1. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) held its twenty-fourth session in Alicante, Spain from 12 to 15 July 1999, at the kind invitation of the Government of Spain.

2. The Session was attended by delegates from ten members of the Commission, and by observers from the Palestine Authority, the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The list of delegates and observers is given in Appendix B to this report.

3. It was noted that a quorum was not reached and therefore the Commission would not be in a position to adopt resolutions or take decisions at this Session. This situation was considered regrettable as it undermined the effectiveness of GFCM. As a matter of urgency, the Commission requested that the Chairman should address correspondence (copied to all GFCM members) indicating the need to ensure participation in future GFCM meetings.

4. The meeting was called to order by Mr F. Montanaro Mifsud, Chairman of the Commission, who welcomed the participants and especially Mr Samuel J. Juarez, Secretary General of Marine Fisheries of Spain and Mr Luis Diaz Alperi, Mayor of Alicante. On behalf of the Commission, he expressed particular appreciation for their presence at the opening of this Session.

5. At the invitation of the Chairman of GFCM, Mr Z. Karnicki, Director of the Fishery Policy and Planning Division of the FAO Fisheries Department then addressed the Commission.

6. On behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Dr Jacques Diouf, Mr Karnicki expressed the appreciation of FAO to the Kingdom of Spain and the authorities of the city of Alicante for their generous hospitality and the excellent preparations which had been made for the hosting of the Session. He expressed the hope that in view of the urgent need for management action in several areas the discussions on the budget and scale of contributions which took place at the First Extraordinary Session of GFCM held in Alicante, Spain, from 7 to 9 July 1999 would soon reach a successful conclusion. The Commission could then focus on the urgent problems of management of resources, the environment and fishing capacity, among others.

7. Mr Samuel J. Juarez, Secretary General of Marine Fisheries in his opening speech welcomed the participants to Spain. He went on to say that the choice of Alicante as the venue for the Twenty-fourth Session of the Commission had a symbolic significance as it was at the Twenty-first Session of the then Council which met in Alicante in May 1995 that the first binding resolutions had been made in the long history of GFCM. Since that time, the amendments to the Agreement of the Commission setting up an autonomous budget, the establishment of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and the membership of the European Community and Japan in the Commission, were the major achievements of GFCM.

8. Mr Luis Diaz Alperi, the Mayor of Alicante, also welcomed the participants to Spain and particularly to Alicante, which was a typical Mediterranean city with a long history influenced by Mediterranean culture and geography. He also stated that the City of Alicante had established a marine reserve in the Island of Tabarca which demonstrated the importance that it gave to the protection of marine resources and environment.

9. Discussion took place on the Provisional Agenda placed before the Commission and it was agreed that the order of items for discussion should be changed. The Agenda as amended is attached as Appendix A to the report.

10.The documents which were before the Commission are listed in Appendix C.

11. The Secretariat introduced the documents GFCM/XXIV/99/2, 3 and 4 which covered the matters raised under this agenda item.

12. Document GFCM/XXIV/99/4 described the major recommendations of the Twenty-third Session of the Commission (Rome, Italy, July 1998): the necessity to improve the quality and reliability of the statistical systems in the GFCM area; the future of the Working Group on Fisheries Economics and Statistics; the convening of two Sessions of the Scientific Advisory Committee; the organization of an Extraordinary Session to set up a scale of contributions for an autonomous budget; and the preparation by the Secretariat of a proposed amendment to Article X.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.

13. The Secretariat reported on the implementation of these recommendations including the two Sessions of SAC and in particular the implementation by SAC of the decisions of the Commission to set up a Sub-Committee on Economic and Social Sciences to replace the Working Group on Fisheries Economics and Statistics.

14. Concerning the amendment to the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat proposal was discussed and the following text was endorsed for Article X.6:

"The Scientific Advisory Committee, its sub-committees and any working group established under it, shall make every effort to reach agreement by consensus. If this is not possible, all views shall be reported to the Commission."

15. The amendment could not be formulated as a resolution of the Commission. It was therefore agreed to consider it as a recommendation to be placed before the Twenty-fifth Session of the Commission.

