This report covers the issues addressed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 52/29 and which was adopted by the Assembly on 26 November 1997, namely large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, unauthorized fishing in the zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas; fisheries by-catch and discards; and other developments.

United Nations General Assembly resolution 46/215, and subsequent resolutions,¹ inter alia, called upon members of the international community to ensure that a global moratorium on all large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing was implemented fully on the high seas of the world's oceans and seas, including enclosed seas and semi-enclosed seas, by 31 December 1992. Consequently, members of the international community, international organizations, regional integration organizations and appropriate non-governmental organizations were requested in General Assembly resolution 52/29 of 26 November 1997, to submit information to the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of General Assembly resolution 46/215.

FAO is mandated to monitor fisheries on an international basis. It does this principally through information obtained from FAO field and regional and sub-regional offices, regular consultation with regional (FAO and non-FAO) fishery bodies, the fishing industry, inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and ad hoc reports. In preparing this report it is understood by FAO that regional and international fishery bodies have been invited by the UN/DOALOS to report independently to the Secretary-General on this issue.²

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 44/225 and subsequent resolutions, FAO has reported annually on global information available to the Organization on the use of large-scale pelagic drift-nets.

As far as FAO is aware, the Mediterranean Sea is the only region in the world where large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing gear (i.e., nets in excess of 2.5 km) is being deployed. The vessels using this gear in the Mediterranean, and which target swordfish, are primarily of Italian and French flags. In its 1997 report to the General Assembly FAO outlined the policy of the Italian Government with respect to its fleet retrenchment and compensation programme for the drift-net fleet.³

In relation to the use of large-scale pelagic drift-net gear by EC Members, the Council of the EU in June 1998 decided to eliminate drift-nets over a period of three and a half years.⁴ As of 1 January 2002, the use of drift-nets to catch tuna and swordfish will be banned, and their use in salmon fishing will be restricted to coastal waters. Driftnets will still be authorized in the Baltic Sea, however, where by-catches of marine mammals are considered to pose much less of a problem. For this year�s fishing season, the current maximum drift-net length of 2.5 km will remain in effect, but the number of vessels using drift-nets must be reduced by 40 percent from the 1995/97 reference period. Moreover, the Council and the Commission have pledged to approve flanking measures, including some for the conversion of boats into more selective types of vessels, before the end of 1998, retraining and laying up. However, no new EU aid is scheduled before the year 2000 to support such initiatives.

It was noted that this Council decision on this issue is the first time that 15 EU Members States have taken a decision to ban a particular fishing gear. According to the EC during the period 1995/97, the number of vessels using drift-nets was 640 in Italy, 77 in France, 11 in Ireland and between five and eight in the UK. In addition, 100 Spanish vessels use nets with an average length of 1.2 km in the Mediterranean Sea.

At its Twenty-second Session in October 1997, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) adopted binding resolution 97/1 concerning the use of large-scale pelagic drift-net gear. The resolution, taking account of UNGA resolution 44/225 and considering that uncontrolled expansion and growth of drift-netting may entail serious disadvantages in terms of increased fishing effort and increased by-catches of species other than target species, and that it was therefore desirable to regulate fishing with drift-nets, adopted the recommendation that:

1. No vessel flying the flag of a Contracting party of GFCM may keep on board, or use for fishing, one or more drift-nets whose individual or total length is more than 2.5 km; and

2. Throughout the fishing referred to in paragraph 1, the net must, if it is longer than one kilometre, remain attached to the vessel. However, within the 12 mi coastal band, a vessel may detach itself from the net, provided it keeps it under constant observation.

GFCM has advised that the Italian Government is seeking to comply with UN, EC and GFCM resolutions concerning the authorized maximum length of drift-nets.⁵ The Government�s plan has led to a substantial reduction in the number of vessels operating with nets in excess of 2.5 km. However, it is understood that the Italian coastguard is experiencing logistical difficulties enforcing drift-net gear provisions.

The Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) has indicated that that there have been no reports of large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing in the Commission�s area during the 1997/98 period.⁶

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has reported that the matter of large-scale drift-net fishing was discussed at the annual meeting of the Commission in 1990. This resulted in the adoption of Resolution 7/IX, which declared that, in accordance with UNGA resolution 44/225, there would be no expansion of large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing into the high seas of the Convention Area. Since the adoption of this Resolution, no cases of activities or conduct inconsistent with the terms of the CCAMLR Convention Area have been reported to CCAMLR.⁷

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) has stated that there have been no reports of large scale pelagic drift-net gear being used in the NAFO Convention Area during 1997-98.

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) has indicated that the Organization is not aware of any fishing with large-scale pelagic drift-nets within the area covered by the Convention.⁸

The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has advised that there have been no reports of fishing with large-scale pelagic drift-nets in its area of competence in the last year.⁹

The International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) has stated that it is not formally subject to the drift-net resolution since Baltic Sea has no high seas area.¹⁰

The Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) has reported that in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, and specifically within areas of national jurisdiction, there have been no reports in the last year concerning fishing with large-scale pelagic drift-nets.¹¹

The Organización Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Pesquero (OLDEPESCA) has advised that there have been no reports of fishing with large-scale pelagic drift-net vessels in the Organization�s Area of competence in the last year.¹²

Unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas has a number of significant impacts, including the undermining of fisheries conservation and management measures and, in the case of unauthorized fishing in EEZs, the denial of legitimate revenue to those States whose resources are poached. It is principally for these reasons that international concern has been expressed about unauthorized fishing and steps taken within the United Nations to curb, if not prevent, such fishing.

The Fisheries Department of FAO does not maintain specific records concerning the incidence of unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction. However, at fisheries meetings and consultations convened by FAO, this matter is often raised and commented upon by FAO members in their country statements. For example, at the FAO-sponsored Regional Workshop on the Adaptation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in West Africa, Benin, 1-5 June 1998, many participants referred to unauthorized incursions by foreign-flag vessels into their respective EEZs, and very often close to shore, and they commented on the impact that these incursions were having on artisanal fishers and their production. To address this situation the need for effective national and regional programmes in monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) was stressed.

FAO maintains a programme on MCS. Advice and assistance is provided on a request basis. At the invitation of the Government of Malaysia the FAO/Norway Programme has organized a regional workshop on fisheries MCS in Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Terengganu, 29 June - 3 July 1998. Thirty five participants from India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore and Indonesia will be attending. The workshop will examine the technical measures involved in MCS, including commonly accepted procedures and recent experiences with vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Participants will exchange information about the use of MCS in support of fisheries management. A field visit has been arranged to Kuala Terengganu where participants will study the techniques used by the Malaysian Department of Fisheries in conservation and management of resources through patrols at sea as well as protection of marine parks and reserves. It is anticipated that the FAO/Norway Programme will become further involved at a national and subregional level to strengthen MCS in participating countries which border the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.

