Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

17^th Meeting (AM)

Review Conference on Saving World’s Fish Stocks Scrutinizes Draft Outcome,

Commending Some Elements, Cautious about Others, as Session Nears Close

 

Participants in the Review Conference for the landmark 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement today examined draft outcomes for the five-day meeting in preparation for its final report tomorrow, with some praising the text as reflective of consensual elements raised throughout the week, and others anticipating a “bumpy ride ahead” for achieving agreement on recommendations to be made along four key themes.

Prepared by Conference President David Balton of the United States, who stressed the status of the text as “just a proposal” — the draft outcomes were organized around four clusters that framed the work of the resumed review, begun in 2006.  Those included conservation and management of stocks; international cooperation and non-Parties; monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as compliance and enforcement; and developing States and non-Parties.

While there was universal agreement during the morning meeting on the value of the document, several members expressed concern that some of the recommendations were “thin”, saying that some of the language should be fleshed out and even strengthened.  Under the theme of conservation and management of stocks, for example, much debate centred around language concerning compliance for submitting timely, complete and accurate fisheries data, and the creation of “positive” and “negative” incentives to do so.

On that point, delegates should strengthen the wording of the paragraph, as it appeared “a bit soft”, said the United States’ representative.  Other speakers, including from Peru, the European Union, Solomon Islands and Iran, also sought clarification on meaning and scope.   India’s delegate, however, pointed out that the spirit in that paragraph should be captured in a way that reflected the “true” sentiments of the Agreement’s States parties, rather than just the views of some.

As members discussed the draft outcome document, which was only available in English — a fact which several delegates lamented — the focus was also on language regarding a recommendation on reducing excess fishing capacity transparently and equitably, with many stressing the need to make further reference to the aspirations of developing States.

While many delegates praised the inclusion of a recommendation on strengthening efforts to study environmental factors affecting marine ecosystems, some said there should be further mention of climate change specifically.  The representative of the Solomon Islands, in particular, stressed that some small island developing States were already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and that the recommendation needed to stress the importance of taking action now, and not just in the future.

On the issue of implementation of the ecosystem approach, Chile’s delegate reminded the Conference that, although the issue had been discussed in various forums, a definition of the approach was still imprecise.  Specificity was needed in order to have effective and “implementable” conservation measures, and that should be flagged in the outcome document, he said.

Also on the cluster concerning conservation and management of stocks, some delegates requested clarification on a recommendation on strengthening interaction between fisheries managers and scientists, including through the expanded use of the Kobe II Strategy Matrix for Setting Management Measures, with some asking for copies of those measures.   Iceland’s delegate, in particular, questioned the value of that recommendation as a whole.

When the discussion turned to the other themes, speakers honed in on the issue of performance reviews for regional fisheries management organizations, listed under cluster II, with some, including Iceland’s delegate, objecting to the mention of specific five-year intervals between reviews.  That wording was “over descriptive”, he said, adding that language should rather refer to a “regular basis”.  Perhaps a compromise could be found in the phrase, “on a regular basis, for example, every five years”.

Chile’s delegate agreed, saying that wording should refer to periodic revisions.  If a time frame had to be set, wording should be added to indicate that reviews should be carried out “not less than” every five years, and further, that other relevant organizations should also undertake them.  Interim measures — which set out the objectives of the sustainable fish stock management and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, in line with General Assembly resolutions — should also be reviewed.

The representative of Greenpeace, speaking also on behalf of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and Pew Environment Group, supported the idea to consider performance reviews atthe United Nations level. The European Union’s delegate added that wording should make clear that the results of performance reviews should be made public.

Mexico’s delegate, discussing strengthened cooperation among regional fisheries management organizations, suggested that when new organizations were formed that their membership be universal.

On the issue of control over fishing activities, included under the third cluster, the Russian Federation’s delegate pointed out that wording should refer to “vessels” rather than “nationals”, a comment supported by several other speakers.   New Zealand’s representative wondered whether regional fisheries management organizations should be encouraged to take actions in that regard.

Taking up the issue of implementation of flag State duties and development, through the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and of criteria for assessing performance in that regard, Chile’s delegate said he had understood that the idea was to have a binding agreement establishing flag State responsibilities, rather than proposals that were “a little weak”.

As for the fourth cluster, the representative of the Marshall Islands, speaking on behalf of the parties to the Nauru Agreement, suggested the text might be “thin and general”.  Other clusters had reflected concrete measures and so could this one, notably on the issue of mainstreaming fishery issues with country development plans.  Holistic coordination was particularly important for coastal and small island developing States, and provided a practical way to give effect to the provisions of the Fish Stocks Agreement.  The Part VII Fund, created to help developing countries, could not achieve all those objectives alone.  Also, he had seen no mention of actions to help developing nations reap greater benefit from the total catch and value of highly migratory fish stocks.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Panama, Argentina, Norway, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Samoa, Fiji, and Equatorial Guinea.

Representatives of the International Ocean Noise Coalition, and the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) also contributed to the discussion.

The Review Conference will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 28 May, to discuss its final report and conclude its work.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record