16. Four major activities were reported on here:

I. A Meeting of the Ad hoc GFCM/ICCAT Joint Working Group on Large Pelagic
Fisheries

17. An updating of information on fisheries and stock status of bluefin tuna and swordfish was reported, in which large upward revisions of catches in the Mediterranean were reported, and also recommendations for future research. These revised catches form a new basis for ICCAT stock evaluation. Although work will continue, the meeting felt there would be little benefit in attempting a new swordfish assessment until more information/data were available. The GFCM/ICCAT Working Group expressed concern on the very high catches of juveniles, the scarcity of large fish in the Mediterranean catches and the age of first maturity possibly reduced due to heavy fishing. Taking into account the precautionary approach, the Genoa meeting strongly recommended the reduction of fishing pressure particularly on juvenile swordfish to ensure the well being of the stock. At present, ICCAT did not have any management measures adopted, but EC and individual countries have such measures adopted and implemented to a varying degree (see document GFCM:SAC2/99/2).

18. The Director of COPEMED informed the meeting about the following COPEMED activities:

a) Training

An assessment of training needs in the three southern COPEMED countries has been undertaken and a revision of fisheries strategies and current research programmes carried out.

b) Collection of data and research activities

The Commission was informed that the COPEMED project was providing substantial assistance to the improvement of the statistical systems. The collection of data at the national level (supporting the development and updating of the fishery statistics system) and at the regional level (the establishment of port sampling networks and the continuous development of databases) was being supported. With respect to research, COPEMED offered to cooperate in meeting specific requests from the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) but was already supporting research on bluefin tuna, swordfish and deep sea shrimp. A major activity on artisanal fisheries has been carried out since 1997.

c) Dissemination of information

COPEMED informed the Commission that a Web site and regular publications are on the way. The participants were also provided with a CD Rom Encyclopedia on marine resources.

d) Advice on fishery management

To facilitate advice on fishery management, the following activities have been foreseen:

• collection of data in order first to compile and then try to harmonize fishery regulations at least in terms of the Resolutions and recommendations made by GFCM;
• preparation of dialogue meetings (FORUM), with the presence of the public administrations, the fishing industry and scientists in order to discuss such topics of common interest as, for example:

• feasibility of the control of effort by different fleets in transboundary stocks;
• joint analysis of the feasibility for the establishment of common closure areas and seasons in shared fisheries; and
• analysis and subsequent harmonization of fishery regulations.

19. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the support that it had received from the work of COPEMED.

20. The Technical Secretary of the Committee on Aquaculture informed the Commission on the preparatory work that has been carried out in preparation for the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean. This meeting, which should set the main framework for the activities of the Committee on Aquaculture in the future, has been requested and funded by the Italian Government following the advice of recent sessions of COFI and GFCM.

21. The Technical Secretary also presented the activities of the four networks operating under the aegis of GFCM: SIPAM, the regional Centre of which is hosted by Tunisia, and TECAM, SELAM and EAM which were at present coordinated with CIHEAM.

22. Within the framework of SIPAM the activities reported included the organization of the meeting of national coordinators, last year in Portugal, where the new software was discussed and the situation of the databases was analyzed. Other activities such as a refresher course for national coordinators, was organized in Zaragoza, Spain (February 1999). The home page of SIPAM has also almost been completed and the staffing situation in the Regional Centre has been improved by the Tunisian Government with the addition of a programmer and of a documentalist. A database on pathology was discussed at an expert meeting held in Rome in December 1998.

23. In the case of the networks coordinated through CIHEAM, a Seminar on Advances on Species Diversification was held in Zaragoza, Spain, in May 1999, with the participation of more than 80 experts. The preparation of the surveys on existing capabilities on aquaculture nutrition, aquaculture genetics, aquaculture fish health management and marketing of aquaculture products has commenced in 1999. The organization of the database on marketing carried out with the assistance of ICRAM and IFREMER was commenced last year and will be continued in this intersessional period thanks to the support of ICRAM. In addition, two meetings were scheduled, the first one, a Seminar on Global Quality Assessment for Aquaculture Products in the Mediterranean (Barcelona, Spain, November 1999) and the second a Seminar on Environmental Impact Assessment of Mediterranean Aquaculture Farms (Zaragoza, Spain, early in 2000).

24. The European Community asked for information on the state of play with regard to the three International Plans of Action and to activities connected with illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, with a view to their application to GFCM.

25. The Secretariat informed the Commission on the present status of the follow-up actions undertaken by FAO since the Twenty-third Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) (February 1999) and the Ministerial Meeting on the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (March 1999).

26. This agenda item was introduced by Mr J. Camiñas, Chairman of SAC. The First and Second Sessions of SAC were held at FAO Headquarters in Rome from 23 to 26 March and from 7 to 10 June 1999 respectively.

27. The First Session addressed the topics assigned to SAC by the Commission at its Twenty-third Session namely: a) definition of fishery management units; b) definition of appropriate parameters for measuring fishing effort; c) identification of the actual state of resources and available methodologies for determining this status; and d) organization of the future work of the Committee: structure, functioning and databases.

