ORIGINS AND PURPOSE OF REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES

Article 1, paragraph 3 of the United Nations Charter provides that one of the purposes of the United Nations is:

"To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character ..."

As contemporary international relations are marked by a division between wealthy, developed States and a majority of weak, developing States, cooperation is needed to address inequities and fulfil the provisions of the world order envisaged by international agreements such as the United Nations Charter. Kwiatkowska describes such references as providing a "general duty of states to cooperate with one another."

Cooperation is also a prominent theme in the 1982 Convention. Here, provisions articulate specific obligations to cooperate on a variety of subjects, including, inter alia, the conservation and management EEZ and high seas fisheries. Further, Articles 61 and 119 of the 1982 Convention elaborate on the duty to cooperate by specifically providing for cooperation through competent sub-regional, regional or global organizations. In fact, this notion of international cooperation is the fundamental philosophy underpinning the existence of RFBs. That is, States will cooperate in order to address regional fishery issues at the scientific, administrative, advisory and/or managerial level (depending on the mandate).

Since the 1970s, and probably as a result of negotiations within the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, there has been a recognizable trend towards institutional cooperation at the regional level. Writing in 1978, Alexander observed that:

"Marine regionalism is more than a "second best" alternative when unilateral or global measures are inappropriate. Increasingly it is developing a rationale and methodology of its own, ...This is particularly true with respect to fisheries conservation and management, and to environmental protection, but the trend is toward regional approaches to other activities, such as marine scientific research, shipping, and education and training...With the increase in regional action by countries with respect to economic and cultural action, including resource development, new forces are emerging to reinforce the regional consciousness of countries."

Within a RFB, States may cooperate to achieve a variety of objectives. These include, inter alia:

• conservation, management, and/or development of living marine resources;
• to protect the special interests of States (within or outside the region);
• to provide a framework for collecting and assessing data;
• to allocate catch quotas;
• to acquire better scientific and/or technical knowledge on stocks and gear; and
• to formalize dispute settlement mechanisms.

It is necessary to note that a technical distinction exists between RFBs and regional fishery arrangements. However, for the purposes of this report, the broad definition offered by FAO in the 1998 Text of Documents Placed Before the High Level Panel of External Experts in Fisheries, will be adopted. This is that the term RFB refers to:

"a mechanism through which three or more States or international organizations that are parties to any international fishery agreement or arrangement collaboratively engage each other in multilateral management of fisheries affairs related to transboundary, straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, through the collection and provision of scientific information and data, serving as a technical and policy forum, or taking decisions pertaining to the development and conservation, management and responsible utilization of the resources. It also refers to fisheries organizations that are charged with the production of scientific information to other bodies responsible for management. A RFB in other words is the instrument for fishery governance at the regional level. Such a body may be concerned with a single species or a group of closely related species or a whole range of species as well as the affiliated aspects of fisheries in a defined region or sub-region." In this paper, a few bilateral arrangements have been included in the review.

By this definition the first recorded RFB, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) dates from 1902. This was followed by the establishment of the International Whaling Commission in 1949, the General Fishery Council (Commission) for the Mediterranean in 1949, the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission in 1979. The nineteenth century had brought enormous changes to the European fishing industry including the advent of trawler fishing, the substitution of steam vessels for sailing ones, the use of ice for preserving fish on board vessels, and as a result of these technological changes, the period also saw the first evidence of depletion of fishery stocks. The North Sea was the first region to experience intensive exploitation of fishery resources and ICES was created as an intergovernmental marine organization for scientific study of the sea and its resources. Article 1 of the 1964 ICES Convention formally identifies the Council’s principal functions as:

• to promote and encourage research and investigations for the study of the sea particularly related to the living resources thereof;
• to draw up programmes required for this purpose and to organise, in agreement with the Contracting Parties, such research and investigations as may appear necessary;
• to publish and otherwise disseminate the results of research and investigations carried out under its auspices or to encourage the publication thereof.

In addition, since the 1970s a major task for ICES has involved the provision of scientific information and advice to intergovernmental regulatory commissions, the European Commission, and the governments of ICES Member Countries, for purposes of fishery conservation and the protection of the marine environment.

Following the establishment of ICES, other RFBs were established, and as with ICES, they concentrated their efforts on conservation of fishery resources by generating scientific information and promoting scientific cooperation. Such bodies included the International Commission for Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (1919) and the North American Council for Fishery Investigations (1920).

In the post World War II, United Nations era, there has been a significant increase in the number of RFBs, and in general, the new bodies have had mandates which exceed those assigned to the early twentieth century bodies. This development led to FAO classifying RFBs into three phases of the twentieth century: the pre-United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) period 1902-1950, the Law of the Sea negotiating period 1951-1982, and the post-Third UNCLOS period.

FAO was constituted as a Specialized Agency of the United Nations in October 1945, when its Constitution came into force. Twenty years later, FAO established a Fisheries Department which is oriented toward the living resources of the ocean and fresh water. Within the UN system, FAO has the mandate to collect, analyze, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture. This includes fisheries and marine products. The Constitution goes on to provide that the Organization shall promote and, where appropriate, recommend national and international action with respect to, inter alia, conservation of natural resources; and scientific, technological, social and economic research, the improvement of education and administration, and the spread of public knowledge, as these subjects relate to nutrition and food.

Under FAO auspices, there are nine RFBs. The fundamental difference between FAO and non-FAO RFBs is that admission by non-coastal States to several non-FAO bodies is restricted. FAO bodies are open to all Members without exclusion. Most FAO bodies operate in tropical and sub-tropical areas, and, with the exception of the European Inland Fishery Advisory Commission (EIFAC), the majority of members are developing States. The nine FAO RFBs are:

• Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC)
• General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
• European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC)
• Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)
• Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)
• Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA)
• Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)
• Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL)
• Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

The FAO RFBs have been established in accordance with the provisions of either Article VI or Article XIV of the FAO Constitution.

Article VI(1) allows the Conference or Council to establish commissions or regional commissions "to advise on the formulation and implementation of policy and to coordinate the implementation of policy". Thus the bodies are advisory, and cannot perform any direct management functions. The Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, the Regional Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic, the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, and the Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America, were all established under this provision. Similarly Article VI(2) provides that the FAO Conference, Council or Director-General may establish committees and working parties to "study and report on matters pertaining to the purpose of the Organization." WECAFC and the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa, were established by Council Resolutions under this provision. Marashi notes that:

"The FAO regional bodies established under Article VI of the Constitution are all dependent on the organization for financial and secretariat support. None has an autonomous budget and their expenses are met by the Organization’s Regular Programme and ad hoc voluntary contributions by member States. The terms of reference and reporting procedures of these bodies are determined by the Conference or Council. Within the specific mandates provided in Article VI of the Constitution, the commissions or committees established under this Article can only perform advisory functions."

In addition to Article VI regional bodies, the FAO Constitution also allows for Article XIV regional bodies. Here, the Conference can, by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, approve and submit to Members conventions and agreements concerning questions relating to food and agriculture. This includes agreements which are of particular interest to Members of geographical areas specified in such agreements and designed to apply only to such areas. Marashi notes:

"Article XIV agreements, though adopted within the framework of the FAO Constitution, have a legal life of their own. They can therefore provide for different and greater contractual obligations among the parties thereto that extend beyond the obligations already assumed under the FAO Constitution."

FAO RFBs established under Article XIV are APFIC, GFCM and IOTC. The Agreements establishing these bodies provide the opportunity for a more interventionist role in fishery conservation and management.

Thus, Article IV of the Agreement establishing APFIC provides a broad mandate for the Commission in respect of the management of fisheries. The body performs its function by formulating and recommending measures, and initiating and carrying out programmes or projects to conserve and manage resources.

Similarly, Article III of GFCM Agreement gives the Commission a mandate to formulate and recommend measures for the conservation and management of living marine resources which could include regulating fishing methods and fishing gear, prescribing minimum sizes for individual species, establishing fishing seasons and areas, and regulating total catch and effort by allocation amongst members.

Finally, the Agreement establishing IOTC gives the Commission the power to adopt by a two thirds majority of the Members present and voting, regulatory measures. As the most recent of FAO RFBs, the IOTC Agreement goes a step further and provides that members must take action, under their national legislation to, inter alia, implement conservation and management measures which have become binding.

Thus, in theory, the difference between Article VI and Article XIV FAO RFBs is that whereas the former are advisory, the latter can move beyond mere advice, and be regulatory in addressing the serious issues of conservation and management of stocks. In fact, the Report of the Twenty-first Session of the Committee on Fisheries, held from 10-13 March 1995 provides:

"The Committee noted that many of the existing FAO RFBs were established under Article VI of the FAO Constitution and had only limited advisory powers. If effective regional fisheries conservation and management bodies, are to be established within the constitutional framework of FAO, then agreements under Article XIV of the Constitution could provide for a more appropriate structure, with the necessary decision-making powers and flexibility."

Having said this, it can be argued that the effectiveness of both Article VI and Article XIV regional bodies, depends more on the political will of Members to act for conservation and management than on the prescribed mandate within the various establishing agreements. For example, CECAF, an Article VI(2) RFB, has a historical tradition of being proactive in the carrying out of stock assessments, and making recommendations with regard to sustainable fishing practices. In contrast, Article XIV RFBs, despite having wider mandates, can be seen as lacking the political will to address serious conservation and management issues. This matter was raised by the Committee on Fisheries at the twenty-second Session held in Rome from 17-20 March 1997 which said of Article XIV RFBs that:

"They have stronger management mandates which have however been exercised infrequently to date and most of their activities have been of an advisory nature, including the elaboration of management advice and recommendations for consideration and implementation by their members (except for GFCM which adopted a common mesh size regulation following objection procedures and has recently adopted other management measures for tuna, based on those adopted by ICCAT under the same procedures). None of the FAO RFBs, whether established under Article VI or Article XIV, has yet exercised the sensitive and essentially practical functions of fisheries management such as limitation of access, allocation of effort or catch quotas, monitoring, control and surveillance, enforcement and dispute settlement."

Apart from Members political will, there is also a notable difference between RFBs with a clearly dynamic secretariat and those without. Particularly in the case of FAO RFBs, Secretariat staffing can present problems where limited personnel are required to undertake a range of activities in addition to their normal roles.

