÁNCHEZ Mexico said that since the entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the codification of fishing had intensified due to increased fishing of stocks.  Indeed, fishing had exceeded the capacity of stocks, which had led to overexploitation.  In terms of progress, it must be clear that any progress made in conventions or agreements did not necessarily stem from implementation of the New York Agreement.  That accord, and the FAO’s responsible fishing document, had been the sources of the achievements discussed over the past two days.  Various instruments regulated highly migratory and straddling fish stocks and most countries carrying out responsible fishing were regulated by those agreements.  Regional fisheries management organizations should be modernized in line with the Agreement’s article 35.  That instrument’s usefulness could be improved upon by addressing issues such as reducing the gap between scientific recommendations from scientific bodies and conservation measures taken at the Governmental level.

He said that some tuna organizations had developed significant scientific recommendations, and parties must be more committed to aligning their efforts with those.  Another essential point was to reduce fishing.  Reducing the total tonnage did not mean reducing fishing, however it had been presented as if that were the case.  Modern vessels had the same tonnage as other vessels and the amount of catch was the same.  It was important to reduce and monitor the capacity of a fleet, which must be brought in line with established registers.  Also important was the reduction of fishing subsidies and differentiated treatment for developing countries.  Those issues had not been adequately addressed.  Specific subsidies granted in the fishing industry must be considered.  Special subsidies had a serious detrimental impact on certain fish stocks.

The issues of abandoned fish gear, by-catch and discards should also be dealt with clearly, as had been done during the Conference’s initial round, he noted.  There should be a more equitable distribution of fishing opportunities — which did not mean increasing the total allowable catch — and substantial improvement in the selection of fishing gear to protect the environment.  A significant increase in the percentage of independent observers in the fishing industry should also be included.  Finally, there had not been enough discussion about trade.  The establishment of effective conservation measures required innovative and significant funding, which should be covered largely by the private sector.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated catches should be banned, and unjustifiable regulations on stocks obtained through sustainable fishing should also be removed.  The Conference should make clear that the Agreement was not an alternative accord; it was intended to assist the industry.

DMITRY KREMENYUK (Russian Federation) thanked the representatives of the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Japan for their suggestions.  Additional data on sharks to measure shark stocks could be useful, but he did not agree with the idea of a moratorium.  He supported the Icelandic delegate’s idea for marine protected areas, saying that the mechanism for their creation must be area-based and done on the basis of a regional fisheries management organization.  Recommendations on area-based measures made in 2006 were balanced and would enable the use of such measures, on which the Review Conference should build.

MATILDA BARTLEY, Principal Foreign Service Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa, speaking on assistance to developing States, said it was important to consider that capacity-building needs would be better served if the over-capacity issue was addressed.  That could not be done without the willingness of traditional fisheries partners to reduce their fishing fleets.  She urged all States to consider proposing that future discussions on allocation be fair and equitable to legitimate aspirations.  “We cannot ignore the fact that there are already too many boats netting too many fish,” she said.

Also to be addressed, she said, was the core issue of subsidies to ensure that they did not promote illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  She called on States to review their policies and subsidies with that in mind.  Finally, she acknowledged that the Part VII fund was an important mechanism for various capacity-building initiatives for Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency members in the areas of monitoring, control and surveillance, tuna stock assessments and fisheries management programmes.

HYUN-SOO KIM (Republic of Korea), recognizing the need to boost the capacity of developing States, said support must be enhanced for enhancing State participation, notably through institutional and technical support.  For its part, his country had dispatched experts to developing nations and provided technical assistance for capacity-building.  Some delegations had suggested that failure to accurately collect fishing data should be sanctioned.  While it was critical that data be recorded timely and accurately, that issue was related to the capacity of parties to do so.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands), speaking on behalf of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, or “PNA” Group, said achievement of conservation measures could be addressed through harmonized package approaches.  Development should be balanced with ecosystem approaches that targeted the most at-risk stocks.  As to comments that the responsibility for effective decision-making lay with members of regional fisheries management organizations, he said that alternative decision-making methodology could be explored to ensure the Agreement’s goals were achieved.  On sharing data among regional fisheries management organizations on conservation measures taken versus the best science available, he sought a single-source compilation showing trends across many such organizations.  There could be greater interaction among those organizations, notably through instruments like memorandums of understanding.

He echoed the calls of the Samoan delegate regarding the development aspirations of coastal developing States and small island developing States.  There was a need to identify transformative measures, he said, adding that the Conference should recognize that those measures had a huge bearing on the national development of those countries.  Their ability to meet or not meet the Millennium Development Goals rose or fell on that issue.