28. Progress was made on all of the above items but final reporting was not yet possible. This would require further attention by SAC, its subsidiary bodies and the ad hoc working groups SAC was setting up to examine these questions. Inevitably, SAC was obliged to spend significant time organizing its future work, which involved: a) defining the terms of reference for its four sub-committees and electing their coordinators (see GFCM/XXIV/99/Inf.4), setting up working groups to examine the geographical coordinates of the 27 provisional management units proposed for consideration by the First Session of SAC; c) defining the required data on fleets, including also artisanal vessels, to be included in the regional register of vessels as a necessary starting point to monitor fishing effort.

29. Concerning appropriate management units, although a formal report on this item would have to be postponed to the Twenty-fifth Session of GFCM, it was already clear that the following three types of management areas will have to be considered.

a) for large pelagics: all of FAO area 37 will constitute a management unit (which for bluefin tuna forms part of the Eastern Atlantic stock area);

b) for deep water resources, the three large water areas in sub-divisions 37.1, 37.2 and 37.3 will probably constitute areas for management; and

c) for small pelagic and shelf demersal species, more information will be needed in order to better define limits, but using natural geographical limits, 27 potential management units were discussed (11 in the Western Mediterranean, 7 in the Central Mediterranean, 6 for the Eastern Mediterranean and 3 for the Black Sea and adjacent waters).

30. The Chairman of SAC recalled that the regional database on fishing effort, including the minimal set of data identified for industrial and artisanal vessels, should be structured in terms of the fishing grounds falling within each of these management units.

31. The Sub-Committee for Stock Assessment (SCSA) held its first meeting parallel to the Second Session of SAC. From its report, it emerged that the first priority for assessment will have to be for those resources falling into the shared, straddling and highly migratory categories.

32. While reporting on the Second Session of SAC, its Chairman emphasized the fact that although 17 Members participated some countries were not represented by scientists. He also recalled that the Committee suggested that GFCM should allocate a budget which would encompass all the activities of the four Sub-Committees. This budget should also include provisions for publication of SAC reports and documents.

33. In the discussions following the reporting by the Chairman of SAC, the Commission commended the concrete progress made within SAC and thanked its Chairman for the good work so far achieved.

34. GFCM endorsed the reports of the First and Second Sessions of SAC.

35. The delegation of the European Community presented a list of priorities for future work taking into consideration results already achieved. The Commission endorsed these priorities although it was evident that full consideration of these points extended beyond the Third Session of SAC (see Appendix D).

36. Taking into consideration the activities with which the Scientific Advisory Committee was entrusted and referring to paragraph 4 of document GFCM/XXIV/99/3 entitled "Conclusions of the First Session of the Sub-Committee on Stock Assessment", the Tunisian delegation proposed that the Scientific Advisory Committee continue to give priority to stock assessment issues. To this effect, the Committee was invited to pursue the actions already initiated in this field by the First Session of the Sub-Committee on Stock Assessment, particularly in the field of stock assessment of swordfish and shared stocks.

37. The delegation of Cyprus, while not in disagreement with the EC proposals, noted that they related mainly to the Sub-Committee for Stock Assessment and made no specific references to the work of other Sub-Committees of SAC.

38. A list of national experts to participate in the respective networks of the Sub-Committees was presented. It was also emphasized that liaison with other institutions dealing with environment conservation and biodiversity should be strengthened.

39. The results of the meeting of the GFCM/ICCAT working group were reviewed. SAC was of the opinion that a new evaluation and update of analyses regarding swordfish was necessary in 2000, assuming that related data will be made available in good time to the Secretariat. It was also considered necessary to adjust the resolutions related to regulating catches of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, within a scientific perspective. The Committee had also urged COPEMED to intensify efforts to facilitate the participation in project activities of representatives of non-project member countries, in particular in support of the activities of the working group on socio-economic indicators which is a priority activity of the Sub-Committee on Economic and Social Sciences.

40. The need to extend to the Eastern Mediterranean a project format similar to COPEMED and ADRIAMED was recommended by SAC. This was endorsed by GFCM.

41. It was suggested that the Third Session of SAC be held in May 2000 back-to-back with meetings of each of its Sub-Committees.

42. Since a quorum was not present at the Twenty-fourth Session, this Commission meeting could only formulate non binding recommendations. If appropriate, these might be converted into binding resolutions at the next full session of the Commission.