The FAO has also been involved in advising on MCS in support of fisheries management in East Africa and the Western Indian Ocean. Through the Technical Co-operation Programme activities in Seychelles, Somalia and Mauritius, studies and analyses were undertaken on appropriate approaches to improve MCS in these countries� EEZ. Advice was also provided to the Luxembourg financed MCS project in the Subregional Fisheries Commission area of Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea and Cape Verde, as well as to specialists involved in setting up an EU financed project for MCS in southern Africa.

VMS is being increasingly used by coastal States to monitor the activities of their domestic fleet and foreign vessels licenced to fish in their EEZs, and for flag States to ensure that vessels flying their flag do not conduct unauthorized fishing within areas under the national jurisdiction of other States. FAO will publish technical guidelines on VMS to assist the understanding and implementation of VMS for countries wishing to use this technology.¹³ The technical guidelines shall also promote the standardisation of equipment and message formats so that vessels can move easily from one jurisdiction to another.

WECAFC has advised there have been reports of unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction in the 1997/1998 period, but the majority of these reports have not been verified. These reports deal with unauthorized small-scale fishing between neighbouring countries in the region. unauthorized fishing by industrial vessels (shrimping and longlining for large pelagics by vessels from outside the region) which is probably more important to the region, have been reported in the press, but again not verified. A number of countries in the WECAFC Region are in the process of improving their MCS capacity which is not limited to fishing only.

The CCSBT has indicated that it has not received reports of unauthorized fishing within any EEZ falling under its area of competence. To promote and encourage the implementation of the Code of Conduct, the CCSBT is in the process of reviewing the provisions of its Convention to determine the action necessary to achieve compatibility with the Code.

IBSFC has reported that there were no reports of unauthorized fishing in the 1997-98 period. It was advised that there are regulations in force concerning the yearly reporting of quota transfers and exchanges of quotas between the Contracting Parties, the reporting of vessels authorized to fish cod in the Baltic Sea, monthly catch reporting by the Contracting Parties, and monthly reporting of the landings of other Contracting Parties.

CPPS has advised that there have been no reports of unauthorized fishing in EEZs or in adjacent high seas areas.

OLDEPESCA has reported that its Members national fisheries administrations do not report regularly to the Organization on matters relating to unauthorized fishing. However, it is aware that there was at least one case of unauthorized fishing by a foreign vessel in the EEZ of a Member. This case involved the apprehension of the tuna vessel Connie Jean off the Peruvian coast with 110 tonnes of tuna on board. The Peruvian authorities fined the vessel US$ 200 000 and after having seized the tuna, donated it to the local population.

NAFO has advised that there have been no reports of unauthorized fishing in the EEZs of its members in the reporting period. For the high seas, the General Council has been working on the problem of non-Contracting Parties fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area and has, as a result, taken the following action:

(i) adoption of the "Scheme to promote Compliance by Non-Contracting Party Vessels with the Conservation and Enforcement Measures Established by NAFO". The Scheme would be directed at Non-Contracting Party vessels engaged in fishing activities in the NAFO Regulatory Area. The Scheme presumes that a Non-Contracting Party vessel which has been sighted engaging in fishing activities in the NAFO Regulatory Area is undermining the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures. If such sighted vessels enter into ports of Contracting Parties, they must be inspected. No landings or transhipments will be permitted in Contracting Party ports unless such vessels can establish that certain species on board were not caught in the NAFO Regulatory Area, and for certain other species that the vessel applied the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures. Contracting parties must report the results of inspections to NAFO and all Contracting Parties; and

(ii) the President of NAFO, A. Rodin (Russia), signed diplomatic demarches to the flag States whose vessels fished in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 1996-1997, namely, Belize, Honduras, Panama and Sierra Leone.

NASCO has advised that there have been no recent reports of unauthorized fishing for salmon in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas within the Convention area. Moreover, no action has been taken by the Organization to promote and encourage the implementation of the Code of Conduct and the Compliance Agreement, although some of NASCO�s Contracting Parties have deposited instruments of acceptance for the Agreement.

The Executive Secretary of CCAMLR wrote to FAO on 18 December 1997 on the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. It was noted that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities had recently been considered by CCAMLR, particularly in relation to longline fishing of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the CCAMLR Convention Area. At the recently-concluded 1997 meeting of CCAMLR, there was general agreement among Members that:

(i) the evidence of large-scale illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Convention Area advised by CCAMLR Members during 1996/97 and in the beginning of the 1997/98 season seriously undermined the work of CCAMLR in achieving the Convention�s objective;

(ii) the extent of existing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing posed a serious threat to the conservation of stocks of Dissostichus spp. in the immediate future and also to the survival of several species of seabirds in the Southern Ocean taken as incidental by-catch in longline fishing operations;

(iii) not only vessels of non-Contracting Parties to CCAMLR but also vessels of CCAMLR Contracting Parties were reported fishing in the Convention Area contrary to the CCAMLR conservation measures in force;

(iv) all information received points to a blatant disregard by non-Contracting Parties of the CCAMLR conservation regime and of the sovereign rights of Coastal States in the Convention Area; and

(v) the situation called for collective efforts within CCAMLR, measures by Flag States and Coastal States and steps vis-a-vis non-Contracting Parties to enhance enforcement and compliance with conservation measures regarding living resources in the Convention Area.

CCAMLR has started developing an integrated set of political and legal measures for resolving this complex situation. The set of measures adopted by CCAMLR in 1997 includes new Conservation Measures 118/XVI (Scheme to Promote Compliance by non-Contracting Party Vessels with CCAMLR Conservation Measures) and 119/XVI (Requirement for Contracting Parties to Licence their Flag Vessels in the Convention Area), Resolution 12/XVI on Vessel Monitoring Systems, amendments to the text of the System of Inspection and mechanisms to address the actions of non-Contracting Parties. Some measures were drawn from the experience of other fisheries organizations, in particular NAFO and ICCAT; other measures took into account recent developments in international law.

It was further advised that at its November 1998 meeting, CCAMLR will review the effectiveness of the adopted measures and, if necessary, develop additional measures. In particular, CCAMLR will further consider measures related to Port State control, as well as trade-related measures.

In drawing the above-mentioned information to your attention, CCAMLR asks all international and regional fisheries organizations, especially those organizations with jurisdiction over waters adjacent to the CCAMLR Convention Area, to cooperate in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and, in particular, in the implementation of the CCAMLR measure relating to the refusal of landings and transhipment of fish caught in violation of CCAMLR Conservation Measures and other requirements under the CCAMLR Convention (Conservation Measure 118/XVI).