For the purposes of this report, six FAO RFBs (that is, three Article VI bodies, and three Article XIV bodies) have been selected with a view to reviewing their mandate, functions, and degree of implementation of the provisions that comprise the contemporary international law of marine capture fisheries. This excludes the non-operational CARPAS and the various Inland Fisheries Commissions. The six FAO bodies are:

• General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
• Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC)
• Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)
• Fishery Committee for Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)
• Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)
• Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

Area of Competence: Asia-Pacific area

Terms of Reference:

To promote the full and proper utilization of living aquatic resources by the development and management of fishing and culture operations and by the development of related processing and marketing activities in conformity with the objectives of its members. Article IV of the Agreement lists the functions as inter alia:

• to keep under review the state of resources, the industries based on the resources, the economic and social aspects of fishing and aquaculture industries;
• to formulate and recommend measures, programmes and/or projects to increase efficiency and sustainable productivity of fisheries and aquaculture, conserve and manage resources, protect resources from pollution;
• to encourage, recommend, coordinate, and, as appropriate, undertake training, research and development in all aspects of fisheries;
• to assemble, publish or otherwise disseminate information regarding the living aquatic resources and fisheries; and
• to carry out such other activities as may be necessary for the Commission to achieve its purpose.

Current Membership:

Australia Japan Philippines

Bangladesh Korea, Republic of Sri Lanka

Cambodia Malaysia Thailand

China, People’s Republic of Myanmar, Union of United Kingdom

France Nepal United States of America

India New Zealand Vietnam

Indonesia Pakistan

Membership of the Commission is open to all Members and Associate Members of FAO. Other States that are Members of the United Nations, any of its specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted as members by a two-thirds majority of the Commission’s members.

Members make no direct financial contribution, but they provide expenses for their delegations to attend Sessions in accordance with Article VIII.1 of the APFIC Agreement. Participation by developing States is encouraged by the conducting of events such as an APFIC Symposium to be held as part of the APFIC Session. Here, States are invited to prepare and present reports on their status and problems relating to specific issues. It is intended that this will lead to the formulation of projects when and where appropriate. The main constraints against wider participation in the work of APFIC are either lack of interest, or change of policy by developed States Members such as France and the United Kingdom (due to the changed status of Indochina and Hong Kong), the United States of America (which is less involved in the Western Pacific), and Australia and New Zealand, (which are giving more emphasis to the South Pacific region).

Current Considerations:

The Report of the Sixty-seventh Session of the Executive Committee of the Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission held in Bangkok from 10-12 June 1998 describes current issues which are of concern to the region, its marine fisheries and aquaculture.

Paragraph 8 of the Report notes that while the total fishery production had been increasing during the last decade, marine fishery production showed a slower rate of increase with an average of 2.2 percent per year during the 1990-1995 period. Furthermore, as fisheries in most coastal waters in the region were fully exploited or overexploited, and only a few Asian countries operated in the high seas, the marine fishery production in the region might reach a plateau in the near future.

Paragraph 17 recognizes the lack of timely management measures in most fisheries derived from lack of accurate fishery statistics and resource appraisal to formulate management options. Moreover, management of transboundary and shared fish stocks would require joint effort among countries concerned to develop management actions that are compatible with those of the resources within national jurisdictions. The paragraph also notes that in order to promote responsible fisheries, fishers should be informed and cooperate in implementing the Code of Conduct. These management measures should be enforced through proper legislative and institutional mechanisms to ensure compliance.

Paragraph 18 notes that some Members of the Committee suggested that APFIC should look into fisheries management frameworks in various sub-regions, such as the South China Sea, the Yellow Sea, and the Bay of Bengal, in order to assist the countries concerned to formulate appropriate management options in these areas.

Regarding the future directions of APFIC, the Executive Committee expressed grave concerns over the unsustainable use of fishery resources in the region; reduction of support from FAO (Resolution 13/97 adopted by the 29th Session of the FAO Conference in November 1997), lack of commitment on the part of the Members, including lack of active participation in the work of APFIC and reluctance to make financial contributions.

The Committee stressed that when these issues had been discussed in the past, no resolution had been reached due to lack of commitment from the Members. Paragraph 25 states that:

"APFIC is not only paralyzed, but also its existence is under threat."

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Attempts are being made to improve data collection and to establish databases on fishery information. Once established, data supply would be required from all Members in order to review the current status of resources and fisheries. The main current constraints to strengthening data supply and disclosure by reporting, disseminating and distributing at both the sub-regional and regional level, are lack of funding, and lack of skilled personnel.

Article XIV of the APFIC Agreement provides that any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the Agreement, if not settled by the Commission, shall be referred to a Committee comprised of one member appointed by each of the parties to the dispute, plus an independent Chairman chosen by the members of the Committee. The recommendation of this Committee is not binding but it shall become the basis for any renewed consideration by the parties. If, as a result of this process, the dispute is not settled, it may be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties can agree on another method of dispute settlement.

Future Role:

The Executive Committee agreed that the vision for APFIC in the next century was clearly to ensure the sustainable contribution of fisheries to food security and the economies of its member countries. To fulfil this vision, the urgent mission of the Commission was to help accelerate self-reliance of its Members in the conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources. This would necessitate the implementation of programmes of action to be undertaken with close regional cooperation. These programmes of action are:

• collection, dissemination and exchange of fishery information and statistics;
• development of national fishery policies towards attaining the sustainability of fisheries and fishery resources;
• marine fisheries management and related research;
• development of responsible aquaculture, with increased emphasis on rural aquaculture development and the development of culture-based fisheries; and
• acceleration of the transfer of appropriate technology and capacity building in the fisheries sector.

Area of Competence: Mediterranean, Black Sea and connecting waters.

Terms of Reference:

"The purpose of the Commission shall be to promote the development, conservation, rational management and best utilization of living marine resources as well as the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Region, and to these ends it shall have the following functions and responsibilities:

1. to keep under review the state of these resources, including tehir abundance and the level of their exploitation;
2. to formulate and recommend, in accordance with the provisions of Article V, appropriate measures:

For the conservation and rational management of living marine resources including measures:

• regulating fishing methods and gear,
• prescribing minimum sizes for individual of specified species,
• establishing open and closed fishing seasons and areas,
• regulating the amount of total catch and fishing effort and their allocation among Members;

For the implementation of these recommendations;

1. to keep under review the economic and social aspects of the fishing industry and recommend any measures aimed at its development;
2. to encourage, recommend, coordinate and, as appropriate, undertake training and extension activities in all aspects of fisheries;
3. to encourage, recommend, coordinate and, as appropriate, undertake research and development activities, including cooperative project sin the areas of fisheries and the protection of living marine resources;
4. to assemble, publish or disseminate information regarding exploitable living marine resources and fisheries based on these resoruces;
5. to promote programmes for marine and brackish water aquaculture and coastal fisheries enhancement.
6. to carry out such other activities as may be necessary for the Commission to achieve its purpose as defined above.

In formulating and recommending measures under paragraph1 b) above, the Commission shall apply the precautionary approach to conservation and management decisions, and take into account also the best scientific evidence available and the need to promote the development and proper utilization of the marine living resources."

Current Membership:

Membership is open to Members and Associate Members of the Organization which accept the Agreement in accordance with Article XI thereof. Other States that are Members of the United Nations, any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency may be admitted as members by a two-thirds majority of the Council’s membership.

Albania Israel Morocco

Algeria Italy Romania

Croatia Japan Spain

Cyprus Lebanon Syria

Egypt Libya Tunisia

European Community Malta Turkey

France Monaco Yugoslavia

Greece

Current Considerations:

During its last three Sessions (Twenty-first Session, Alicante, Spain, 1995; Twenty-second Session, Rome, 1997; and the Twenty-third Session, Rome, 1998), GFCM has taken steps to strengthen its role in fisheries conservation and management.

At its Twenty-first Session, the Council adopted three recommendations relating to the conservation and management of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Mediterranean. The first recommendation prohibits fishing using pelagic longline vessels greater than 24 meters in length for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean during the period from 1^st June to 31^st July. The second requested members of GFCM to take the necessary measures to prohibits any taking and landing of bluefin tuna weighing less than 6.4 kg, and that when this constitutes incident catch, it should not exceed 15 percent of the number of fish per landing of the total bluefin catch of sail boats or its equivalent in percentage by weight. The third recommendation requested Contracting Parties fishing bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean sea to take, among other things, the necessary measures to prevent any increase in the fishing mortality rate for the years 1995 and beyond.

At its Twenty-second Session, the Members of GFCM adopted amendments to its Agreement and to its Rules of Procedures. The amendment for the agreement were in two sets, the first dealing mainly with the possibility of regional economic integration organizations to become members of GFCM and the second mainly with the establishment of an autonomous budget. The first set of amendments was approved by the FAO Council at its One hundred and thirteenth Session in November 1997. The name of GFCM was changed by replacing "Council" by "Commission" and the European Community became a member of GFCM in 1998. The second set of amendments which involves new obligations would come into force only on their acceptance by two thirds of the Contracting Parties.

The Council/Commission also adopted three resolutions in management measures:

• Resolution 97/1 concerning the ban on the use of large-scale driftnets in the Mediterranean;
• Resolution 97/2 calling upon members of GFCM to report to the Council on any fishing activities by vessels flying the flag of non-members which do not comply with GFCM recommendations; and
• Resolution 97/3 on the prohibition of the bluefin tuna purse-seine fishery during the period 1 to 31 August and prohibition of airplanes and helicopters in support of such fishing operations in the month of June.

The Twenty-third Session of GFCM was held in Rome from 7-10 July 1998. The Session considered the implementation of the resolutions adopted at the Twenty-second session relating to fisheries management on the extent of aerial spotting and purse seiners to fish for tuna, and the extent of driftnet fishing practice within the area.

The Commission stressed the need to improve the overall quality and reliability of GFCM statistical and information systems in order to base management decisions on the best scientific evidence available.