43. The four management resolutions adopted by the Twenty-first Session of the (then) Council held in Alicante, Spain in May 1995 and the three resolutions adopted by the Twenty-second Session, were reviewed. In general, these resolutions were believed to be still valid, but not fully complied with, and progress in implementation needed to be monitored. In particular, Resolution 95/4 called on GFCM members to prepare a list of fishing boats operating from national ports in the Mediterranean and provide this to the GFCM Secretariat in the form specified by that Session. It was noted that the Second Session of SAC had regarded this unfulfilled resolution as essential for its future work, and had in fact requested that this list include artisanal vessels operating from each port in each sub-area.

44. The Commission endorsed the application of the ICCAT recommendations adopted notably in November 1998 (Appendix G) which may result in amendments to GFCM Resolutions 95/1 and 97/3.

45. The observer of ICCAT informed the meeting that members of ICCAT which were also members of GFCM may have difficulties in enforcing measures decided on by the two organizations until GFCM updated its Resolutions. Special reference was made to the closed period of purse seine fishing in the Mediterranean Sea which are now different for the two organizations.

46. With respect to new recommendations, several were extracted from the reports of SAC that were relevant to fisheries management, as follows:

• all efforts should be made to ensure full reporting of catches of swordfish, bluefin tuna and relevant biological information to the Secretary of GFCM by non-members of ICCAT in order to allow new assessments to be made;
• member countries should consider measures aimed at stabilizing or even reducing fishing pressure on swordfish; and
• due caution should be exercised in starting new fisheries which may adversely affect existing fisheries for other resources : the example of immediate concern was the possible impact of deep-water fisheries of the continental slope on the spawning populations of species supporting shelf fisheries for small or pre-mature fish.

47. All efforts should be made to locate the resources needed to address the unresolved questions of resource assessment and management in the Eastern Mediterranean.

48. The Secretariat introduced this item on the basis of document GFCM/XXIV/99/5 Rev.3. It was emphasized that, in the absence of an autonomous budget, the next intersessional period will still be an interim period budget-wise, for which extra-budgetary funding will have to be sought in order to support activities decided upon by the Commission itself and/or recommended by the Scientific Advisory Committee as well as the Committee on Aquaculture.

49. The Secretary presented briefly the proposed programme for the intersessional period, and the Technical Secretary of the Aquaculture Committee presented additional explanations on the activities which are proposed for the four networks of the Committee on Aquaculture. The observer of CIHEAM, which co-finances activities of three of the networks, explained the modalities of intervention of his organization and offered to establish collaboration in the future also for the activities of SAC.

50. The Commission then reviewed a proposal prepared by the EC delegation which listed the meetings that were considered of high priority. The proposal included the following meetings:

• Twenty-fifth Session of GFCM;
• Third Session of SAC;
• One session respectively of each of its four Sub-Committees;
• Meetings of working groups, namely: small pelagics; demersals (these two groups to address fishing effort and management units) and the GFCM/ICCAT working group on large pelagics; and
• Second Session of the Committee on Aquaculture as well as annual aquaculture network activities.

51. The Commission agreed on this list and requested the Secretariat to establish priorities for the activities of the aquaculture networks.

52. The proposed programme of work for the intersessional period (year 2000) is summarized in Appendix E. It was pointed out by the delegation of Cyprus that it contained a large number of meetings and that this would cause difficulties for some members as it would translate into assigning substantial financial and human resources for GFCM work which may be lacking in those countries. While some members supported assigning funds to support the participation of staff from countries with low financial means, other members opposed this idea, indicating that such funds should come from extra-budgetary sources.

53. In order to reduce the cost of the meetings envisaged for the next intersessional period it was agreed that the Session of the Committee on Aquaculture would be held in two languages only.

54. The Secretariat informed the Commission that the financing of the Twenty-fifth Session of GFCM was secured under the FAO regular programme budget.

55. Concerning the other meetings planned for the forthcoming intersessional period, the Commission welcomed proposals from some members concerning the financing of GFCM activities: Spain offered to cover the cost of the annual session of SAC, as well as the meeting of the working group on small pelagics and some activities of the aquaculture network. The Commission expressed its appreciation and accepted the offer. Italy expressed its readiness to envisage the possibility of making a contribution towards the cost of one of the proposed meetings. France offered to host the working group on demersal species.