Performance reviews for regional fisheries management organizations should be time-bound with goals, he continued.  They should be mainstreamed with other development processes, like the Mauritius Strategy of Implementation.  A “tool box approach” could be considered with various pathways to address rapid and longer term issues.  Twenty-seven per cent of the Agreement’s membership consisted of small island developing States.  Their main development strategy — the Mauritius Strategy — called for ratification of the Agreement.  The Johannesburg Programme of Implementation also spoke to the need of small island developing States to improve the financial returns of their fisheries.  Assistance could focus on capacity, enforcement, development aspirations and participation in fisheries meetings.  Domestic fishing and related industries should account for a greater share than was currently being realized from highly migratory and straddling fish stocks.  The notion of compatible measures should be further defined and undertaken in way that ensured the biological integrity of key stocks.  On monitoring, control and surveillance, he said coastal States should have access to data, including observer data, for enforcement purposes.  Access to high seas data had not been disseminated in a way that allowed for international scrutiny.  A tool-box approach of harmonized measures could be considered.

FERNANDA MILLICAY ( Argentina) said that as regarded the recommendations that the Conference was requested to formulate, her delegation was perplexed with respect to how the outcomes of the last Review Conference had been dealt with.  Her delegation also concurred with what was said by the delegate of Mexico with respect to article 36 of the Agreement, as it was very clear that that article was taken from the Law of Treaties and mentioned the specific nature of the Review Conference.  The mandate set forth in article 36 concerned all of the Agreement’s provisions.  Her delegation also believed that there should be recommendations, but those should not be binding, because it was a Review Conference, after all.  Turning to Latin America, she said that some of the problems that many of the countries in her region had were not due to a lack of understanding of the Agreement, but to difficulties with respect to the actual provisions themselves.

Turning to recommendations, she said that much mention had been made during the current session of developing countries and capacity-building.  While capacity-building would be examined during a future meeting, the Part VII Fund under the Agreement was not for the sole purpose of financing participation by developing States.  Everything was quite clear in that regard.  In addition, the Conference should dwell, not only on fishing capacity, but also on the possibility of eliminating subsidies, not only within the context of the FAO, but also within the context of the fish stocks Agreement.  It was also necessary to examine flag State control measures, and to support the formulation of a recommendation in that area.

HELEN BECK (Solomon Islands) pointed to the obligations and responsibilities of State parties, especially as regarded small island developing States and their capacities for action, given their limited abilities.  Her delegation would like to see more transformative measures in terms of financing assistance and more specific and time-bound assistance and programmes that would address development and management, as well as conservation programmes that would assist small island developing States in carrying out their responsibilities.  Areas that should be addressed included capacity-building and more targeted programmes.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing was a big concern in her region, so her delegation would like to see assistance geared towards combating that element, especially in terms of long-term management.  The issue of access to high seas data should also be addressed, especially regarding fisheries.  Importantly, she sought greater recognition of the sustainable development aspirations of small island developing States, especially regarding greater participation in supporting the fisheries sector.  She concluded by highlighting the impact of climate change on small island developing States.

Ms. KOEHLER (United States), discussing monitoring, control and surveillance, said one idea was to have regional fisheries management organizations develop or strengthen mechanisms to annually review the actions of parties and non-parties to assess compliance with those organizations’ measures, with a view to sanctions for non-compliance and incentives for good compliance.  Another idea was to have the Conference recommend a call on States to ratify the Port State Measures Agreement and adopt steps consistent with it, recognizing that there were some regional differences to be accommodated.  The United States wished to see a recommendation to encourage States to join the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network, share information and practices and explore opportunities to provide permanent or long-term funding.

Regarding developing States and non-parties, she said she wished to see the 2006 recommendations reaffirmed and urged more countries to contribute to the Part VII Fund.  The Conference also should call for more focused capacity-building in developing countries; and focused assistance in the areas of science, data-collection, reporting, port State controls and improving regulatory mechanisms.

The United States commended the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea for its compendium of available funding sources for developing States and encouraged that it be kept up to date and readily available, she said.  On the Conference’s mandate, the United States said the purpose was described under article 36.  The Conference was not designed to amend the fish stocks Agreement.  Rather, it was a place to work together to strengthen its implementation, work towards the conservation and management of fisheries, and improve the status of stocks.  She recognized concerns expressed by some about various provisions of the Agreement, which were obstacles to ratification by non-parties.  The United States had been encouraged by continuing dialogue, particularly in 2009, through informal consultations of States parties, which she felt had been very constructive.