CCAMLR also invites all international and regional fisheries organizations to join in the exchange of information on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities on the high seas. CCAMLR would especially welcome any information related to international trade in Dissostichus spp (including where catches are landed, transhipped or imported and under what product names these fish species are being marketed); on the feasibility of trade-restrictive measures to non-Contracting Parties, and also on any other measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.

A range of FAO initiatives are in train to support the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Compliance Agreement. To this end FAO is working closely with national fishery administrations and regional fishery bodies to facilitate the structural adjustment required in the fisheries sector that will enable more effective conservation and management arrangements to be put in place.

The Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement), approved on 23 November 1993 by resolution 15/93 of the Twenty-seventh Session of the FAO Conference, is an integral part of the Code. To date the Agreement has been accepted by ten FAO Members: Canada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Georgia, Myanmar, Sweden, Madagascar, Norway, United States of America, Argentina, and the European Community. The Agreement will enter into force as from the date of receipt by the Director-General of FAO of the twenty-fifth instrument of acceptance.

The Compliance Agreement seeks to ensure that there is effective flag State control over fishing vessels operating on the high seas. This requires, inter alia, that Parties to the Agreement maintain a register of vessels to fish on the high seas and that all vessels engaged in such fishing operations are authorized to do so. Moreover, the Agreement requires that certain records concerning the physical characteristics of the vessels and their ownership and operational details, be maintained by the Parties are part of their flag State responsibilities. Furthermore, Parties are obligated to exchange information maintained on their respective registers through FAO and other appropriate global, regional and subregional fisheries organizations.

In support of the Compliance Agreement, a High Seas Vessel Registration Database System (HSREG), was created in 1995 to facilitate monitoring of vessels licensed to fish on the high seas. The development of the System was funded by the Government of Canada. The database currently contains information on a total of 621 licensed vessels from two signatories to the Compliance Agreement, Canada and the USA. The database has been demonstrated at FAO Headquarters and in other countries. It is anticipated that the volume of licensed vessels in the database will increase dramatically in the future.¹⁴ At the present time all data input to, and maintenance of, the HSREG database is undertaken by FAO, but plans to permit user input through a secure Internet site have been considered.¹⁵

Even though the Compliance Agreement has not yet entered into force, some of its elements are already being adopted by countries as their respective fisheries legislation is revised and other policy changes implemented concerning national authorizations for vessels to fish on the high seas. FAO is continuing to promote the acceptance of the Agreement so that it might be brought into force with minimal delay, and in May 1998 FAO wrote, for the second time, to all Members that had not accepted the Agreement urging that they consider acceptance as soon as possible. In addition, the resolution adopted by the Regional Workshop on the Adaptation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in West Africa, held in Benin in 1998, encouraged governments in the West African region to ratify both the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement) and to accept the Compliance Agreement.

As part of the follow-up to the Compliance Agreement, FAO has continued to monitor reflagging. The number of vessels reflagged in the period 1994/1997 has increased to nearly 3 percent of the fleet per year (vessels over 100 GRT), however the vast majority of these have been normal transactions involving a change of ownership. Only about 15 percent of the reflagging involve a change to a "flag of convenience". Nevertheless, the number of vessels flagged under open registers or "flags of convenience" has remained at around 5 percent of the total fleet. The number of fishing vessels registered in Panama (412) and Honduras (430) have decreased. However, vessels registered in St Vincent (139), Vanuatu (35), Cyprus (32) and Belize (158) have continued to increase. Only three of the new built vessels were built to an open register (although three were listed as unknown) and two of these were Norwegian owned, flagged under the Panamanian register.

To assist developing countries with the implementation of the Code of Conduct and the Compliance Agreement, FAO has elaborated an Inter-regional Programme of Assistance to Developing Countries for the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The purpose of the Programme is to upgrade the fisheries capabilities of developing countries so that they will be better placed to meet their obligations under the Code.

The Inter-regional Programme has been submitted to the international donor community for consideration and possible funding. The Programme involves assistance in the following areas:

A. Implementation of the Compliance Agreement;

B. upgrading of capabilities for reporting on fishery statistics;

C. upgrading of capabilities in monitoring, control and surveillance;

D. promotion of responsible fishing operations;

E. upgrading marine resource survey capabilities;

F. improving the provision of scientific advice for fisheries management;

G. fisheries policy, planning and management;

H. developing and implementing fleet restructuring policies;

I. implementation of post-harvest practices and trade;

J. umbrella support to non-governmental organizations, and

K. programme coordination and facilitation.

The Government of the Netherlands contributed funds to pay for the formulation of components C, F and J above while the Government of Norway has agreed to fund two of the components of the programme, C and F, at a total cost of US$ 2.1 million over a period of three years, starting in January 1998.

Two countries from the WECAFC Region, St. Kitts and Nevis and the United States of America, have accepted the Compliance Agreement. Even though the Agreement is not yet in force, some of its elements are already being adopted by States of the Region as their fisheries legislation is revised and other policy changes concerning national authorisations for vessels to fish on the high seas are being implemented. For example, FAO provided technical assistance to the Members of the Organization for Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) (Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines) and Barbados in the preparation of a draft bill entitled "Harmonised OECS High Seas Fishing Law". This bill will be sent to the OECS members for formal review by the government and for adoption into legislation.

It has been pointed out that the regulatory measures applied by IBSFC are in line with the objectives of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Increased attention is being given to the provisions of Article 7, "Fisheries Management", including the objectives of management and the application of the precautionary approach. Pending ongoing analysis by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), IBSFC intends to adopt for certain stocks specific target reference points and limit reference points, as provided for in Article 7.5.3 of the Code.

In relation to the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, OLDEPESCA has initiated, with the cooperation of the Inter-American Development Bank, a regional programme for the implementation of international fisheries instruments, including the Code and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. OLDEPESCA is undertaking an exhaustive evaluation of the implications of the instruments in the light of normative considerations and the actual fisheries activities of the region. Anyway, this will lead to the elaboration of an action plan to be implemented by the Organization. However, no work is foreseen with respect to the Compliance Agreement.

With respect to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, CPPS has advised that it has orientated its scientific and juridical activities towards implementing the principles of the Code. To give effect to the Code the Commission is encouraging its Members to consider the inclusion of the Code�s provisions in national legislation. In addition, in relation to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, CPPS is preparing a standardised approach to the matter in the South-east Pacific Ocean so that high fisheries resources, and in particular straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks, will be conserved.