A FAO/COPEMED project, financed by Spain, became operational in 1996. To this end, the project is conducting a feasibility studies that should permit it to establish a data base on social and economic indicators in the Western Mediterranean. The goal of the five year FAO/COPEMED project is to help the participating countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Malta, Italy, France and Spain) in establishing a coordinated scheme for generating scientific criteria, and recommendations that permit application of the most adequate strategy for the optimum management of the resources. At this stage, COPEMED is dealing with issues of information systems; research and training; and cooperation and coordination. Another similar project financed by Italy is being finalized for the Adriatic Sea.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Member countries provide data of catch and effort directly to FAO. Some specific data materials are supplied to the GFCM Secretariat. There are problems with delay in the provision of data, also some accuracy/ reliability problems where States do not have the expertise or economic ability to provide highly technical materials. Finally, there are problems where States have conflicting interests between their fishery programmes and GFCM policy.

Conflict/Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

Article XV of the Agreement of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean provides that any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the Agreement, if not settled by the Commission, shall be referred to a committee composed of a member appointed by each of the parties to the dispute, plus an independent chairman chosen by Members of the Committee. The recommendations of such a Committee, while not binding, shall become the basis for renewed consideration by the parties. If the dispute remains unsettled, it shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, or in the case of a Regional Economic Integration Organization that is a member of the Commission, it shall be submitted to arbitration, unless the parties to the dispute agree to another method of settlement.

Future Role:

The long-term work program of GFCM includes the following goals:

• for demersal resources, fisheries management by means of effort control, in combination with technical measures such as seasonal or permanent fishery closures;
• catch limits on bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean (in conformity with ICCAT regulations), and priority given to assessing swordfish stocks to bring them under management in cooperation with ICCAT;
• management schemes, including the precautionary approach, should be introduced for small pelagic fish stocks;
• a control scheme for fishing vessels using "flags of convenience";
• statistics collection to be standardized, and the Secretariat should maintain relevant data bases of information;
• development of an integrated systems-based approach to fisheries management; and
• development of aquaculture.

Area of Competence:

Indian Ocean (defined for this purpose as being FAO statistical areas 51 and 57) and adjacent seas north of the Antarctic Convergence, insofar as it is necessary to cover such areas for the purpose of conserving and managing stocks that migrate into or out of the Indian Ocean.

Terms of Reference:

To promote cooperation among members that ensures the appropriate management, conservation and optimum utilization of tuna and tuna like species, as well as to encourage the sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks. In order to achieve these objectives, the Commission shall have the following (inter alia) functions and responsibilities, in accordance with the principles expressed in the relevant provisions of the 1982 Convention:

• to keep under review the conditions and trends of the stocks and to gather, analyse and disseminate scientific information, catch and effort statistics and other data relevant;
• to encourage, recommend and co-ordinate research and development activities in respect of the stocks and fisheries covered by the Agreement, and such other activities as the Commission may decide appropriate, including activities connected with transfer of technology, training and enhancement, having due regard to the need to ensure the equitable participation of Members of the Commission in the fisheries and the special interests and needs of Members in the region that are developing countries;
• to keep under review the economic and social aspects of the fisheries based on the stocks covered by this Agreement bearing in mind, in particular, the interests of developing coastal States.

The Commission may, by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting, adopt conservation and management measures binding on its Members. Such regulatory measures are subject to an objection procedure.

Current Membership:

Australia Japan Seychelles

China Korea, Republic of Sri Lanka

Eritrea Madagascar Sudan

European Community Malaysia Thailand

France Mauritius United Kingdom

India Pakistan

Ten percent of the total budget of the Commission is divided equally among all the Members. In addition, ten percent of the total budget is divided equally among the Members having fishing operations in the area targeting species covered by the Commission. Forty percent of the total budget is allocated among the Members on the basis of per caput GNP for the calendar year three years before the year to which the contributions relate, weighted according to the economic status of the Members in accordance with World Bank classifications. The final 40 percent of the total budget is allocated among members in proportion to their average catch in the three calendar years beginning with the year five years before the year to which the contributions relate, weighted by a coefficient reflecting their development status.

Four Commission meetings have been held to date, most members and countries entitled to join have been represented. Observer participation is limited to those who attended the first two meetings. Participation in technical activities and Commission bodies is at the cost of members.

Current Considerations:

Establishment of scientific working groups to assess stock status and distribution for various tuna groupings (e.g. tropical tunas, temperate tunas, neritic tunas, by-catch) against which the need and type of management measures can be determined. The implications of the precautionary approach will also be determined in relation to objective reference points. Statistical reporting and monitoring need to be improved.

Fleets operating under flags of convenience are a major potential issue as they can undermine management measures in the absence of trade related restrictions.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Requirements are limited at this time to catch, effort and biological data for scientific purposes. There are currently unacceptable delays in the supply of data and this subject will be addressed in the next Commission meeting. The IOTC reports that the main constraint to reporting data is that there are inadequate national data collection systems, plus the fact that some members insist on scientific data being supplied through Government agencies.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

There have been no disputes since the creation of IOTC. Any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the Agreement, if not settled by the Commission, shall be referred for settlement to a conciliation procedure to be adopted by the Commission. The results of the conciliation procedure, while not binding, shall become the basis for renewed consideration by the parties concerned of the matter out of which the disagreement arose. If, as a result of this procedure, the dispute is still not settled, it may be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another method of dispute settlement.

Future Role:

To fulfil the objectives described within the IOTC Agreement, specifically to achieve credible results in tuna management. This is difficult, and various problems must be addressed. In particular,

• that tuna stock assessment is problematic. Tagging seems to give the only credible results, and this is expensive;
• tropical tuna stocks are robust because of the distribution of the fish, their high fecundity and fast growth. This is not the case with the temperate bluefin tunas which are long-lived and have well-defined breeding and migration patterns, making them more vulnerable. As Japan was the main market for these temperate fish, it was assumed that a certificate of origin program would aid in enforcing quotas. However the program seems to be unravelling due to leaks in the system, and the development of other markets in other countries;
• the difficulty to negotiate quotas particularly where there are sequential fisheries such as surface fishing for juveniles and longlining for adults; and
• reflagging of vessels.

Area of Competence: Western Central Atlantic Ocean

Terms of Reference:

Noting the need for international cooperation for the conservation, development and utilization of the living resources, especially shrimps of the area, the Commission shallinter alia:

• promote and assist in the collection of national statistics and biological data relating to fisheries in general, and to shrimp fisheries in particular; and to provide for the compilation and dissemination of these data on a regional basis;
• facilitate the coordination of research programmes and promote, where appropriate, the standardisation of research methods;
• promote the interchange of information relating to fisheries of the region;
• promote and coordinate, on a national and regional basis, studies of the effect of the environment and of pollution on fisheries, and studies of appropriate methods of control and improvement;
• promote and assist the development of aquaculture and stock improvement;
• encourage education through the establishment or improvement of national and regional institutions and by the organisation of training courses and seminars;
• assist member governments in establishing rational policies for the development and utilization of the resources consistent with national objectives and the conservation and improvement of the resources; and
• promote and coordinate international aid to further the achievement of the objectives of the Commission.

The Commission is not actively involved in fisheries management in the region. The responsibility for fisheries management is left to the member countries. WECAFC may provide management advice or scientific information upon which management measures should be based.

Current Membership:

Antigua and Barbuda Guatemala Saint Kitts and Nevis

Bahamas Guinea Saint Lucia

Barbados Guyana Saint Vincent & Grenadines

Belize Jamaica Spain

Brazil Japan Suriname

Colombia Mexico Trinidad and Tobago

Cuba Netherlands United Kingdom

Dominica Nicaragua United States of America

France Panama Venezuela

Grenada Republic of Korea

Membership is open to all Members and Associate Members which notify the Director-General of their desire to be considered as members. FAO provides the Secretariat and technical assistance. Members are required to bear the costs of participation in Commission meetings, but it is rare for them to do so. For the majority of WECAFC meetings held to date, FAO has had to bear the costs through some specific activity, such as workshops or consultations. Further, participation in meetings has been low as most developing States in the region have a lack of funding. If funding is made available, participation in meetings has been good. Incentives to encourage participation in the work of WECAFC include the provision of technical assistance, regional cooperation for the management of shared stocks, and provision of a neutral forum for discussing issues. The main constraint prohibiting wider participation in the work of WECAFC is lack of funding.

Current Considerations:

The Twenty-fifth FAO Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean was conducted from 16-18 June 1998, and considered inter alia the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Latin American and Caribbean Region.

Other subjects of note regarding Western and Central Atlantic fisheries are that there have been no reports of large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing in the WECAFC Region during the period 1997/1998. There are unverified reports of unauthorized fishing by small-scale vessels fishing in neighboring country zones of national jurisdiction, and unverified reports of unauthorized fishing by industrial vessels (shrimping and longlining for large pelagics) by vessels from outside the WECAFC region.

Regarding fisheries by-catch and discards, 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. This is partly due to an increasing demand for fish and consequent higher prices being paid for fish. In an attempt to reduce the by-catch from trawl fishers, countries have introduced turtle exclusion devices. Venezuela is also experimenting with the use of fish exclusion devices.

Some States within the WECAFC Region are in the process of revising their fisheries legislation and making other policy changes concerning national authorizations for vessels to fish on the high seas. In this process, some States are attempting to implement elements of the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas as well as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. To this end, FAO has provided technical assistance to the OECS countries (Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines) and Barbados in the preparation of a draft bill. This bill will be sent to the OECS members for formal review by the government and for possible adoption into legislation.

There are no specific requirements for data supply and disclosure. Members supply the basic data to the Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit of the FAO Fisheries Department which is published by FAO. Sharing and Disclosure of data is done on a voluntary basis through workshops dealing with the assessment of fishery resources in the region (e.g. Assessment of spiny lobster resources in the WECAFC region, or assessment of shrimp and ground-fish fishery on the Guiana-Brazil Shelf). The main constraints to reporting data supply and disclosure lie with the inability of the developing States of the region, especially small island developing States, to continuously support a data collection programme.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

There are no formal mechanisms.

Future Role:

As a result of the above mentioned unauthorized fishing in WECAFC country zones of national jurisdiction, a number of countries within the WECAFC Region are in the process of improving their monitoring, control and surveillance capacity.

Further, the Seventh Session of the WECAFC Working Party on the Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources, and the Second Session of the Working Party on Fishery Economics and Planning held in Belize in December 1997, considered the future role of the Commission in a changing fisheries world and made a number of concrete suggestions and recommendations for the restructuring of the body. The need for regional approaches to fisheries management was highlighted and WECAFC was considered the most appropriate body to undertake this task. It was recommended that the Commission at its next meeting in 1999 give serious consideration to altering its status from an Article VI to an Article XIV body within the FAO structure to give it more operational flexibility.