56. The Commission called for a special effort by members to support the cost of the other meetings agreed upon.

57. The Chairman summarized the discussions that took place on this agenda item during the Extraordinary Session which was financed by the EC (GFCM/XXIV/99/Inf.5). He also recalled that since two-thirds of the Members of the Commission had not yet deposited the instruments of acceptance of the amendments to the Agreement of GFCM relevant to an autonomous budget, the present Session could not formally adopt either the scale of contributions or the budget. However, the meeting could agree on the substance of the scale of contributions and thereby pave the way for its adoption at a later stage once the amendments to the Agreement have been accepted by two-thirds of the Members. A consensus on the substance of the scale of contributions would also make it easier for Members to accept the amendments and bring them, and the provision for an autonomous budget, into force in the knowledge of what their obligations would be in practice.

58. In the light of the above consideration, the Commission invited the Chairman and/or the Director-General of FAO to address a communication to member countries which had not yet deposited their letters of acceptance, urging them to do so at their earliest convenience in order to bring the amendments to the GFCM Agreement into force and thus enable GFCM to function normally.

59. In the course of its deliberations, the Commission agreed that the Black Sea catches must be included in the calculation of the GFCM tonnage. An alternative scale of contributions using GNP/capita as a criterion for allocating the "wealth component" to Members was also developed. The Secretariat�s proposal, contained in document GFCM:ES/99/2, had made use of the FAO Scale of Contribution for assigning the "wealth component" to Members. The various proposals considered by the Commission in its Extraordinary Session are reproduced in the report of that Session.

60. In the course of the subsequent discussion, the Commission considered it essential that the Secretariat formally contact Black Sea member countries to ascertain their intentions in respect of future participation in the work of the Commission. In this context the Secretariat made available to the Commission a note dated 23 July 1998 from the Turkish Representation to FAO on the subject of their participation in the Commission. Some delegations suggested that alternative tables be presented with and without the catches of Black Sea countries.

61. It was agreed that the debate on the scale of contributions would be facilitated if the Commission could reach a common understanding about the total amount expected to be contributed by Members under the autonomous budget. In the course of that discussion, some Members maintained that the total GFCM budget, consisting of the autonomous budget and the FAO contribution, should be in the range of about US $ 750,000. Some members were of the opinion that such a budget should incorporate resources needed to fund participation by some member countries in the various meetings of the Commission, and that a significant proportion of the budget must be allocated to activities in support of aquaculture.

62. One delegation pointed out that the activities to be covered by contributions to FAO under the UN/FAO Scale of Contribution were different from those activities undertaken by a regional fishery commission and therefore considered the UN/FAO scale as inappropriate in the GFCM context. The same delegation argued that the GNP/capita, suitably grouped, would be an adequate replacement for the UN/FAO Scale of Contribution calculation of the "wealth component".

63. Other members expressed the view that the GNP/capita index places an unfair burden on small member countries.

64. A number of delegations suggested that the basic fee of the autonomous budget should not be increased beyond 10 percent. One delegation suggested that the coefficient used to calculate "GFCM tonnage" be increased for OECD countries.

65. The Commission considered the question of a model budget applicable when the autonomous budget would come into effect. The EC, on the basis of its proposal for an autonomous budget submitted to the Extraordinary Session, outlined its rational for the various components of that budget. The Commission considered a compromise proposal tabled by the delegation of Cyprus.

66. It was agreed that in the model budget, provisions should be made for holding the Commission meeting, the meeting of the Committee on Aquaculture and that of SAC in four languages. There was no consensus on the proposal made by some members that Sub-Committees of SAC and associated working groups meet in two languages.

67. The Commission decided to reproduce in its report, for information purposes, the table containing the �annual model budget� in which the amounts provided for the meeting of the Commission and of SAC would be increased to reflect the decision to hold these meetings in four languages (see Appendix F).

68. It was noted that allocation for publications, translation and general operating expenses were not properly reflected in the �annual model budget� but the Commission decided to leave the door open for future possible modification of the model budget.

69. The Chairman informed the meeting that Mr John Caddy, Technical Secretary of GFCM since 1979 would shortly retire. He acknowledged the sterling services rendered by Mr Caddy to world fisheries in general and to GFCM in particular. The delegations of Spain and Cyprus on behalf of the meeting acknowledged also the competence of Mr Caddy as a scientist and listed the valuable services provided by him to the Commission.

70. In the absence of a quorum it was not possible for the Commission to proceed to the election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons. The Commission, recognizing the valuable work of the present Chairperson, decided to extend his mandate for the intersessional period.

71. The delegate of Malta informed the Commission that his country offered to host the Twenty-fifth Session of GFCM and to make a contribution towards the costs of the Session. The Commission welcomed this offer and accepted with gratitude. It was agreed that the timing of the Session would be between the first and third week of June 2000.