JOSE FERNANDEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs ofChile, said the 2006 Review Conference outcome document had opened with a preamble about the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Fish Stocks Agreement.  The preamble must be invoked, reaffirmed or simply reiterated.  Next, support should be given to recommendations of the ninth informal consultation on the New York Agreement.  Chile supported the eleventh recommendation, which contained an appeal for ratification of the Convention and to ensure its entry into force so that interim measures could be upheld.

On the overexploitation of straddling fish stocks, he said that the Secretary-General’s report expressed concern on that issue in the high seas of the South East Pacific, and particularly in Chile.  The regional fisheries management organization of the South Pacific had stated it was imperative to take steps to limit fisheries.  On the application of conservation and management measures, the Conference should appeal for respect for existing measures to protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the South Pacific.  Interim measures must be rigorously applied and submitted for revision.  The rapid entry into force of the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing should be a major contribution to the progressive development of international law, and he encouraged States to guarantee its speedy entry into force.  On the compatibility of exclusive economic zones and regimes applicable in the high seas, steps should be taken to ensure compatibility and the conservation of species.

KJELL KRISTIAN EGGE (Norway) said his delegation had been quite comfortable with the format of the Review Conference and with the goals that had been set.  The approach chosen in 2006 and the recommendations emanating from it had proven to be a good way of working and had contributed to the Agreement’s implementation.  What the Conference was looking for were measures to implement the actual provisions as they were, and not new provisions.  His delegation was also comfortable with the method of work that had been agreed.  There seemed to be a high degree of consensus on many other points, so it should be possible to compose a document encompassing many of the ideas that had been repeated over the past two or three days.  His delegation also shared the proposal made by the Bureau to leave the 2006 recommendations as they were and to build on them.

He said that the draft report of the Conference should include the issues of data reporting, excess capacity and performance reviews.  Regarding port State measures, his delegation supported a recommendation on significant ratification of that instrument and, regarding capacity-building, a call for contributions to the relevant fund.  There should also be a recommendation encouraging regional management organizations to establish funds by themselves.

MICHAEL PEARSON (Canada) said that over the course of the current review session, members had heard about many successes that had been achieved.  Regarding recommendations, it was necessary to start with the obvious, which was that States needed to fully implement existing fisheries governance instruments to which they had agreed.  Beyond implementation, it was necessary to include a recommendation on transparency.  More needed to be done and regional management organizations should continue with reviews, as full disclosure was important.  Moreover, the role of science was one of the most important issues that should be considered in recommendations.  There should also be a recommendation regarding measures to manage by-catch and discards, and on the need for data and accurate reporting of catches in order to accomplish that.  With respect to the treatment of sharks, his delegation cautioned against the adoption of a “one-size-fits all” solution.

Concerning climate change, he said his delegation was a little surprised that relatively few references had been made to the potential impact of climate change on the marine environment and on fisheries decisions.  A recommendation should indicate that the marine impacts of climate change should be taken into consideration as more was learned about the issue. Another issue to include was the potential impact of ocean acidification on the chain of life in oceans, which was not yet a governance discussion.  Also, the impact of rising sea levels, particularly on island and coastal States and on coastal communities, should be included, as should the role of technology, which had also not been discussed much.  Regarding international fisheries governance, he stressed that in order to close the remaining gaps there, States should be urged to actively take part in the FAO.  Filling the gaps in the geographic coverage areas of regional management organizations was also necessary, he said.

Ms. NIELSEN, Head of the Delegation of the European Union, said important tools in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing were catch documentation schemes, to which her delegation attached importance.  She also favoured a focused outcome from the Conference.  On monitoring, control and surveillance, an important recent development had been the FAO’s Port State Measures Agreement, and the Conference should encourage its ratification.  The Union also encouraged the FAO to hold technical consultations to define criteria for assessing performance of flag States.

She said she had found Canada’s comments on the role of technology interesting, particularly the use of cameras, an area in which on Union members had had experience.  While supporting that idea, she said the introduction of new technology should be cost-effective.  The Union wished to see more participation of developing States in the Agreement, and supported the United States delegate’s comment regarding focused capacity-building.  She recalled the 2006 recommendations to strengthen fisheries access agreements and seconded comments by United States and Norway regarding the goals set for the resumed Conference.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN ( New Zealand) agreed that the best approach should be to focus on those points different and additional to the last Conference.  On fishery subsidies, he endorsed comments made by the delegates of Argentina and the Solomon Islands in that regard.  He agreed that annual mechanisms could be used to review party and non-party compliance with regional fisheries management organizations.  That would be an important way to show that those organizations were functional.  Many had called for those organizations to adopt port State measures, and he urged the FAO itself to ensure implementation of that agreement by collecting and assessing data.  He encouraged States to support the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network.  He recognized that capacity-building was not the only prism through which participation should be addressed; it could be done in a way that did not disturb the sensitivity of issues raised yesterday by Iceland.