The NAFO General Council and Fisheries Commission have been discussing many aspects of the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. There were two relevant substantive issues on the table with respect to the transparency of NAFO�s decision making process and participation of inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, and with respect to implementation of the precautionary approach to NAFO-managed stocks. Considering these two issues, NAFO Contracting Parties met in several working groups, and there is an on-going process of negotiation in the NAFO community with good prospects for successful resolution. It should be emphasized that the precautionary approach is a very complex scientific and managerial problem, and therefore very careful and intelligent process is required by all Parties to develop and implement such a sophisticated tool for stock management and exploitation.

The need to minimize by-catch and discards in industrial fisheries has become a major international issue in fisheries since the combined effect of these practices could threaten the long-term sustainability of fisheries and the maintenance of bio-diversity. Moreover, the focus on discards reflects the concern that fisheries resources are not being utilized efficiently and that production is not supporting food security to the extent possible.

Following an offer by Canada at the Twenty-second Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1997, an Expert Consultation on sustainable fishing technologies and practices was held in St. John�s, Newfoundland, Canada, in March 1998. The Consultation was jointly organized and funded by FAO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, and the Canadian International Development Agency. Forty-one fishers, fishing technologists and fishery managers and administrators from developed and developing countries participated in the meeting. The seventeen papers prepared to assist discussion at the meeting will be published by FAO as a Supplement to the Report of the Meeting.

The primary goal of the Expert Consultation was to address ways and means of resolving the problem of discarding and dumping living marine resources. Substantial discussion at the consultation addressed:

(i) how to reduce discards through the use of selective gear and fishing practices;

(ii) investigation of methodologies to measure the impact of fishing activities on the habitat;

(iii) implementation of the recommendation of the consultation on a global basis, and

(iv) identification of appropriate mechanisms for transfer of recommended technology.

The Expert Consultation recognized that there have been several successful developments of fishing gear and practices in the past 10 years which have reduced the catch of juvenile fish and non-target species. Most of these developments have occurred in developed countries and the transfer of appropriate technology to less developed countries was considered desirable.

The involvement of the industry was seen as the key to successful development and implementation of sustainable fishing technologies and practices. Reports from several countries demonstrated how industry participation facilitated the acceptance of new technology aimed at reducing the catch of non-target species.

At the Twenty-second Session of COFI it was also proposed that FAO, in collaboration with Japan and the United States, organize an expert consultation with experts from inside and outside governments to develop and propose guidelines leading to a plan of action aimed at reducing incidental seabird catches.

Japan and the United States agreed to fund such an exercise and a steering group consisting of representatives from the two Governments and from FAO was established. This group was assigned the responsibility of preparing the necessary background papers and together with an expert appointed by FAO develop a draft Plan of Action.

The group of experts from regions where seabirds in longline fisheries was considered a problem met in Tokyo in March 1998 and came to an agreement about the contents of the draft Plan of Action. This draft plan will be discussed and eventually endorsed by the FAO Consultation in October 1998.

Countries of the WECAFC Region that have shrimp trawl fisheries (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Mexico, Suriname, and Venezuela) are now landing more by-catch for human consumption than in the past, partly due to increasing demand for fish and to higher prices for fish. Countries have introduced turtle excluder devices which also reduce the by-catch of fish.

FAO orgnized a regional workshop in Cuba in June 1997 that addressed the issue of by-catch from shrimp trawlers. FAO is also organizing an Expert Consultation on by-catch utilisation in tropical fisheries, Beijing, China, 21-23 September 1998, to discuss prospects for greater utilisation of by-catch for food security and the reduction of discards. WECAFC member countries, including Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela and Guyana, are expected to attend and to present national case studies.

In this review period, CCSBT Members have implemented measures to mitigate seabird by-catch during longline fishing operations (e.g., through the use of Tori poles) and continue to examine further by-catch mitigation measures through the CCSBT Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG). Information on by-catch and discards has been collected by observers, and their reports and other recent data will be reviewed by the 1998 meeting of the ERSWG.

CCAMLR leads most international organizations in the establishment of a set of measures to reduce and prevent incidental mortality of seabirds in longline fisheries. Excerpts from the reports of the 1997 meetings of the CCAMLR Commission and Scientific Committee are in Appendix 1.

The regulatory measures on by-catch and discards, as well, on incidental catches are strongly engraved in NAFO�s Conservation and Enforcement Measures. Appendix 2 contains a copy of these measures. There are several important provisions which constitute a legal basis and guidelines for the NAFO inspectors and observers to enforce these provisions. The observers on board fishing vessels (100 percent coverage) monitor all by-catch and discards, and provide their reports to the NAFO Secretariat.

NASCO has indicated that it has no new information relating to fisheries by-catch and discards. The Organization is concerned about the possible by-catch of Atlantic salmon in pelagic fisheries in the North-East Atlantic (principally ICES division IIA) and is taking measures, in conjunction with the ICES, to improve the information available on the level of salmon by-catch.

OLDEPESCA has advised that it does not have any information concerning fisheries by-catch, discards or the incidental capture of seabirds within its area of competence.

CPPS does not have detailed information concerning by-catch and discards and the incidental catch of seabirds. Some countries, including Peru and Chile, have commenced work on discards in the industrial anchovetta fishery with a view to eliminating the practice of discarding.

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (I-ATTC) has advised that its Members and other countries involved in purse seining tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) made a voluntary agreement in 1992 (La Jolla Agreement) with the intention of reducing dolphin by-catches in the EPO.¹⁶ That Agreement has been extremely successful and since it came into operation the annual dolphin mortality incidental to purse seining has been reduced from about 16 000 in 1992 to about 3 000 currently. One of the important features of the programme established by the agreement is the transfer of technology for removing dolphins safely from purse-seine nets among all the nations involved.

Operating pursuant to the La Jolla Agreement is an observer programme whose primary purpose is to make observations on incidental capture and mortality of dolphins in the fishery. Between 1993 to 1997 most of the vessels carried I-ATTC observers who have also collected information on other by-catch taken by those vessels.

In February 1998 the countries involved in the fishery concluded a binding Agreement for the International Dolphin programme that includes stricter provisions for dolphin protection. The Agreement also has objectives concerning the reduction of by-catch and discards and provides for measures to be taken to achieve those objectives. The measures are to be consistent with the relevant provisions with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

I-ATTC has also advised that at its 58th session in 1997, it was agreed to set up a by-catch working group. It will begin its work in July 1998. The objectives of the work are to (i) define the relationships among by-catch and target species with special reference to the sustainability of the catches of all such species; (ii) develop gear technology that is effective in reducing by-catch to the maximum extent possible; and (iii) formulate and evaluate management schemes for reducing by-catch.