72. The report was adopted on 15 July 1999.

1. Opening of the Session.

2. Adoption of the Agenda and Arrangements for the Session.

3. Inter-sessional activities.

• Expert consultation on Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
• GFCM/ICCAT Joint Working Group on Large Pelagic Species.
• Activities of COPEMED (Cooperation Networks to facilitate Coordination to Support Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Mediterranean).
• Activities of SIPAM (Information System on the Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean) and other aquaculture networks.
• Follow-up by FAO to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) three programmes of action concerning management of fishing capacity, shark fisheries and incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries and to the conclusions of the Ministerial Meeting on the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries regarding illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
• Other activities reported by members.

4. Review of the recommendations of the First and Second Sessions of the Scientific Advisory Committee.

5. Decisions on the management of Mediterranean fishery resources.

6. Programme of work for the inter-sessional period and requests for advice to subsidiary bodies of GFCM.

7. Contributions to an autonomous budget and conclusions of the Extraordinary Session on financing future GFCM activities.

8. Any other matters.

9. Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the Twenty-fifth Session.

10.Date and place of the Twenty-fifth Session.

11.Adoption of the Report.

APPENDIX B

Gabriel P. GABRIELIDES
Director
Fisheries Department
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources
and the Environment
Eolou 13
1416 Nicosia

John SPENCER
Head of Delegation
Directorate General for Fisheries
DG XIV/B4
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2956858
Fax: (+32-2) 2955700

Roberto CESARI
Administrator
Alternate Representative
European Commission
Directorate General for Fisheries
DG XIV/B4
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2994276
Fax: (+32-2) 2955700

Armando ASTUDILLO
Directorate General for Fisheries
DG XIV/C1
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32 2) 296 11 91
Fax: (+32 2) 295 57 00
E-mail: [email protected]

Markku ARO
Chairman
Working Party on External Fisheries
Policy in the Council
Permanent Representation of Finland to the European Community
Rue de Trèves 100
1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2878464
Fax: (+32-2) 2878407
Email: [email protected]

Jarnmo VILHUNEN
Councellor of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 232
00171 Helsinki, Finland
Tel: (+358-9) 1602902
Fax: (+358-9) 1604285

Jukka SIHVO
Senior Planning Officer
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 232
00171 Helsinki, Finland
Tel: (+358-9) 16088902
Fax: (+358-9) 1604285

Veronica CODY (Ms)
Administrator
Directorate General for Fisheries
Council of the European Union
Justus Lipsius
Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2858543
Fax: (+32-2) 2858261

Julien TURENNE
Chargé de mission
Ministère de l�agriculture et de la pêche
3 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
Tel: (+33-1) 49558236
Fax: (+33-1) 49558200
Email: [email protected]

Henri FARRUGIO
Chef de laboratoire
IFREMER
1 Rue Jean Vilar
34200 Sète
Tel: (+33 67) 46 78 18
Fax: (+33 67) 70 40 90
E-mail:[email protected]

Giovanni DELLA SETA
Direzione Generale della Pesca
Ministero per la Politiche Agricole
Viale dell' Arte 16
00144 Roma
Tel: (+39 06) 59084746
Fax: (+39 06) 59084176
E-mail:[email protected]

Rosanna FRONZUTO
Direzione Generale della Pesca
e dell'Acquacoltura
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole
Viale dell' Arte 16
00144 Roma
Tel: (+39 06) 59084496
Fax: (+39 06) 59084176

Corrado PICCINETTI
Laboratorio di Biologia Marina Pesca
Viale Adriatico 1/N
61032 Fano
Email:[email protected]

Junichiro OKAMOTO
Head of Delegation
Counsellor, Fisheries Agency
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery
1-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Tel: (+81-3) 35911086
Fax: (+81-3) 35020571

Tsuyoshi IWATA
Fisheries Agency of Japan
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery
1-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Tel: (+81-3) 35911086
Fax: (+81-3) 35020571

Masaharu SHIMIZU
Fishery Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

Francis MONTANARO MIFSUD
Ambassador to FAO
Permanent Representation of the
Republic of Malta to FAO
Lungotevere Marzio 12
00186 Rome, Italy
Tel: (+39 06) 6879990/6879947
Fax: (+39 06) 6892687

Anthony GRUPETTA
Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Barriera Wharf
Valletta
Tel: (+356) 685525/658863
Fax: (+356) 688380

Patrick VAN KLAVEREN
Conseiller technique
Direction des relations extérieures et de
la coopération internationale
Villa Girasole
16 Bd de Suisse
Monaco
Tel: (+377) 93158148
Fax: (+377) 93154208
Email: [email protected]