A new method of working, using ad hoc working groups (following the pattern of ICCAT and ICES) that are of interest to the members of the Commission and from which they will derive direct benefit, was recommended. Members of these working groups are expected to finance their own participation, while FAO is expected to provide the current level of administrative, technical and financial support. This new process of operation will be approached slowly, extending over a period of years. The preliminary ad hoc working groups were identified, and two are in operation, one for spiny lobster, and the other for ground fish of the Guiana-Brazil shelf.

Area of Competence: Eastern Central Atlantic between Cape Spartel and the Congo River.

Terms of Reference:

To promote the optimum utilization of the living aquatic resources of the area, by the proper management and development of the fisheries and fishing operations, the development of marine brackish water aquaculture and the improvement of related processing and marketing activities in conformity with the objectives of its members. This is to be done by (inter alia):

• reviewing the state of these resources and the industries based on them;
• promoting the collection, interchange, dissemination and analysis or study of statistical socio-economic, biological and environmental data and other marine fishery information;
• establishing the scientific basis for regulatory measures leading to the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, formalising such measures through subsidiary bodies, as required, and making appropriate recommendations for the adoption and implementation of these marine measures;
• encouraging, recommending and coordinating training and extension activities in all aspects of marine fisheries;
• promoting and encouraging the utilization of the most appropriate fishing craft, gear and techniques; and
• promoting and encouraging in cooperation with other regional bodies, as appropriate, activities concerned with the processing, preservation and marketing of fish and fish products.

Current Membership:

Benin Gambia Nigeria

Cameroon Ghana Norway

Cape Verde Greece Poland

Congo Guinea Romania

Cote d’ Ivoire Guinea-Bissau Sao Tome and Principe

Cuba Italy Senegal

Democratic Republic of Congo Japan Sierra Leone

Equatorial Guinea Korea, Republic of Spain

European Community Liberia Togo

France Mauritania United Sates of America

Gabon Morocco

Membership is open to Members and Associate Members selected by the Director-General from among Members and Associate Members in Africa whose territories border the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Spartel to the mouth of the Congo River, and those Members and Associate Members fishing or conducting research in the sea area concerned or having some other interest in the fisheries thereof, whose contribution to the work of the Committee the Director-General deems to be essential or desirable. Members make no regular financial contribution, however some member countries, such as Spain and Morocco fund technical activities such as workshops and seminars, whilst Cameroon and Nigeria have made some token financial contributions. Lack of wider participation in the activities of CECAF is due to budgetary constraints and lack of sponsorship.

Current Considerations:

At its Fourteenth Session held in Mauritania 6-9 September 1998, CECAF opted to maintain its status as an Article VI RFB which will progressively work towards upgrading to an Article XIV body. It abolished its four Subsidiary Bodies and agreed to have a simpler structure consisting of a Committee and a Scientific Sub-Committee (SSC).

Evaluation of the main resources in the region will continue, and to this end, ad hoc Working Groups are to be organized on mackerel and horse mackerel, sardinellas, and shrimp in the Gulf of Guinea, plus further assessments on black hake. Attention will also be given to the subject of discards.

Regarding fisheries statistics, the Committee agreed to promote exchanges between countries and implement improvements to collection of statistics at the level of artisanal fisheries.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Compliance with the international legal regime for fisheries is monitored by Members presenting reports at Sessions. Data supply and disclosure is addressed by Members reporting catch statistics to FAO. Problems exist in that all landing grounds cannot be adequately covered, and data reporting is consequently incomplete.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

There are no formal mechanisms.

Future Role:

Regarding the future transition of CECAF to an Article XIV FAO body, FAO has been requested to provide Draft Agreements for a possible Article XIV body and information concerning the functioning of IOTC and GFCM, both Article XIV bodies, regarding financial regulations and the autonomous budget.

Area of Competence: Indian Ocean and adjacent seas (excluding the Antarctic Area)

Terms of Reference:

To promote, assist and coordinate national programmes over the entire field of fishery development and conservation; to promote research and development activities in the area through international sources, in particular through international aid programmes; and to examine management problems, with special emphasis on the management of offshore resources.

Current Membership:

Membership of IOFC is open to all Members and Associate Members of FAO.

Current Considerations and Future Role:

IOFC was comprised of four subsidiary bodies. These are:

• Committee for the Management of Indian Ocean Tuna (Tuna Committee). This has become obsolete since the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
• Committee for the Development and Management of the Fisheries Resources of the Gulfs;
• Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean; and
• Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal.

The Eleventh Session of IOFC will be convened on 17February 1999. The Commission is expected to abolish the above four subsidiary bodies, in effect recommending the Council to abolish IOFC itself. As a prelude to this meeting three of IOFC subsidiary bodies have met.

At its Ninth Session (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 6-9 April 1997) the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Gulfs (Gulfs Committee) suggested that the future of the Committee be reviewed at a high level consultation. The High Level Consultation was held in Cairo, Egypt in December, 1997 and followed by a Technical Meeting in Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran in May, 1998. The Meeting adopted a Draft Agreement to create a new body under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution.

At its Seventh Session (Mahe, Seychelles, 29 September - 2 October, 1997) the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean (SWIO), noted that, in principle, it did not oppose the establishment of an Article XIV body under the FAO Constitution to deal with non-tuna fisheries of common interest to island and mainland States of the region. Members requested time to consult with their governments on the matter.

At its Tenth Session (New Delhi, India, 24-25 September 1997) the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal agreed by consensus that their Committee should be merged with APFIC. At the Twenty-sixth Session of APFIC, the Commission approved the merger and consequently requested the FAO Council to give its approval.

In addition to FAO RFBs, there also exists a number of independent organizations which have regional or sub-regional roles in fisheries management. Although these non-FAO bodies share certain objectives in common with the FAO RFBs, they tend to exhibit a different variety of form and function. For example, they may deal with a single species or group of associated species within a region, (e.g. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), or they may be primarily concerned with collecting scientific data, (e.g. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), or they may be based upon a specific geographic region and cover a whole range of species within their area of competence, (e.g. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)).

Non-FAO RFBs may undertake a wide variety of tasks ranging from conducting scientific research, compiling and analyzing data, formulating conservation and management measures, determining total allowable catch and allocating quotas. The need for sound scientific advice based on data concerning the state of the resource is common to all RFBs. FAO describes the three most common methods of collecting scientific information as:

• through an independent scientific body such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) which undertakes this task for the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC);
• through an internal body, established under the agreement, usually consisting of experts from members of the body, as in the case of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); or
• through ad hoc working groups or technical consultations as with most FAO bodies.

The scientific advice must consider extra-scientific factors including technological, legal, and economic factors and, as a result of the political nature of RFB decisions, the advice is also realistically likely to consider socio-political factors.

Most of the RFBs dealing with conservation and management of living marine resources have regulatory powers relating to the decision-making process and the implementation of decisions.

Management decision-making, when dealing with issues such as the allocation of fishing effort and catches, or the monitoring, control and surveillance of transboundary stocks outside national jurisdictions, inherently involves making political decisions. Perhaps as a result of this fact, there has been a change of emphasis in the parameters to be included in fishery management decision-making with more obvious consideration of socio-economic factors.

Once decisions are made by the RFB, problems can arise with regard to enforcing policy. Regional fishery bodies are not supra-national, and the decisions that they make are not directly binding on individuals unless national legislation is taken by member States to give effect to the decisions. The document notes:

"it is increasingly apparent that passing recommendations is only a partial solution to the problem of effective management of fisheries, unless action is also taken to ensure that these recommendations are followed by individual members."

The high seas present particular difficulties with regard to enforcing RFB decisions. Here, policing is the responsibility of each member with respect to vessels flying its flag. This can be an onerous burden for States that lack the material or financial means of exercising such control, especially with regard to vessels engaged in long-distance fishing. Some RFB agreements provide for officials of any member country to search and (where necessary) seize vessels of other member countries which are on the high seas and acting in violation of either the convention or the regulatory measures adopted under it, but only the authorities of the licensing country may conduct prosecutions and impose penalties. For the purposes of this report, 22 non-FAO RFBs have been selected with a view to reviewing their mandate, functions, and degree of implementation of the provisions that comprise the contemporary international law of marine fisheries. These are:

• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR);
• Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT);
• Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA);
• Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (I-ATTC);
• International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC);
• International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES);
• International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT);
• Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO);
• Comité régional des pêches du Golfe de Guinée (COREP);
• Commission Sous-régionale des pêches (CSRP);
• Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina/Uruguay Maritime Front (CTMFM);
• North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO);
• North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO);
• North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC);
• International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC);
• North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC);
• North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES);
• Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC);
• South Pacific Permanent Commission (CPPS);
• Pacific Community (SPC);
• Latin American Organization for the Development of Fisheries (OLDEPESCA); and
• International Whaling Commission (IWC).

Area of Competence:

The area South of 60^o South latitude and to the Antarctic marine living resources of the area between that latitude and the Antarctic Convergence which form part of the Antarctic marine ecosystem.

Terms of Reference:

Article II notes that the objective of the Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, and for the purposes of the Convention, the term "conservation" is deemed to include "rational use".

Any harvesting and associated activities in the area must be conducted in accordance with the following principles of conservation:

• prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population to levels below those which ensure its stable recruitment. For this purpose its size should not be allowed to fall below a level close to that which ensures the greatest net annual increment;
• maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted populations to the levels defined above; and
• prevention of changes or minimization of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.

Current Membership:

Argentina India South Africa

Australia Italy Spain

Belgium Japan Sweden

Brazil Korea, Republic of Ukraine

Chile New Zealand United Kingdom

European Community Norway United States of America

France Poland

Germany Russian Federation

Article VII of the CCAMLR Agreement establishes a Commission for the function of carrying out the objectives and principles. Each State Party and regional economic integration organization which has acceded to the Convention shall be entitled to be a Member of the Commission. A Contracting Party seeking to participate in the work of the Commission shall notify the Depository of the basis upon which it seeks to become a Member of the Commission and of its willingness to accept conservation measures in force. The Depository shall communicate this notification to each Member of the Commission who may request a special meeting of the Commission to consider the matter. If there is no request for a meeting, the Contracting Party submitting the notification shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for Commission Membership.