There is widespread international concern over the increase in shark fishing and the consequences which this has for the populations of some shark species in several areas of the world's oceans. Currently few countries actually manage their shark fisheries and there are almost no international management mechanisms actively addressing the capture of sharks. However, there are indications that an international consensus is emerging on the need for improved control of fishing for shark species, including skates and rays. The prevailing view is that it is necessary to control directed shark fisheries and some fisheries in which sharks constitute a significant by-catch.

In 1994, the Ninth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) adopted a Resolution on the Biological and Trade Status of Sharks (Conf. 9.17), requesting, inter-alia, that:

(i) FAO and other international fisheries management organizations establish programmes to collect and assemble the necessary biological and trade data on shark species; and

(ii) all nations utilizing and trading specimens of shark species to co-operate with FAO and other international fisheries management organizations.

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action of December 1995 both call for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its component species, as well as the minimization of waste and discards. In FAO, activities which intend to promote these objectives are in progress under a project funded by the Government of Japan. It contributes, inter-alia, to the study of the biological and trade status of sharks.

At its 1997 session, COFI suggested that FAO organize, in collaboration with Japan and the Untied States of America, using extra-budgetary funds, a consultation of experts to develop and propose guidelines leading to a Plan of Action for Shark Conservation and Management. The Tenth Meeting of the CITES Parties, which met in Harare, Zimbabwe, in June 1997, received this initiative with great appreciation.

A Technical Working Group of Experts met from 23 to 27 April 1998 in Tokyo, Japan, and deliberated on Technical Guidelines for Shark Conservation and Management and elements of a draft Plan of Action. Preparations are underway for convening a Consultation in October 1998 at FAO Headquarters in Rome to:

(i) determine the specific requirements for sustainable global and regional management of shark species; and

(ii) endorse a Plan of Action aimed at promoting the widespread use of these guidelines by appropriate management bodies and arrangements (at national, and/or regional, and/or international levels).

The results of the Consultation will be submitted for adoption by COFI at its next session in February 1999.

It is expected that the Plan of Action will be addressed to FAO Members and to international fisheries management organizations or arrangements. It is foreseen that it would contain strategies aiming to:

(i) strengthen the availability of information on shark stocks and shark fisheries globally;

(ii) indicate priorities for how to allocate public resources to secure the minimum, essential information required for management of shark fisheries;

(iii) develop a global approach (for national governments, regional and international management organizations) in addressing global priority issues in conservation and management of sharks, including the reduction of discards where practicable; and

(iv) monitor the implementation of shark fishery management.

The issue of shark conservation and management is related to the CCSBT�s are of competence and is to be considered by the Commission�s ERSWG. Future action by the CCSBT will take into account advice provided by the Working Group.

With respect to the conservation and management of sharks, OLDEPESCA does not have a specific programme of work in this area. However, the issue is seen by Members of the Organization as being a general manner within the context of trade and the environment issues.

CPPS has reported that the conservation and management of sharks does not warrant a special programme within the Commission in view of the small quantities of sharks harvested. Nonetheless, the Commission recognizes the importance of the shark fishery for artisanal fishers.

Shark management and conservation has not been addressed by NAFO.

NASCO has stated that it was established to contribute to the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of Atlantic salmon and the issue of shark conservation and management is not within the Organization�s area of competence.

IBSFC has advised that there are no sharks in the Commission�s Convention Area.

Pursuant to the initiatives announced at COFI in March 1997, FAO is organizing a Consultation on the Management of Fishing Capacity, Shark Fisheries and the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries to be held at FAO Headquarters in Rome from 26 to 30 October 1998.

The purpose of the Consultation is for FAO Members to consider and if possible approve the plans of action for the management of shark fisheries and the reduction of incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries, as well as the plan of action or an alternative document for management of fishing capacity. Relevant Inter-Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations will be invited to attend the Consultation as observers in accordance with FAO practice.

At the request of a number of FAO Members, a Preparatory Meeting will be held in Rome from 22 to 24 July 1998. This meeting will consider a paper prepared by the Secretariat in which key elements for a Declaration and/or Plan of Action are outlined. The outcome of this meeting will provide an input to the Consultation in October 1998.

In preparation for the October Consultation, FAO convened a meeting of a Technical Working Group on the management of fishing capacity. The Group, consisting of 35 independent experts, met from 15 to 18 April in La Jolla, California, USA and reviewed:

(i) the various issues related to measurement and monitoring;

(ii) management and reduction methods;

(iii) broader policy and institutional considerations; and

(iv) specific high seas aspects.

The Technical Working Group emphasized the timeliness of this meeting and stressed the crucial need for countries and the international community at large to urgently take steps to address and prevent overcapacity (over-capitalisation) as recommended by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Group produced a wide consensus on the need to:

(i) develop more appropriate measurement methods and monitoring mechanisms, including fishing vessel registry;

(ii) give far greater emphasis to fleet monitoring and the assessment of fleet dynamics;

(iii) adopt policies which clearly specify access conditions;

(iv) give a greater priority to management methods aiming at adjusting rather than blocking the pervasive tendency for overfishing and over-investment resulting from open access conditions;

(v) reassess and strengthen management methods used and implementation procedure, in recognition that the applicability of available management methods would nevertheless remain situation specific; and

(vi) approach the reduction of fishing capacity with care, avoiding spillover effects and carefully controlling the induced effects of scrapping programmes.

The Working Group also provided guidance and made a number of recommendations to better address and tackle the issues within national jurisdictions. The Group recognized that the high seas may be confronted with an even greater over-capitalisation problem than EEZ fisheries due to the prevalence of rather open access conditions and the fact that there are at present no internationally agreed measure to cause States to control fishing capacity. It recommended that the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the Compliance Agreement be, respectively, urgently ratified and accepted.

The Group further suggested that complementary measures would be required, aiming in particular at:

(i) improving monitoring mechanisms for high seas fleets;

(ii) strengthening and empowering regional fishery organizations;

(iii) creating new organizations to ensure full coverage of the resource concerned;

(iv) controlling the disposal (�dumping�) of excess national capacity in general, and of older vessels to developing countries in particular; and

(v) addressing the growing importance of flags of convenience.

Finally, the Working Group felt that much more research work and institutional building efforts were still required at both national and international levels to improve present capacities to properly address the many issues pertaining to the effective control and reduction of fishing capacity.

CCSBT has advised that the main conservation and management strategy adopted by the Commission is the setting and allocation of quotas. Fleet capacity has been raised in discussion within the Commission as there are concerns that the southern bluefin resources may not be able to sustain the current level of fishing effort by Member and non-member fleets.