Abdelaziz ZOUBI
Biologiste des pêches chargé de l' évaluation
des stocks en Méditerranée
Institut national de recherche halieutique
2, rue de Tiznit
Casablanca
Tel: (+212 2) 22 20 90
Fax: (+212 2) 26 69 67
E-Mail: [email protected]

Jose Ramón BARANANO
Director General Recursos Pesqueros
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid

Alvaro FERNANDEZ
Director-General - IEO
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Av. Brasil 31
28020 Madrid

Ignaciao YBANEZ
Subdirector General de Organismos
Multilaterales de Pesca
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid
Tel: (+34) 914027404
Fax: (+34) 913093967
Email: [email protected]

Alberto LOPEZ
Consejero Representación ante la
Unión Europea
Bd du Regent 52
1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: (+322) 5098689
Fax: (+322) 5112630

María Carmen CADENAS DE LLANO (Ms)
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid
Tel: (+34) 914025000
Fax: (+34) 913093967
Email: [email protected]

Juan A. CAMIÑAS
Director
Centro Oceanográfico de Málaga
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca
y Alimentación
Apto. 285, 29640 Fuengirola
Tel: (+34 95) 247 81 48
Fax: (+34 952) 246 38 08
E-mail: [email protected]

Pilar PEREDA (Ms)
Coordinadora de Proyectos
Corazón de María 8
28002 Madrid
Tel: (+34 91) 347 37 31
Tel: (+34 91) 411 35 597
E-mail:[email protected]

José Luis PAZ ESCUDERO
Consejero Técnico - SGPM
Planificación de la Flota y
Estructuras Pesqueras
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid

Blas Rafael VIZCAINO VIDAL
Federación Nacional COFRADIAS
Pescadores
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Madrid

Jose Manuel GONZALEZ GIL DE BERNABE
Secretario General
Federación Nacional de COFRADIAS
C/ Baravicco No. 7
Madrid 29027

Carlos AYALA
Director
Productos del Mar
P. Imperial 8
Madrid

Taoufik CHRIAA
Directeur général de la pêche
et de l'aquaculture
Ministère de l�Agriculture
32 Rue Alain Savary
Tunis

Ahmed CHOUAYAKH
Directeur
Tel: 890784
Fax: 799401

Tariq M. SAQR
Director-General
Ministry of Agriculture
PO Box 4014
Gaza, Palestine
Tel: (+972-7) 2825664/2825438/2827704
Fax: (+972-7) 2824111
Email: [email protected]
Email2: [email protected]

Hassan ABU HATTAB
Project Director
Ministry of Agriculture
PO Box 4014
Gaza, Palestine
Email: [email protected]

Karl-Johan STAEHR
Fisheries Biologist
Danish Institute for Fisheries Research
North Sea Center
PO Box 101
DK 9850 Hirtshals
Denmark
Tel: (+45) 33963200
Fax: (+45) 33963260
Email: [email protected]

Miguel VALLS
Directeur
Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen
CIHEAM
Apdo 202
50011 Zaragoza

Peter M. MIYAKE
Assistant Executive Secretary, (ICCAT)
C. Corrazon de María 8
28002 Madrid
Tel: (+34 91) 4165600
Fax: (+34 91) 4152612
E-mail: [email protected]

Despina SYMONS (Ms)
Director, EBCD
10 rue de la Science
1000 Brussels
Belgium

Paolo GUGLIELMI
Marine Officer
WWF Mediterranean Programme
Via Gargliano 57
00198 Rome, Italy
Tel: (+39 06) 844 97 358
Fax: (+39 06) 841 38 66
E-mail: [email protected]

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome

Zbigniew KARNICKI
Director/Directeur
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
Division des politiques et de la planification de
la pêche
Tel: (+39 06) 57054138
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]

Rafael ROBLES
Directeur
Edificio Germán Bernacér
Universidad de Alicante
Apartado 99
03080 Alicante, España
Tel: (+34 6) 5909313
Fax: (+34 6) 5909318
E-mail:[email protected]

J. Ignacio DE LEIVA MORENO
Fishery Biologist
Project CGP/REM/057/SPA
Fishery Resources Department
Email: [email protected]

H. BEN ALAYA
Secretary/Secrétaire
Senior Fishery Liaison Officer/Fonctionnaire
principal de liaison (pêches)
International Institutions and Liaison
Service/Service des institutions
internationales et de liaison
Tel: (+39 06) 57056435
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail:[email protected]

J.F. CADDY
Technical Secretary/Secrétaire technique
Marine Resources Division/Division des
ressources marines
Tel: (+39 06) 57056097
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
E-mail:[email protected]