Ms. WILLOCK ( Australia) said her delegation supported statements made by the European Union, New Zealand and the United States regarding an annual mechanism to review compliance.  Her delegation also agreed with Chile concerning early port State measures, and with New Zealand regarding the role of regional management organizations.  Regarding the issue of vessel lists and a global record of vessels, she noted that a recommendation on that had already been made in 2006, and suggested that perhaps the Conference could renew the call for that to be established.  She also noted the need for recommendations regarding data sharing and the role of developing States within regional management organizations.

MARIA TERESA MESQUITA PESSÔA ( Brazil) said that in terms of recommendations regarding the application of the precautionary and ecosystem approaches, there was a need to enhance the understanding of ecosystem approaches with a view to incorporating ecosystem consideration in fisheries’ management.  Continued efforts were needed to ensure that fisheries and other ecosystem data collection was performed in a coordinated and integrated manner.  Regarding the development of area-based management tools, marine protected areas should be established as part of strategies to ensure the productivity of fish stocks.  Their establishment must be based on sound scientific advice and be consistent with the principle of the sustainable use of those stocks.  On the issue of data collection and information sharing, she said that timely, complete and accurate fisheries data reporting must be implemented and strengthened, and special consideration should be given to the implementation of the provisions under article 14 of the Agreement.

She said that the elimination of harmful fishing subsidies was a condition for addressing fishery over-capacity.  The reduction of fishery capacity in a transparent and equitable manner also remained a priority.  On the issue of conservation and management of stocks, she said that 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.  Expanded use by tuna management organizations of the Kobe II Strategy matrix would be instrumental in that respect.

On the issue of review of recommendations relating to developing States, she said that the implementation of Part VII was integral to the implementation of the Agreement and to promoting the wider participation of developing States. Turning to the Trust Fund under Part VII of the Agreement, she said the Fund was an important tool to implement article 26, on special assistance to developing States.  Her delegation proposed that the recommendations adopted by the session include language to the effect that the implementation of Part VII was integral to the implementation of the Agreement and, in that context, States and international financial institutions and organizations of the United Nations system were urged to contribute to the Assistance Fund under Part VII.

KJARTAN HOYDAL, North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, drew attention to cooperation between regional fisheries management organizations and other organizations to regulate activities in the oceans.  His organization had sought out cooperation with others, including the Sea Bed Authority.  A memorandum of understanding had been signed with the Authority, and a letter of agreement with the International Maritime Organization had been accepted last year. 

Regarding regional fisheries management organizations, he pointed to a problem of prescribing, in too much detail, what those organizations should do, considering the variety of tasks and situations they faced.  There was a danger that the focus would be on ticking boxes on lists of formal requirements rather than solving problems, which generally were specific to a given region, fishery and area.  Many were in the process of amending their conventions to meet the challenge of conservation.  To achieve the targets of conservation and utilization, he suggested that those organizations were best suited to determine the most efficient mix of management tools.

Describing the efforts of his Commission, he noted that in 2002, it had closed a box in the Rockall Area to protect juvenile fish and, in 2004, on a precautionary basis, it had adopted an interim ban on bottom fishing in a larger area on the Reykjanes Ridge (the northern part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) and four seamounts adjacent to that Ridge.  In 2009, a blue ling spawning area had been closed.  It had also introduced a 35 per cent cut in the effort-level fishing for deep sea species.  On cooperation, fisheries constituted only a fraction of the human activities that impacted oceans.  The experience of regional fisheries organizations in monitoring, surveillance and control in high seas areas closed to human activities was of huge interest to other organizations, keen to avoid duplication of efforts. 

SUSAN LIEBERMAN, National Resources Defence Council, also on behalf of the Pew Environment Group, reiterated her organization’s earlier statement regarding prior environmental impact assessment for sharks and other species such as tunas.  She urged the Conference to recommend that all States ratify the Port State Measures Agreement as soon as possible, and that all regional fisheries management organizations incorporate its provisions.