Current Considerations:

The most important international fishery issue which CCAMLR has recently addressed is the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the CCAMLR Convention Area. On the 18th December 1997, following the Sixteenth Meeting of the Commission (27 October-7 November 1997) and the Report of the Standing Committee on Observation and Inspection (SCOI) (28 October-31st October 1997), the CCAMLR Executive Secretary wrote to FAO that there was general agreement among CCAMLR members on the following points:

• the evidence of large-scale illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Convention Area during 1996/7 and in the beginning of the 1997/8 season, seriously undermined the work of CCAMLR in achieving the Convention’s objective;
• the extent of existing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing posed a serious threat to the conservation of stocks of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) 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;
• 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;
• not only vessels of non-Contracting Parties to CCAMLR but also vessels of CCAMLR Contracting Parties were reported fishing in the Convention Area in contravention of the CCAMLR conservation measures in force; and
• 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.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Article XX of the CCAMLR Agreement provides that Members of the Commission shall provide annual statistical, biological and other data and information to the Commission and to the Scientific Committee (established under Article XIV). In addition, Members shall provide information about their harvesting activities, including fishing areas and vessels, so as to enable reliable catch and effort statistics to be compiled.

Conservation policy is determined by the Commission with the advice of data collected by the Scientific Committee. Historically, this has been a precarious relationship. It has frequently resulted in tensions between the two parties as scientific and technical knowledge is used in a decision-making forum by political representatives voicing the vested interests of their respective States. The tension between the Commission and the Scientific Committee was particularly evident in the 1980s when two powerful distant water fishing nations blocked the required consensus voting on the ground that there was insufficient scientific data to support certain conservation measures. This created a situation where a lack of scientific data, either because it was not made available by certain State parties exercising a political decision to protect their fishing industries, or because it did not exist, was interpreted as evidence to allow current fishing trends to continue.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

Article XXV of the CCAMLR Agreement provides for dispute or conflict resolution. Where disputes arise concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Contracting Parties shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice. If the dispute fails to be resolved by these means, the matter can, with the consent of both the parties be referred to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration.

Future Role:

In response to the problems of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities described above, CCAMLR has begun 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 License 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, whilst other measures took into account recent developments in international law. These measures will be reviewed at the November, 1998 meeting of CCAMLR.

Area of Competence:

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans where Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) are found.

Terms of Reference:

To collect, analyze, and interpret scientific and other relevant information on SBT, to adopt conservation and management measures including the total allowable catch and its allocation among the Members.

Current Membership:

Australia Japan New Zealand

These three States are the founding members of CCSBT. Over the past three years, membership contributions have been Australia: A$ 221,763; Japan: A$247,314; and New Zealand A$67,023. All members participate in meetings and programmed activities of the Commission where appropriate. Incentives for other States and entities to participate in the work of the Commission include secure access to the SBT resource, participation in determining management measures and quota allocation and access to joint research programmes and results. All eligible States and entities are encouraged to participate, however some potential participants are reluctant to accept and comply with the current management measures. For example, States taking significant quantities of SBT which are not members of the CCSBT are the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. South Africa is a relevant coastal State which is not a Member of the CCSBT, but its nationals do not take SBT.

Current Considerations:

The overriding current consideration for CCSBT, and one which threatens its future viability and existence, is the need to reach agreement between Members on the state of the SBT stock, its predictions for recovery, and the setting of annual catch quotas. In particular, fleet capacity has been raised in discussion within CCSBT as there are concerns that the resource may not be able to sustain current levels of fishing effort by Member and non-Member fleets.

Regarding other contemporary problems in marine fisheries conservation and management:

• CCSBT has received no reports of fishing with large scale pelagic driftnets in its area of competence;
• CCSBT is promoting and encouraging the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and is in the process of reviewing the Convention to determine the action necessary to achieve compatibility with the Code.
• The Ecologically Related Species Working Group Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG) is also to consider the issue of shark conservation and management in the CCSBT area; and
• CCSBT Members have implemented measures to mitigate seabird by-catch during longline fishing operations (e.g. 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 during the period under review and observer reports and other recent data are to be reviewed at the 1998 meeting of the ERSWG.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Parties report on their performance when both Members and other countries and entities, attending the Commission meetings as observers, report to the Commission on the activities of their fishing fleets. Scientists from Members exchange fisheries data for the purpose of undertaking analysis on the state of the stock. The scientific advice on SBT is provided by a permanent Scientific Committee. The Scientific assessment process was recently subject to external peer review. The main constraint that can affect data supply and disclosure of detailed data, is the commercial confidentiality of the data.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

Article 16 of the Convention provides for standard dispute resolution mechanisms including negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means.

Future Role:

With regard to the overriding priority facing CCSBT of the need to reach agreement between Members on the state of the SBT stock, several meeting were held in Japan during 1998. These meetings attempted to resolve the controversial issues and achieve consensus on how to sustainably manage SBT.

Area of Competence: South Pacific (Central and Western)

Terms of Reference:

Article VII of the Forum Fisheries Agency convention sets forth the functions of the agency that are to be performed by the secretariat, subject to the direction of the Committee. The Agency’s main tasks are to:

• collect, analyze, evaluate and disseminate to members statistical and biological information concerning the region’s living marine resources, particularly highly migratory species;
• collect and disseminate to members information about management procedures, legislation, agreements adopted by other countries, both within and beyond the region;
• collect and disseminate to members information about fish prices and the shipping, processing and marketing of fish and fish products;
• provide to members, as requested, technical advice and information, assistance in developing fisheries policies and negotiations, issuing fishing licenses, collecting fees, or maintaining surveillance and enforcement;
• seek to establish working arrangements with relevant regional and international organizations, in particular the Pacific Community (SPC); and
• undertake other functions determined by the committee.

Current Membership:

Australia Nauru Samoa

Cook Islands New Zealand Solomon Islands

Federated States of Micronesia Niue Tonga

Fiji Palau Tuvalu

Kiribati Papua New Guinea Vanuatu

Marshall Islands

The Parties to the Convention meet once a year to provide detailed policy and administrative guidance and direction to the Agency. The Parties also consult on matters of common concern in the field of fisheries and promote intra-regional coordination and cooperation in:

• harmonization of policies with respect to fisheries management;
• cooperation in respect of:
• relations with distant water fishing nations;
• surveillance and enforcement;
• onshore fish processing; marketing; and
• access to the 200 mile zones of other Parties.

Current Considerations:

In December 1997 the Majuro Declaration was adopted as a mechanism for applying principles of conservation and management to highly migratory stocks in the region. This is currently being expanded via a Multilateral High Level Conference to examine the establishment of a conservation and management regime in conformity with the provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement for a greater region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The Multilateral High Level Conference (meeting from 22-26 June 1998 in Tokyo) involved States and entities deemed to have a "real interest" in tuna fishing in the region. These were:

Australia Marshall Islands Republic of Korea

Cook Islands Nauru Samoa

Federated States of Micronesia New Caledonia Solomon Islands

Fiji New Zealand Taiwan Province of China

France Nieu Tonga

French Polynesia Palau Tuvalu

Indonesia Papua New Guinea United States of America

Japan People’s Rep. of China Vanuatu

Kiribati Philippines

The Conference will reconvene in early 1999 in Hawaii, USA.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

There is provision within the Agreement to withdraw from the Convention, but no specific dispute mechanism exists.

Future Role:

Formal resolutions within the Multilateral High-Level Conference on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific suggest a pivotal role for the future of the FFA. The Conference will reconvene early in 1999 to continue its work on negotiating the draft Convention. Among the issues that Conference participants are considering prior to the next session are:

• issues relating to allocation;
• the formula for financing the Commission, including the scale of contributions to the budget and the costs of the proposed institutional arrangements;
• minimum terms and conditions for fishing; and
• the regulation of transhipment.

Area of Competence:

Baltic Sea and the Belts. The area is a semi-enclosed sea covered by national fishing zones of the coastal States. There are no high seas within the area.

Terms of Reference:

To keep the fisheries under review; to coordinate scientific research; to recommend regulatory measures including catch quotas and enforcement schemes.

Current Members:

European Community

(representing Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden)

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Poland Russia

These are all the Coastal States of the region. Annual member payments are calculated according to the formulae:

• one/third of the budget by equal shares; and
• two/thirds of the budget on the basis of the total allowable catch (TAC) allocations per Contracting Party.

All Contracting Parties attend all meetings of the Commission and they all participate in the programme activities of IBSFC. MCS and enforcement are the responsibility of Members.

Current Considerations:

On the use of driftnets, the Commission has noted that the offshore fishery for salmon in the Baltic Sea is mainly a driftnet fishery. Driftnets and longlines together yield 70 percent of the total catch of salmon in the Baltic. Taking into account the small concentration of salmon in this large fishing area (catches amount to 2,800 tonnes per year), IBSFC claim that driftnets of a certain length are necessary for an economically viable fishery. IBSFC has further noted that the driftnet fishery is restricted by a closed season of four months each year. According to scientific information from ICES, by-catch of other species, including mammals and seabirds, is very small.

Regarding incidents of unauthorized fishing within the IBSFC area, the Commission has said that there are none.

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 on Fisheries Management, such as management objectives and application of the precautionary approach. Pending analysis by ICES, IBSFC intends to adopt within short stocks specific target reference points and limit reference points as provided for in Article 7.5.3 of the Code. At its Extraordinary Session on "Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region" held in Warsaw, 16-20 February 1998, IBSFC adopted an "Action Programme for Sustainable Development" including targets, time-frames, actors and financing. The Action Programme includes:

• Baltic Cod Strategy Plan
• IBSFC Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010
• Long Term Strategy for Pelagic Species.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

All Contracting Parties report to the Commission, through the Secretariat of the IBSFC, regularly according to the Statistical Programme of the Commission. Reports include:

• Report on the Utilization of the Baltic TACs established by the Commission for the preceding year (to be reported every year in May and submitted for consideration by the Commission at the annual Session in September);
• Reporting of quota transfers and exchanges of quotas with other Contracting Parties or third countries for the current year (deadline: 1 February);
• List of vessels authorized to fish Cod in the Baltic Sea in the current year reported by the Contracting Parties (no deadline);
• Reporting of licenses on private arrangements (those outside a fisheries agreement between Contracting Parties);
• Monthly catch statistics broken down by national fishery zone and management area;and
• Monthly statistics on landings of other Contracting Parties broken down by national fishery zone and species managed by IBSFC TACs.