IBSFC has stated that fleet capacity management is handled by the Contracting parties and not be the Commission.

OLDEPESCA has noted that it does not have competence in the area of fleet management.

CPPS has stated that with respect to fleet capacity management that the Commission does not have information on large-scale pelagic drift-net fleets but that both industrial and artisanal fleets in CPPS�s area of competence are subject to management.

6.29 The Commission noted the intersessional work by the Working Group on Incidental Mortality Arising from Longline Fishing (wg-imalf) and the Secretariat on incidental mortality in longline fisheries in 1996/97 (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraphs 4.36 to 4.41) and their plans for intersessional work in 1997/98 (sc-camlr-xvi paragraphs 4.38, 4.40, 4.51, 4.58, 4.66).

6.30 In particular, the Commission endorsed the reciprocal observership for the 1998 meetings of CCSBT Ecosystem and Related Species Working Group (ccsbt-erswg) and CCAMLR WG-FSA, and the provision of data to CCSBT on longline fishing effort for Dissostichus spp. fisheries to be used in modeling of the potential impact of longline fisheries on seabirds in the southern oceans (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.39).

6.31 The Commission also noted the comments and endorsed the recommendations of the Scientific Committee with respect to interactions with the secretariats of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (cms) and the Convention of Biodiversity (cbd) of ccamlr�s work in relation to albatross conservation (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraphs 4.41 and 4.42).

6.32 Australia indicated that, in respect of the listing of albatrosses on the appendices of the cms, it is planning to take a lead role in developing a regional agreement with the southern hemisphere range states for conservation of albatrosses in the southern hemisphere. The Commission encouraged Australia in this initiative.

6.33 As part of the CCAMLR campaign for the prevention of incidental mortality of seabirds in longline fisheries, the book Fish the Sea Not the Sky was published in 1996. The Commission noted the Secretariat�s report on the distribution of the book (CCAMLR-XVI/BG/23) and that it was considered in detail by the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XVI, Annex 5, paragraphs 7.8 to 7.12).

6.34 The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Scientific Committee that the Secretariat should send copies of the ccamlr book Fish the Sea Not the Sky to companies believed to be engaged in longline fishing in the Convention Area and adjacent regions, with the request that additional copies of the booklet be obtained from ccamlr and placed on board all their vessels (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.37). Members were asked to advise the Secretariat, through national technical coordinators of observer programmes, of the names and addresses of fishing companies of their countries which operate in the Convention Area.

6.35 Brazil informed the Commission that it was undertaking a translation into Portuguese of Fish the Sea Not the Sky and would be distributing this widely. This initiative was welcomed by the Commission.

6.36 In accordance with the decision of the Commission (ccamlr-xv, paragraph 5.47), a flier and sticker to promote the message of the book were prepared. The Commission approved mock-ups of the flier and sticker which will be published in 1998 within the budget allocation for 1998.

6.37 The Commission considered the advice of the Scientific Committee on assessment and avoidance of incidental mortality of marine animals during longline fishing operations (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraphs 4.43 to 4.67). It noted that the advice was based partly on intersessional work undertaken by wg-imalf and mainly on detailed assessments during wg-fsa based on data and reports provided by ccamlr scientific observers on longline fishing vessels (sc-camlr-xvi, Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.148).

6.38 The Commission welcomed the improvement in the quality and quantity of data and the quality of the reports provided by the scientific observers (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraph 4.44).

6.39 The Commission noted the advice of the Scientific Committee that no improvement could be made to the assessment of incidental mortality of seabirds from longline fisheries for D. eleginoides operating in the Convention Area in 1995/96. The estimated total seabird mortality remained at about 1 600 birds in Subarea 48.3 (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraph 4.43).

6.40 For the 1997 season the Commission noted the report of the Scientific Committee (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraphs 4.48 to 4.50), that:

(i) the estimated total of seabird mortality in longline fisheries for D. eleginoides in Subareas 48.3 and 58.6/58.7 was 5 755 and 879 birds, respectively;

(ii) the species mainly affected in the two areas were albatrosses (40% black-browed albatross in Subarea 48.3; 23% grey-headed/yellow-nosed albatrosses in Subareas 58.6/58.7) and white-chinned petrels (48% in Subarea 48.3; 73% in Subareas 58.6/58.7).

6.41 The Commission expressed concern at the number of seabirds killed in the Convention Area this year in the regulated fishery and noted that these included albatrosses of species classified as globally threatened.

6.42 It noted with concern that in 1996/97 there had been generally poor compliance with the provisions of Conservation Measure 29/xv, especially in respect of the use of streamer lines and discharge of offal but also with respect to night-time setting in Subareas 58.6/58.7.

6.43 The Commission noted a number of suggestions from the Scientific Committee on the improvement of compliance with Conservation Measure 29/XV, which include education and training in respect of ccamlr conservation measures, access to the fishery on conditions of full compliance with conservation measures and in-port inspection of fishing vessels in order to ensure that they fully understand all relevant ccamlr conservation measures, that they possess streamer lines of ccamlr specification and that they can comply in full with offal discharge requirements (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.52).

6.44 In respect of improving education and training of fishing companies, vessel captains, fishing masters, crew and scientific observers, in relation to the use of measures to reduce by-catch of seabirds in longline fisheries, the Commission urged Members to collaborate in these initiatives, and to seek international support of them.

6.45 The Commission remitted the other suggestions in paragraph 6.43 above to scoi for consideration next year.

6.46 The Commission noted the unanimous recommendation of the Scientific Committee that, from the perspective of achieving a significant reduction in seabird by-catch, the start of the longline fishing season in the Convention Area should be delayed until after 1 May (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.61). It agreed that the implications and application of this advice should be considered, in conjunction with the advice on fishing seasons in relation to new and exploratory fisheries, under the agenda item dealing with the consideration of conservation measures (paragraphs 9.20 to 9.22).

6.47 It was re-emphasised that this recommendation of the Scientific Committee had not taken into account fishery operational considerations and potential measures to combat unregulated fishing.

6.48 The Commission endorsed the advice of the Scientific Committee relating to the potential revision of footnotes to Conservation Measure 29/xv (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraph 4.65).

6.49 At this time it was noted that paragraph 3 of Conservation Measure 29/XV needed revision to remove inconsistencies; it was also agreed to try to improve the requirements of this paragraph in relation to offal discharge.

6.50 The European Community expressed concern with the procedure followed in regard to this conservation measure. It believed it would have been preferable for additional information to have been gathered, including from fishing companies. Nevertheless, and in the overriding interest of protecting bird populations, the Community concurred with the revised Conservation Measure 29/xvi.