Moreover, she encouraged the Conference to recommend that those organizations improve the transparency and quality of their information, and initiate procedures for tracking illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) vessels.  There also should be mandatory global unique vessel identifiers for fishing vessels on the high seas, such as International Maritime Organization numbers.  Further, they should mutually recognize “IUU” lists.  For their part, States should improve compliance with existing regional fisheries management measures and expand port State measures from the regional to the global level.  All States should join the International Monitoring Control and Surveillance Network.  Finally, the preview of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) “Green Economy” report identified the problem of subsidies.  Those subsidies could add to persistent problems of overcapacity, overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Mr. CURRIE, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, said that, with respect to transshipment, paragraph 43(c) from the 2006 recommendations did not go far enough, and he encouraged delegates to look at them afresh.  Transshipment at sea was an enormous asset to “IUU” fishers.  Vessels flagged to non-party States laundered “IUU” catches at sea, evading port State controls and robbing coastal States of their fish and income, and then the fish entered distant ports and markets.  Regulation had proven to be patchy, dependent on participation by flag States, including flags of non-compliance, and easy to evade.

He said that other essential measures included the establishment of a global record of fishing vessels as a matter of priority; centralized tamper-proof vessel monitoring system coverage; a harmonized catch documentation scheme; and increased ratification of the Port State Agreement.  He also echoed Canada’s suggestion of the inclusion of a specific reference to the need to take climate change and ocean acidification when managing fisheries activities. Given the potential and known effect of those phenomenons on vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as deep sea coral, that was a very worthwhile suggestion, he stressed.

MARIO AGUILAR SÁNCHEZ (Mexico) said that regarding sharks and their management, Mexico, which was a responsible country, believed that agreement must be compatible with the provisions of the high seas, as had been noted by other States and non-governmental organizations.  It was also important to improve management, and therefore, to update and establish systems allowing for the best records of catches to be brought together, including the dimensions of catch.  Cooperation was crucial among regional management organizations, and the Kobe process offered a framework for that and for compatibility and harmonization of standards.  Kobe had managed to bridge the gaps of the Agreement, and that was why it was extremely positive, he said.

As a developing country, it was important that Mexico bolster its own capacity, not only for fisheries management, but also for the sustainable development of fisheries, in order to be able to respect ecosystems and species. To develop its capacities and fisheries fleet, it must act in a sustainable manner, and that was only possible with the necessary resources.  He added that the Conference could adopt a recommendation regarding access to the markets of products derived from permissible and transparent practices, as such a recommendation could be very beneficial for developing countries.

SAINIVALATI S. NAVOTI, Director for Political and Treaties, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Civil Aviation of Fiji, discussed the terms of reference for implementation of the Part VII Fund, saying that the Fund might not address the long-term capacity development of developing States parties or provision of tools to support monitoring, control and surveillance.  The mechanisms for implementation had to be clear.  That issue should be further discussed to determine whether the Fund’s terms of reference were adequate or whether additional factors should be added to the outcome document.

ROY CLARISSE, Manager, Fisheries Division, Fishing Authority, Seychelles, agreed with comments made about monitoring, control and surveillance compliance and enforcement.  He focused on developing States’ capacity to benefit from ocean resources and the effects that piracy was having in the Indian Ocean.  Piracy infringed on developing countries’ ability to participate in high seas fisheries, and assistance should be provided to those States to mitigate the effects.  Piracy was occurring in areas extending eastward and southward through the Indian Ocean from Somalia.  If that trend continued, more States would be affected.

ADAM BASKE, speaking on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, associated the Fund with interventions already made by non-governmental organizations, particularly with calls for the full assessment of the ecosystem impacts of fishing and for requiring management plans, including target reference points where applicable, for all species retained for commercial use.  Also important was for Conference participants to take note of the specific question of subsidies for high seas fishing and fishing on highly migratory or straddling stocks.  The issue was the subject of very active negotiations at the World Trade Organization right now and was directly linked to questions about how developing countries could pursue legitimate development in a world already suffering from overcapacity.

The World Wildlife Fund, he said, suggested that the new set of recommendations include a call for States to avoid, in particular, the use of subsidies in a manner that further promoted the decline of international fish stocks or that contributed to maintaining or growing excess capacity in international fisheries.  Regional management organizations themselves could also be encouraged to revisit the subsidies question and how subsidies might be affecting both conservation and allocation within their waters, he added.

MARCEL KROESE, speaking on behalf of the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for Fisheries-Related Activities, thanked all of the members of that network, which had attended the side events.  The Network took recommendations made during the Review Conference and other forums and used them in its work in developing countries to implement those measures on the ground.  Support was very critical to the Network, in order to support its members.

DRISS MESKI, speaking on behalf of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, noted that most of the speakers had a lot to say about strengthening cooperation among regional management organizations, but wondered whether the Conference could issue a recommendation with respect to the areas in which that cooperation could be enhanced, and at what level.  In his view, there was cooperation among all of the regional management organizations at the secretariat level.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record