At the annual IBSFC Session, held in September, the Contracting Parties report on their performance in implementing management measures. Note for example: Resolution VIII (1997) concerning the enforcement of the TACs in the Baltic Sea:

"The Contracting Parties to the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission undertake in the case of overfishing to submit a report to the Commission on why this has occurred and what measures will be taken to prevent future overfishing of TAC allocations."

IBSFC obtains every year scientific advice from ICES on the status of the main fish stocks in the region. All decisions of IBSFC are based on this advice. Each September, the TACs for the Baltic Sea and the fishing zones under the jurisdiction of its Contracting Parties, are established according to the main species and stocks:

• Herring;
• Sprat;
• Cod; and
• Salmon.

Conflict/Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

IBSFC report that this is inapplicable to their RFB as in recent years the decisions of the Commission have been taken unanimously. Article XI of the Convention provides for objections to recommendations, but there are no specific provisions for conflict or dispute resolution.

Future Role:

The Action Programme adopted in February 1998 includes forward management of Baltic Cod, Salmon (1997-2010) and Long-Term Strategy for Pelagic Species. IBSFC describe their future goals as the development of economically and socially sustainable, environmentally safe and responsible fisheries by:

• maintaining biologically viable fish stocks, the marine and aquatic environment and associated biodiversity;
• within these limits establishing maximum fishing possibilities and appropriate selective fishing techniques for harvesting stocks;
• distributing the direct and indirect benefits of open sea and coastal fishery resources between local communities in an equitable manner.

Area of Competence: Tropical Tunas and tuna-like species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean

Terms of Reference:

The I-ATTC fulfils its responsibilities with two programmes:

• the Tuna-Billfish Program, and
• the Tuna-Dolphin Program.

The principal responsibilities of the Tuna-Billfish Program are:

• to study the biology of the tunas and tuna-like species of the eastern Pacific Ocean to estimate the effects that fishing and natural factors have on their abundance, and
• to recommend appropriate conservation measures so that the stocks of fish can be maintained at levels which will afford maximum sustainable catches.

The principal responsibilities of the Tuna-Dolphin Program are:

• to monitor the abundance of dolphins and their mortality incidental to fishing through the collection of data aboard tuna purse seiners fishing in the eastern Pacific Ocean,
• to analyze these data and make appropriate recommendations for the conservation of dolphins,
• to study the causes of mortality of dolphins during fishing operations and encourage fishermen to adopt fishing techniques which minimize the mortalities of dolphins, and
• to study the effects of different modes of fishing on the various fish and other animals of the pelagic ecosystem.

Current Membership:

Costa Rica Japan United States of America

Ecuador Nicaragua Vanuatu

El Salvador Panama Venezuela

Mexico, Colombia and the European Community have indicated their intentions to adhere to, join, or rejoin, the I-ATTC. Meetings are well attended. All members and other countries which cooperate allow data collection from their surface fleets and provide data for other fishing methods. Colombia, Mexico, Spain participate in the associated International Program for the Conservation of Dolphins.

Incentives to encourage participation in the body include the opportunity to have fish certified as dolphin safe and to be recognized as fishing responsibly. There are no particular constraints preventing wider participation in the I-ATTC, but some States with vessels fishing in the area have not been Members in recent years because of policy disagreements with other Members.

Current Considerations:

I-ATTC Bigeye Resolution of June 1998 notes the increase in annual bigeye tuna catches, particularly of small-and medium-sized fish and the consequent likelihood that this increase will lead to a reduction in overall catches of bigeye and other tunas and notes further the problems of by-catch of associated species which are discarded to the sea dead. In keeping with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, the Resolution concludes that action should be taken to reduce the catch of small bigeye tuna taken in the eastern Pacific Ocean to 45,000 metric tons in 1998, and that this limit is to be implemented by prohibiting sets on all types of floating objects at such time that the above limit is reached.

I-ATTC Fleet Capacity Resolution of June 1998 expresses concern that if the carrying capacity of the fleet is allowed to increase without restriction beyond its current level, the tuna stocks in the eastern Pacific Ocean may be reduced to levels less than those capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. The Resolution concludes that measures should be taken to limit the growth in capacity of the international tuna purse-seine fleet operating in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

I-ATTC Yellowfin Resolution of June 1998 recognizes that the potential production from the yellowfin resource can be reduced by excessive fishing effort, and concludes that if conditions warrant, a limitation on the catch of yellowfin tuna should be implemented during 1998, but I-ATTC recommends to the High Contracting Parties that a quota of 210,000 tonnes be established for 1998 on the total catch of yellowfin tuna from the Commission’s Yellowfin Regulatory Area (CYRA), and that the Director be authorized to increase this limit by up to three successive increments of 15,000 tonnes each if the Director concludes from examination of available data that such increases will pose no substantial danger to the stocks.

I-ATTC Convention Resolution of 17 June 1998, notes that its establishing Convention was signed in 1949, and therefore does not take into account subsequent changes in international law as reflected in the 1982 Convention, the Agenda 21 and Rio Declaration, the Compliance Agreement, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The Commission agrees to establish a working group of its members, and open to other governments of coastal states and other States and regional economic integration organizations whose vessels are operating in the tuna fishery in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and which have the intention of adhering to the Convention, to review the functions of the I-ATTC and its Convention and, if necessary, formulate possible amendments to the Convention.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

There has been for many years a yellowfin quota for the fishery. The quota is monitored via records of landings and estimated catches at sea. For most years since 1980 the catches have been less than the quota. Compliance with the International Program for the Conservation of Dolphins (IDCP) is monitored by observers on large vessels (i.e. those with a carrying capacity of greater than 400 short tons). Data for all fleets with the exception of distant water longline vessels are collected directly by I-ATTC staff. Members with distant water longline fleets are asked to provide data for their fleets. This can be problematic due to the timeliness of data obtained from vessels engaging in long fishing trips.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

All decisions are made by consensus.

Future Role:

The Convention describes the role of the Commission as investigating the populations of tuna and other fish taken by tuna fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and with making recommendations to keep the populations of fish at levels of abundance which will permit the maximum sustainable yield. This will continue to be the future role of I-ATTC, but with modifications to bring the body into line with contemporary international standards. The I-ATTC is also currently concerned with, and will continue to work on, fauna other than fish (e.g. dolphins and turtles).

Area of Competence: Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas with particular reference to the North Atlantic.

Terms of Reference:

Article One of the 1964 ICES Convention identifies the Council’s principle functions as:

• to promote and encourage research and investigations for the study of the sea particularly related to the living resources thereof;
• to draw up programmes required for this purpose and to organize, in agreement with the Contracting Parties, such research and investigations as may appear necessary; and
• to publish and otherwise disseminate the results of research and investigations carried out under its auspices or to encourage the publication thereof.

Current Membership:

Belgium Germany Portugal

Canada Iceland Russia

Denmark Ireland Spain

(inc. Faroe Islands and Greenland) Latvia Sweden

Estonia the Netherlands United Kingdom

Finland Norway United States of America

France Poland

Members pay directly to ICES, with large fishing States paying more than smaller fishing States. Those Commissions (such as IBSFC) that receive advice from ICES pay directly to ICES for such advice. (Australia, South Africa and Greece have observer status). ICES conduct an annual Science Conference which is well attended by Member Parties and attracts around 500 participants. Scientists from developing countries can be involved via national members of ICES on special request, however the advisory work of the Council is restricted to member countries.

Current Considerations:

In addition to their scientific advisory role, ICES is currently working on implementing their Report on the Precautionary approach to Fisheries Management. Further, the problems of fishery by-catch and discards have led to ICES establishing a large scale sampling program. After three years of implementing this program, data is beginning to come through for analysis and future incorporation into ICES models.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

ICES collects annual stock statistics both from States and from independent scientists. In particular, misreporting and illegal fishing are reported by scientists. Data relates to yearly catch by States, and is further classified according to stock and biological data including age distribution, weight at age, migration and spawning data, and survey participation. ICES analyzes this data and calculates stock sizes, recruitment and fishing mortality. These parameters guide ICES in its judgement of how effective is compliance with the international legal regime for fisheries. Generally there are no significant restraints on data collection. The only minor exception to this is lack of detailed data from fishing fleets in the North Sea where some States are reluctant to allow access for various reasons including secrets of fishing areas.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

If managers have a dispute/conflict for which they need biological advice, ICES can with short notice, involve its advisory bodies. However, the normal process is for managers to annually ask ICES a set of questions for which they want biological advice. These questions are mainly related to what the TAC should be next year, but can also address special issues relating to closed areas for fishing, and the effects of fishing.

Future Role:

ICES anticipate that their advisory task will continue to be important in fisheries conservation and management into the next century. It is anticipated that their future work will develop a more ecosystem/holistic approach to fisheries.

Area of Competence: Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas including the Caribbean/Mediterranean Seas.

Terms of Reference:

The Governments of the Contracting Parties to the Convention have a mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes found in the Atlantic Ocean and subscribe to carrying out the objective of the Convention, which is to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes. This mandate includes about 30 species, among them some commercially importantspecies, such as Atlantic bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, albacore and bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, swordfish, billfishes such as blue and white marlins, and sailfish the Spanish mackerel family, such as spotted Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, as well as small tunas, such as black skipjack, frigate tuna, and Atlantic bonito.

To carry out its objectives, the Commission is responsible for the study of tunas and tuna-like fishes and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area. Such studies include research on abundance, biometry, and the ecology of the fishes, the oceanography of their environment, as well as the effects of natural and human factors on their abundance. The Commission’s work also involves the collecting and analyzing of statistical information relative to current conditions and trends of the tuna fishery resources in the Convention area.

Current Members:

Angola Gabon Tunisia

Brazil Ghana United Kingdom (overseas territory)

Canada Japan United States of America

Cape Verde Korea (Republic of) Uruguay

China (People’s Republic of) Libya Venezuela

Cote d’Ivoire Morocco

Equatorial Guinea Panama

France (S. Pierre et Miquelon) Russian Federation

Guinea (Republic of) Sao Tome and Principe

European Community South Africa

Participation in meetings and programme activities varies according to State political interest and economic capability.