6.51 The Commission noted and encouraged the initiatives of Norway and New Zealand in investigating devices for underwater setting of longlines and requested Members to report on the use of such devices. It endorsed the advice of the Scientific Committee that the use of devices enabling longlines to be set underwater may in future enable vessels to avoid restrictions to fishing seasons and also restrictions imposed by Conservation Measure 29/XV (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraphs 4.67 and 9.80).

6.52 The Commission noted that the Scientific Committee had tried to estimate the incidental mortality of seabird in unregulated fisheries for D. eleginoides in the Convention Area. They expressed great concern that, even at a conservative estimate of 16 500 to 26 800 seabirds, the level of seabird by-catch in the unregulated fishery for D. eleginoides in Subareas 58.6/58.7 (and probably also in Divisions 58.5.1 and 58.5.2) in 1996/97 was at least 20-times greater than that for the regulated fishery. They noted the Scientific Committee advice that the impact on white-chinned petrels and albatrosses is entirely unsustainable for the populations concerned (including those of at least two globally threatened species) � principally those at breeding sites in the Indian Ocean (Prince Edward Islands, Crozet, Kerguelen, Heard/McDonald Islands) (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.54).

6.53 It was noted that the values given above were based on the assumption that the estimated rate of seabird by-catch in the unregulated fishery in Subareas 58.6 and 58.7 was the same as that in the regulated fishery in these subareas. This was agreed to be a highly conservative assumption; it was noted that the alternative assumption � that the by-catch in the unregulated fishery is at a level equivalent to the highest rate observed in the regulated fishery in Subareas 58.6 and 58.7 in 1997 � gives estimates of by-catch of 66 000 to 107 000 seabirds.

6.54 The Commission agreed that the strongest possible action should be taken to eliminate unregulated fishing, which is likely to cause the collapse of the populations of several species of albatross and of white-chinned petrels (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.55).

6.55 The Commission also urged those responsible for regulating longline fishing in the areas immediately to the north of the Convention Area adjacent to Subareas 48.3 and 48.6, Division 58.5.1 and Subareas 58.6, 58.7 and 88.1 to adopt the provisions of Conservation Measure 29/xv and to consider restricting the fishing season to periods outside the main breeding season of albatrosses and petrels (SC-CAMLR-XVI, paragraph 4.59).

6.56 Japan wished to reiterate its reservation that, although it shares the concern expressed in the preceding paragraph, the Commission should be cautious in addressing issues which do not fall into its competence (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraph 4.60).

6.57 New Zealand noted that in the New Zealand eez, night setting and seasonal closures are being evaluated along with other possible mitigation measures including, as the Scientific Committee noted (sc-camlr-xvi, paragraph 4.66), underwater setting devices. New Zealand intends to report to ccamlr next year on the outcomes of the work in the New Zealand eez.

6.58 Australia reported that it had listed, in July 1995, the incidental catch (or by-catch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations as a key threatening process on schedule 3 of its Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. This listing requires the preparation of a Threat Abatement Plan currently being developed in consultation with the fishing industry, non-government conservation organization, scientists and government conservation and fisheries management agencies. The plan, which will reduce the threat to seabirds in the Australian Fishing Zone, should be available for public comment by December 1997.

6.59 The Commission also noted information reported to the Scientific Committee by scientific observers (sc-camlr-xvi, Annex 5, paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2). In particular, three fur seals became entangled and drowned during the August cruise of Ercilla (Chile) in Subarea 48.3. Three other fur seals were entangled but were able to free themselves. South Africa�s observers also reported that in Subareas 58.6 and 58.7, two sperm whales and one minke whale became entangled in longlines, but broke free.

4.43 The Scientific Committee noted that it had been impossible to improve the analysis and conclusions from the 1996 data during the intersessional period because few additional relevant data had been submitted (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.33 to 7.36); the minimum total estimated seabird mortality associated with longline fishing in the Convention Area in 1995/96 was therefore still about 1 600 birds (all in Subarea 48.3).

4.44 The Scientific Committee noted substantial improvements in the quality and quantity of data submitted in 1997 and in the quality of the reports of scientific observers (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.38 and 7.40). There were, however, still some problems with the late submission of data and reports (Annex 5, paragraph 7.39).

4.45 It was recognised, however, that with the fishing season for Dissostichus extending into late August and some scientific observers spending most of the period from March to August at sea, it was often difficult to get reports to ccamlr in advance of the start of the wg-fsa meeting.

4.46 While it was agreed that priority attention should in future be given to data from within the July�June split-year (other data being processed and analysed as time permitted), it was noted that:

(i) monthly reporting of incidental mortality is required under Conservation Measure 117/xv; and

(ii) the prompt transmission to the Secretariat of C2 forms would enable substantial work to be done before the wg-fsa meeting and in advance of receiving reports from scientific observers.

4.47 In reviewing data for 1997, the Scientific Committee noted that no data are available from the unregulated vessels longlining in the Convention Area. Such unregulated fishing will add substantially to incidental seabird mortality (see paragraph 4.54).

4.48 In reviewing the results of the analysis by wg-fsa of the 1997 data on seabird incidental mortality in Subarea 48.3 (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.45 to 7.58), the Scientific Committee noted that:

(i) in respect of Conservation Measure 29/XV there was:

(a) much improvement (compared with 1996) in night-time settings (Annex 5, paragraph 7.51);

(b) poor compliance with the requirement to use streamer lines (Annex 5, paragraph 7.52);

(c) poor compliance with the requirement to discharge offal on the opposite side to the haul (Annex 5, paragraph 7.53);

(ii) rates of seabird by-catch for most cruises/vessels were broadly similar to last year, but a few cruises gave higher values, resulting in a minimum (see Annex 5, paragraphs 7.80 and 7.81) estimated total mortality of 5 755 seabirds this year, considerably higher than last year (1 618 seabirds);

(iii) much of this seabird mortality reflects a lack of compliance with Conservation Measure 29/xv; some elements, however, were less easy to explain; and

(iv) the species involved are principally black-browed albatross (40%; mainly caught during the day and twilight) and white-chinned petrel (48%; caught both during the day and at night � the latter when the use of streamer lines was minimal throughout the fishery).

4.49 The Scientific Committee noted that the single set of data available for Division 58.5.1 (from two Ukrainian vessels) (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.62 to 7.64) indicated that the seabird by-catch rate was substantially reduced once night-time setting was implemented.