Current Considerations:

The Commission recommended various management measures based on scientific findings. These measures include: catch limits (on bluefin tuna, albacore, bigeye tuna, swordfish, and billfishes); effort restriction (yellowfin and bigeye tunas); minimum size (swordfish and yellowfin, bigeye and bluefin tunas); time-area closure (bluefin, yellowfin and bigeye tunas). The implementation of the recommendations are the responsibility of national governments. The current major concern of the Commission is 1) allocations of TAC among countries and 2) compliance to the regulatory measures (particularly by non-contracting parties). In order to solve this problem, the Commission adopted action plans for bluefin and swordfish, which consist step by step actions, to enforce the regulations to non-collaborating countries (mostly of flag of convenience). All the bluefin tuna imported to the contracting parties have to have a government certificate on the origins. Together with other actions taken by the Commission (e.g. sighting report of fishing vessels of non-compliance, prohibition of transshipment at sea) the Commission identified those countries which are undermining the effect of the regulatory measures taken, warned to those countries and if these counties did not rectify the illegal operations, the Commission recommends the Contracting parties to take multi-lateral, non-prejudiced trade measures.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

In accordance with the Convention, four panels have been established based on species, group of species or geographic area. Each panel is responsible for keeping under review, on the basis of scientific research, such species as are under its purview. These are:

• Panel 1 - Tropical Tunas (Yellowfin, Skipjack and Bigeye);
• Panel 2 - North Temperate Tunas (albacore and bluefin);
• Panel 3 - South Temperate Tunas (albacore and southern bluefin); and
• Panel 4 - Others (Swordfish, Billfishes and Small Tunas).

A Compliance Committee is mandated to review the status of the Contracting Parties’ compliance with the regulatory measures recommended by the Commission, to consider any infractions, and to seek effective ways to enforce regulations.

The Permanent Working Group on ICCAT Statistics and Conservation Measures reviews the status of compliance or non-compliance of ICCAT conservation and management measures by non-Contracting Parties, to take effective action to encourage and enforce the Commission’s measures by such Parties.

The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), on which each member country of the Commission may be represented, is responsible for collecting most complete and current fishery statistics as well as biological information, based on which the stock assessments are made and the conclusions are reported to the Commission for their actions.

Conflict/Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

Bilateral disputes are resolved between States. When regulations are recommended, each member has six months to present objections. After 60 days more of confirmation, the regulations become into effect except for those who objected and confirmed the objections. A Compliance Committee (formerly called the Infractions Committee) exists to review the status of the Contracting Parties’ compliance with the regulatory measures recommended by the Commission. The Compliance Committee considers any infractions, and there are certain provision of penalties for infractions, including trade measures. .

Future Role:

ICCAT have been considering the new international instruments (e.g. UN agreement on fish stocks, FAO Compliance Agreement, Code of Conducts for responsible fishing), and its applicatgions to the ICCAT work. h. Most of the principles in these instruments will help the Commission’s work , as well as the Commission is tryijng to introduce these principle as much as possible, even amending the Convention.

Area of Competence: Northwest Atlantic Ocean

Terms of Reference:

To promote the conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic area within a framework appropriate to the regime of extended Coastal State jurisdiction over fisheries, and accordingly to encourage international cooperation and consultation with respect to these resources:

"The contracting Parties agree to establish and maintain an international organization whose object shall be to contribute to the optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area."

Current Members:

Bulgaria European Community Lithuania

Canada France Norway

Cuba Iceland Poland

Denmark Japan Romania

(inc. Faroe Islands and Greenland) Korea (Republic of) Russian Federation

Estonia Latvia United States of America

Current Considerations:

Regarding large scale pelagic driftnets, there have been no reports of this activity in the NAFO Convention Area during 1997-8. On the subject of unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas, there have been no reports of this within national jurisdictions. For high seas fishing, the General Council of NAFO has been working on the problem of non-Contracting Party fishing activity in the NAFO Regulatory Area and subsequently adopted a "Scheme to Promote Compliance by Non-Contracting Party Vessels with the Conservation and Enforcement Measures Established by NAFO". 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 the 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. It should also be noted that an additional attempt to remedy the problem of non-Contracting Party fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area came when the President of NAFO, A.Rodin (Russia) signed diplomatic demarches to the flag-States whose vessels fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 1996-1997, namely Belize, Honduras, Panama and Sierra Leone. Concerning the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, NAFO is continuing to investigate their implementation.

Finally, on the subject of by-catch and discards, the Organization is elaborating regulatory measures that constitute a legal basis and guidelines for the NAFO inspectors and observers on these issues. Observers on board fishing vessels monitor all by-catch and discards and provide their reports to the NAFO Secretariat.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

Article II of the NAFO Convention decrees that the Organization shall consist of (inter alia) a Scientific Council, and Article VI provides that the functions of this Council are to:

• provide a forum for consultation and cooperation among the Contracting Parties with respect to the study, appraisal and exchange of scientific information and views relating to the fisheries of the Convention Area, including environmental and ecological factors affecting these fisheries, and to encourage and promote cooperation among the Contracting Parties in scientific research designed to fill gaps in knowledge pertaining to these matters;
• compile and maintain statistics and records and publish or disseminate reports, information and materials pertaining to the fisheries of the Convention Area, including environmental and ecological factors affecting these fisheries;
• provide scientific advice to coastal States, where requested to do so pursuant to Article VII, and
• provide scientific advice to the Fisheries Commission, pursuant to Article VIII or on its own initiative as required for the purposes of the Commission.

Further, Article VI paragraph (3) provides that the Contracting Parties shall furnish to the Scientific Council any available statistical and scientific information requested by the Council for the purpose of this Article.

Conflict/Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries includes the following provisions. Article X provides that scientific advice provided by the Scientific Council is to be determined by consensus. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the Council shall set out in its report all views advanced on the matter under consideration. Further, Article XII(1) provides that if any Commission member presents an objection to a proposal within sixty days, the proposal shall not become a binding measure until the expiration of forty days, and in this period other Commission members may also object. When the proposal comes into effect it is a binding measure on all contracting Parties, except those which have presented objections. Where a majority of Commission members have objected, the proposal shall not become a binding measure, unless members nevertheless agree among themselves to be bound.

Area of Competence:

The area covered by the Convention Concerning the Regional Development of Fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea is defined as part of the Central and Southern Gulf of Guinea.

Terms of Reference:

The main objectives of the Convention inter alia, are:

• to determine a concerted attitude towards the activities of foreign fishing vessels and give priority to the needs of fishing vessels originating from member countries;
• to harmonize the national regulations with a view to having a unified regulation fixing the conditions of fishing and the control of fishing operations covered by the Convention, and
• to collect the maximum scientific, technical and economic data on fishing operations.

The Convention is open for signature and accession to States bordering the Gulf of Guinea. The present members of the Committee are: Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, São Tome and Principe, and Zaire.

No information was received from COREP relating to current considerations; future role; conflict/dispute resolution mechanisms; data supply and disclosure; or compliance with the precautionary approach, Compliance Agreement, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, or the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

The Convention does not define the precise area covered by the Commission but references are made to "Sub-Region" and the EEZs of the Contracting Parties. The Convention covers all fishery resources within its area of competence.

To harmonize the long-term policies of Members in the preservation, conservation and exploitation of the fisheries resources for the benefit of their respective populations. The Conakry Convention concerning determination of conditions for foreign access to exploitation of the living resources in off-shore areas of SRCF Members was signed by the Commission’s Members in 1989.

Cape Verde Guinea Mauritania

Gambia Guinea Bissau Senegal

The Convention for the Establishment of a Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries was signed in Dakar on 29th March 1985. The Convention is open for accession to other States in the sub-region.

No information has been received from SRCF relating to current considerations; future role; conflict/dispute resolution mechanisms; data supply and disclosure; or compliance with the precautionary approach, the Compliance Agreement, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

Area of Competence:

The Common Fishing Zone which overlaps a large sector of the economic exclusive zone of Argentina and Uruguay. The Treaty delimitates the Common Fishing Zone in Article 73 of the Tratado del Rio de la Plata y su Frente Maritimo (Agreement on the Plate River and Ocean Areas Adjacent and Beyond the River) 19th November, 1973, which provides,

"The Parties Agree to establish a common fishing zone, beyond the 12 nautical miles, measured from the corresponding coastal baselines, for duly registered vessels flying their flag. Such zone shall be determined by two arcs of circumference of a radius of 200 nautical miles, the centres of which are located at Punta del Este (Republica Oriental del Uruguay) and Punta Rasa del Cabo San Antonio (Argentine Republic) respectively."

Terms of Reference:

Article 80 of the Treaty provides that:

"The Parties hereby set up a Joint Technical Commission, consisting of an equal number of representatives from each Party, which shall be responsible for conducting studies and adopting and coordinating plans and measures for the conservation, preservation and rational exploitation of living resources and the protection of the marine environment in common zone established in Article 73."

The functions of the Commission are expanded by Article 82 of the Treaty which provides inter alia for:

• the establishment and periodic adjustment of species catch volume and share;
• joint conduct of scientific studies and research with special reference to the evaluation, conservation, preservation and rational exploitation of living marine resources, and the prevention and elimination of pollution and other harmful effects;
• recommendations and projects for ensuring the value, balance and maintenance of bi-ecological systems;
• establishing norms for the rational exploitation of species in the common zone and the prevention and elimination of pollution; and
• promoting studies and presenting projects for harmonizing the laws of the two Parties governing matters with which the Commission is entrusted.

Current Members:

Republica Argentina Republica Oriental del Uruguay

The budget of the Commission is covered by contributions from both Governments. The Commission was established in 1976 and has operated permanently since this time. The Plenary of the Commission meets on a monthly basis. The Commission has a permanent Secretariat and a number of specialized subcommissions.

Current Considerations:

The two most important current considerations of the Commission are continuing fisheries management of the main commercial species in the Common Fishing Zone, but done in accordance with policy on environmental protection. Thus closed areas and maximum catch limits are used in respect of the main commercial catch species of hake (Merluccius hubbsi), croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and striped weakfish (Cyonoscion striatus). In order to ensure compliance, the Resolutions provide for procedures for the application of fines. There are also requirements relating to minimum mesh sizes for bottom trawling nets and for use in the hake fishery.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

The Commission has a number of subcommissions and task groups specializing in specific subject areas, such as hake, croaker, marine environment, etc. The Parties exchange data between these subcommissions on a regular basis. Since 1984 the Commission has undertaken 46 joint cruises with research ships of the Parties, and a further 15 joint cruises by smaller fishing vessels for a study on the population dynamics of croaker stocks and the impact of environmental factors. In addition the Parties engage in their own separate research programmes within the Common Fishing Zone. In recent times the Commission is giving increased attention to species other than the main commercial species, including squid. There are no restraints on reporting data.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

Lapeyre notes:

"The Commission has evolved into a forum for the discussion and resolution of issues that, from time to time, inevitably may emerge in the case of shared resources. The existence of this permanent organization enables the parties to advance in the calm study of those issues and contributes to the finding of conciliatory formulae which may help to harmonize their interests. In this respect it is possible to state that no exchange of notes, nor diplomatic protests, on any of the subject areas within the jurisdiction of the Commission, has taken place since its installation...Although the Commission has basically a technical-scientific structure, it provides support, when the circumstances so demand, for political-diplomatic negotiations."

The Treaty provides that any dispute that cannot be solved by direct negotiations, may be submitted by either Party to the International Court of Justice. This procedure has never been used.

Future Role:

The Commission is likely to expand its role of fisheries management within the Common Fishing Zone. This will be done in conjunction with increasing environmental protection.

Area of Competence:

There is no precise delimitation of the NAMMCO area by lines of longitude and latitude. The area of competence is described as the North Atlantic and the species covered are all marine mammals within this area.

The objective of the Commission is to contribute through regional consultation and cooperation to the conservation, rational management and study of marine mammals in the North Atlantic. The Commission consists of:

• a Council;
• Management Committees;
• a Scientific Committee; and
• a Secretariat.

Management Committees, with respect to stocks of marine mammals within their respective mandates:

• propose to their members measures for conservation and management, and
• make recommendations to the Council concerning scientific research.

Current Members:

As of January 1994, the members of the Commission were as follows:

Faroe Islands

Greenland

Iceland

Norway

Other states may adhere to the Agreement subject to the consent of the existing signatories.

The Report of the Sixth Meeting of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee held in Reykjavik, Iceland, 1-5 March 1998, notes work that has been done on stock assessments of harp seals, hooded seals, ringed seals, harbour porpoises, Central North Atlantic minke whales, narwhals and belugas. In addition, a Scientific Committee Working Group has examined economic aspects of marine mammal - fisheries interactions.

Conflict/Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

All decisions of the Council and Management Committees are taken by the unanimous vote of those members present and casting an affirmative vote.

To deal with the request for a population status of narwhals and belugas, a Working Group on the Population Status of Narwhals and Belugas in the North Atlantic has been established and will meet in 1999. A workshop/symposium on harbour porpoise is being considered as a future activity.

Area of Competence:

Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean applies to salmon stocks which migrate beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States of the Atlantic Ocean north of 36^O N latitude throughout their migratory range.

Thirty-five members attended the IWC 50th Annual Meeting in Oman, May 1998. Four Contracting Governments (Costa Rica, Kenya, Peru, Senegal) have suffered long-term sanctions of loss of vote, and receive no documentation because of a failure to pay annual contributions. There are no specific incentives offered to encourage participation in the work of the IWC, however the United States of America has sometimes threatened trade sanctions under its domestic legislation to encourage whaling nations to join the IWC and obey its decisions.

Current Considerations:

At the present time, catch limits for commercial whaling are set at zero. The IWC Scientific Committee has developed a conservation and precautionary approach Revised Management Procedure, in the event that commercial whaling resumes. The Scientific Committee is also carrying out assessments of the major whale stocks world-wide. The Commission itself is currently looking at relevant inspection, observation and monitoring issues.

Data Supply and Disclosure:

The Convention requires reporting of catches and notification of infractions. Detailed statistics are required, as set out in the Schedule to the Convention. IWC has a large data base of primary records spanning the century, with greater detail from more recent years. There is some concern over the validity of the records supplied by Governments, especially in the light of major falsification of data by the former USSR.

Dispute/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:

There are no formal dispute/conflict resolution mechanisms. The practice is for disputes to be resolved by the majority vote of Commissioners.

Future Role:

IWC currently has a major division between those nations who view whales as a renewable resource which can be sustainably harvested, and the current majority who are opposed to a resumption of commercial whaling even on a sustainable basis. Until this conflict is resolved, it is difficult to see a clear future role for the IWC.

RFBs play a significant role in expressing and developing the notion of regional cooperation. Since the emergence of the first modern RFBs, much has been learnt, and considerable experience has been gained, in the functioning and performance of such bodies. Despite such progress, many RFBs are slow to accommodate the challenges facing the international community of States in order that we conserve and manage the resource in a responsible manner.

While it is difficult to specify universal characteristics that make one fishery body more effective or less effective, than another, some general considerations relating to RFBs can be noted.

Incongruent Fisheries Interests of Contracting Parties.

Within many RFBs there is a conflict of interest among Contracting Parties which leads to an inability to agree on the parameters necessary for management. For example, many RFBs contain both developed and developing States, coastal States, distant water fishing States, and coastal States with an interest in becoming more active high seas fishing States. For some Contracting Parties, fisheries constitutes a vital economic interest, while in others, fisheries constitutes a middle-level, or low, economic interest. Clearly, this diversity results in a varied commitment, participation and expectation regarding the objectives of the RFB. All States can potentially contribute, be it financially, intellectually, ideologically or politically, to the work of a RFB and it must be remembered that the diversity of Contracting Parties underpins the notion of cooperation. That is, that a group of States sharing only a common region, can cooperate together for the management of a resource.

Instead, the diversity of Contracting Parties too frequently becomes problematic when there is disagreement amongst members over scientific advice and/or management decisions of the body. This situation has created confusion and a near breakdown of management functions in some bodies. Potential problems are exacerbated by the many regional fisheries agreements that include objection procedures which allow States to exempt themselves from the obligations and requirements created by the body. Ideally, RFBs would adopt a new and improved decision making process that excludes the objection procedure and gives greater recognition to apolitical scientific analysis.

Management Focus:

Funding difficulties prevent greater Contracting Party participation in RFB programmes and severely weaken the ability of secretariats to function effectively. In addition, according to the relevant mandates, many RFBs are empowered to only make advisory recommendations concerning management, and are consequently not able to regulate RFB Member States or their activities. Thus, even where there is no specific objection procedure, Contracting Parties may have the option of not implementing measures, particularly if their fleets are disadvantaged by management decisions. The high seas presents particular difficulties with regard to enforcing RFB decisions. Here, policing is the responsibility of each Member with respect to vessels flying its flag, and only the authorities of the licensing country may conduct prosecutions and impose penalties.

Political Will of Members:

The effectiveness of RFBs is further undermined by the failure of member States to accept and/or implement international instruments central to the conservation and management of world marine fisheries. These instruments include the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the 1993Compliance Agreement. In addition greater recognition and promotion should be given to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

Members States should further support their RFBs by providing them with complete and accurate data in a timely manner.

RFBs are not supra-national. They are only as strong and effective as their member States make them. Yet governments have proven slow to tackle the issues of fisheries reform for two reasons: First, benefits are slow to appear and do so only after considerable costs have been incurred for some time; and second, the individuals who incur the costs are seldom convinced that they will reap the benefits and so they resist what they perceive as a likely redistribution of their income. In a study on Regional Fishery Organizations as Vehicles for Good Fishery Governance, FAO has noted the individual and collective actions needed to be taken by States in order to strengthen regional fishery governance. The paper notes that it is necessary for States to:

• devolve the necessary powers transparently to these organizations or arrangements to enable them to undertake the functions for which they were established;
• adopt a proactive stance with respect to management and attempt to anticipate crises which may confront organizations or arrangements from to time;
• promote the full and equitable participation by members in organizations or arrangements, including greater participation in determining and funding work programmes, and greater participation in all inter-sessional activities;
• ensure that the organizations or arrangements have adequate financial and human resources to execute their mandates. Moreover, all members should be prepared to contribute financially to the work of organizations as this is considered as a pre-condition for institutional strengthening;
• periodically review the structures and mandates of organizations or arrangements so that they have the capacity to make effective management decisions and to enforce them. Depending on particular circumstances, this may involve a review of their legal and statutory requirements, procedural matters and institutional and capacity building measures;
• create new regional organizations or arrangements as a means of closing gaps in management areas. However, care should be exercised to avoid duplication;
• act in good faith recognizing that the regional governance needs might not always be precisely congruent with national aspirations and goals. In this connection it should be further recognized that many of the problems that confront regional organizations or arrangements arise from the non-compliance activities of members rather than from non-members. When such non compliance occurs there is often a reluctance on the part of the organization or arrangement to publicize the transgression for fear of creating embarrassment for the member concerned. However, the power of public disclosure should be recognized and used in support of improving regional governance;
• faithfully abide by decisions made by organizations or arrangements and be prepared to exercise effective flag State control in all situations;
• improve cooperation, via transparent manner, between organizations or arrangements, private sector interests and non-governmental organizations, so that real effect can be given to the need to broaden stakeholder participation;
• enhance coordination between organizations or arrangements, irrespective of whether they are FAO or non-FAO bodies or arrangements, and other economic groupings, as well as with relevant regional bodies responsible for environmental management;
• promote maritime boundary delimitation which is essential for fisheries management and resource allocation and as a means of resolving disputes; and
• recognize that developing countries face financial, human and technical constraints that can inhibit their capacity to meet their regional obligations fully.

States that are members of RFBs should view this criteria as a checklist for attention. By addressing these issues, States would demonstrate their political will to strengthen cooperation in regional fisheries management.

Chapter Four of this Report combines the legal framework data described in Chapter Two, and the RFB descriptions of this chapter, in an evaluation of the contemporary fishery management practices of RFBs. Specifically, those subjects which have been addressed in recent instruments, including, inter alia, the application of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, acceptance of the Compliance Agreement and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and the measures raised in these instruments to specifically address contemporary fishery problems such as fleet capacity, fishing gear, use of VMS, and application of the precautionary approach, will be examined.