4.50 In relation to Subarea 58.6 (outside the waters adjacent to the Crozet Islands) and Subarea 58.7 (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.65 to 7.79), the Scientific Committee noted that:

(i) in respect of Conservation Measure 29/XV there was:

(a) poor compliance with the requirement to set at night, with 55% of sets in daytime (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.67 and 7.73);

(b) poor compliance with the requirement to use streamer lines (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.71 and 7.74);

(c) evidence that about half the vessels discharged offal on the same side as the haul (Annex 5, paragraph 7.75);

(ii) rates of seabird by-catch averaged 0.289 birds per thousand hooks, probably largely reflecting a lack of compliance with Conservation Measure 29/xv, resulting in a minimum (see Annex 5, paragraphs 7.80 and 7.81) total estimated seabird mortality of 879 seabirds;

(iii) catch rates:

(a) at night, were an order of magnitude less than during the day (0.012 and 0.138 birds per thousand hooks respectively);

(b) were 40-fold greater in October to April than in May to June (0.363 and 0.009 birds per thousand hooks respectively);

(c) of species other than white-chinned petrel, within 100 km of the Prince Edward Islands were six-times greater than between 100 and 200 km from these islands; and

(iv) species mainly affected were white-chinned petrels (73%) and grey-headed/ yellow-nosed albatrosses (23%) � the two albatrosses both threatened species.

4.51 The Scientific Committee noted various requirements for intersessional work, especially for the Scientific Observer Data Analyst to complete entry and analysis of some data (particularly for Subareas 58.6 and 58.7) and to resolve any discrepancies in the data with those who submitted or collected it (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.42, 7.44, 7.56 and 7.60).

4.52 In reviewing the results of the analysis of the 1997 data on incidental mortality of seabirds in the Convention Area, the Scientific Committee expressed serious concern at the poor level of compliance with Conservation Measure 29/xv. It drew the attention of the Commission to a number of suggestions that were made as to how better compliance with this conservation measure might be achieved:

(i) improved education of fishing companies, vessel captains, fishing masters and crew (see Annex 5, paragraph 7.133). It was noted that the circulation of Fish the Sea Not the Sky was intended to assist in this (paragraph 4.38(ii)). Prof. C. Moreno (Chile) noted that in 1996, when a special course was held in Chile for captains of longline fishing vessels, compliance with the Conservation Measure 29/xv had been good and seabird mortality much reduced compared with 1997, when it had not been possible to hold the course.

There was general support for encouraging Members of the Commission to seek international support for improving their training of captains, fishing masters and observers in respect of the use of measures to reduce by-catch of seabirds in longline fisheries;

(ii) preferential access to the fishery of vessels which have a good record of compliance with relevant ccamlr conservation measures;

(iii) access to the fishery only of vessels which are able to comply fully with ccamlr conservation measures (e.g. constructed so as to allow offal to be discharged on the opposite side to the haul).

It had apparently been claimed that there were technical and/or financial constraints which precluded some vessels complying with this element of Conservation Measure 29/xv. It was agreed that Members should request more explicit information on this topic from fishing companies. In the meantime, the Scientific Committee took the view that failure to make provision for offal discharge in order to comply with Conservation Measure 29/xv should preclude such vessels from fishing in the Convention Area; and

(iv) in-port inspection prior to the departure of vessels for fishing grounds to ensure that they fully understand all relevant ccamlr conservation measures, that they possess Tori poles and streamer lines of ccamlr specification and that they can comply in full with offal discharge requirements.

4.53 It was noted, however, that in-port inspections prior to the departure of vessels could be difficult to achieve for Members with fleets operating in distant waters which rarely returned to their home ports.

4.54 The Scientific Committee noted that, even at a conservative estimate of 16 500 to 26 800 seabirds, the level of seabird by-catch in the unregulated fishery for D. eleginoides in Subareas 58.6/58.7 (and probably also in Divisions 58.5.1 and 58.5.2) in 1996/97 was at least 20 times greater than that for the regulated fishery (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.85 to 7.94). Its impact on white-chinned petrels and albatrosses is entirely unsustainable (Annex 5, paragraph 7.95) for the populations concerned (including those of at least two globally threatened species) � principally those at breeding sites in the Indian Ocean (Prince Edward Islands, Crozet, Kerguelen, Heard/McDonald Islands) (Annex 5, paragraph 7.95).

4.55 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Commission take the strongest possible action to eliminate unregulated fishing (Annex 5, paragraph 7.96). Those responsible for undertaking unregulated fishing in the Convention Area are simultaneously causing the likely collapse of the populations of several species of albatross and of white-chinned petrels, as well as the potential collapse of the Dissostichus stocks.

A. Quotas

5. Incidental Catch Limits

(a) Vessels of a Contracting Party shall limit their incidental catch to a maximum of 2,500 kg or 10%, whichever is the greater, for each species listed in Schedule 1 for which no quota has been allocated in that division to that Contracting Party.

(b) In cases where a ban on fishing is in force or an "Others" quota has been fully utilized, incidental catches of the species concerned may not exceed 1.250 kg or 5%, whichever is the greater.

(c) The percentage above are calculated as the percentage, by weight, for each species of the total catch retained on board.

C. Recording of Catch

4. In order to assess the effects of cod by-catches in the redfish and flatfish fisheries:

(a) statistics on discards of cod taken in the redfish and flatfish fisheries on the Flemish Cap, shall be collected for the two components separately, with depth information accompanying each sample.

5. In order to secure advice on areal and seasonal concentrations of juvenile American plaice and yellowtail flounder in Div. 3LNO in the Regulatory Area:

(a) A Contracting Party shall provide nominal catch and discard statistics, broken down on as fine a scale as possible, preferably by unit areas no larger than 1 degree latitude and 1 degree longitude, summarized on a monthly basis.

(b) Length sampling, shall be enhanced for both nominal catches and discards, with a sampling intensity on the same scale as adopted in (a) above and summarized on a monthly basis.

D. Minimum Fish Size*

1. Vessels of a Contracting Party shall not retain on board any fish of a species listed in Part V, Schedule VII that is below the minimum size as listed in that Schedule VII that is below the minimum size as listed in that Schedule. If the amount of undersized fish in any one haul exceeds 10% by number, the vessel shall immediately change fishing area (minimum 5 nautical miles) in order to seek to avoid further catches of undersized fish.

2. Undersized fish shall not be processed, transhipped, landed, transported, stored, displayed or offered for sale, but shall be returned immediately to the sea.* Any processed fish of a species for which a minimum fish size is listed in Part V, Schedule VII that is below a length equivalent in this Schedule, shall be deemed to originate from fish that is below the minimum fish size.

*Note: Canadian vessels will abide (until further decision by the Fisheries Commission) by their equivalent national regulation which requires landing of all catches.