U. WIJKSTRÖM
Chief/Chef
Development Planning Service/ Service de la
planification et du développement
Tel: (+39 06) 57053156
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail:[email protected]

M. PEDINI
Technical Secretary/Secrétaire technique
(Aquaculture)
Fishery Resources Division/Division des
ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39 06) 57056279
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
E-mail: [email protected]

A. BONZON
Fishery Planning Officer/Analyste de la
planification des pêches
Fishery Policy and Planning Division/Divison
des politiques et de la planification de la pêche
Tel: (+39 06) 57056441
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]

The Commission appreciates the outcome of the recent work undertaken by SAC. Considerable progress has been achieved in the definition and consolidation of an operative structure and working procedures for the Committee and in the definition of a geographical context for future work. The Commission endorses the terms of reference of the sub-committees proposed by SAC as a long-term framework to progress in providing sound, solid and objective advice for fisheries management.

At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that, although certain issues on which SAC was requested advice have not been fully addressed due to their complexity, the discussions held in that context have led to improvement of the awareness of scientific institutions about research priorities for the near future. SAC should continue to give attention to these problems, and in particular to the definition of management units, to the parameters useful for the management of fishing effort and to the problem of juveniles.

The Commission endorses the conclusions of the Chairman of the sub-committee for stock assessment and encourages SAC to promote the development of these as standing terms of reference for SAC. Emphasis should be placed on stock assessment by the working groups proposed. Moreover, the Commission endorses the establishment of working groups covering the three groups of stocks (large pelagics, small pelagics and demersals, including invertebrates).

For its third meeting, SAC is requested to:

On the issue of fishing effort:

1. Define, by management unit, groups of vessels which, given the fishing gear currently used and other characteristics such as fishing pattern, target groups of species, vessel size, etc, may constitute operational units for the management of fishing effort. As examples, these could be "purse seiners below xm overall length", "pelagic trawlers of more than x GT", "vessels below xm overall length using fixed gear ", etc.

2. For each of these groups, define which parameters are more closely related to the effective fishing power of individual vessels. The parameters should be given separately for the vessel and for the gear. For each parameter, describe its relative importance, ease of measurement and possibility of management. In the case of small vessel, define which parameters related to fishing power can be measured for the whole group by sampling and which parameters may be subject to an effort management scheme. For all groups, decide which time parameters (time absent from port, soaking time, haul duration, etc.) may be used in an effort management scheme.

3. Collect information on economic and social indices associated to the above-mentioned effort parameters, by management unit, in order to set the basis for an assessment of the economic and social consequences of variations resulting from a possible management of fishing effort.

On the issue of juvenile fish:

4. Improve knowledge on the likelihood and effects on assessment of alternative hypothesis about natural mortality (age-dependent M, constant M) and on the "refugium" effect (non-availability to the fishery of certain parts of the fish population).

5. Provide a table of lengths at first capture (l₂₅, l₅₀) and other selectivity parameters for the most important commercial species when fishing with towed and fixed gears, and for a wide range of mesh sizes and, where appropriate, hook sizes, and to promote, where necessary, selectivity experiments.

6. Provide a summary of zones and seasons of concentration of juveniles. For these zones, give the mean species composition of the catch by the groups of vessels mentioned under 1) above.

7. Provide tables of prices by size for the most important commercial species in a variety of markets.

On the ICCAT-GFCM joint assessment of large pelagic species:

8. Progress in assembling the data required for stock assessment.

9. Improve knowledge on the management units and issues of shared and straddling stocks.

* This figure does not allow for interpretation. Should such interpretation be required, the allocation would have to be adopted accordingly.

IN VIEW OF the 1998 stock assessment on bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean by the Commission's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), indicating that an annual catch level equal or higher than 33,000 MT would not be sustainable,

RECOGNIZING the need to reconcile the necessary conservation of the stock with the needs of coastal fishing communities which are dependent mainly on fishing for this stock,

RECALLING that Croatia was undergoing a state of war during the early 1990s,

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION
OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT) RECOMMENDS:

1. That a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 32,000 MT for 1999 and of 29,500 MT for 2000 be established.

2. That in order to establish an allocation of fishing possibilities, the catches of years 1993 and 1994 (whichever is higher), as laid down by SCRS before 1998, be used as reference, except in the case of Croatia, for which a specific quota is set for 1999.

3. That according to paragraph 2 above, the following allocation scheme be established*

	1999	2000
China (People's Republic)	82 MT	76 MT
Croatia	950 MT	876 MT
European Community (EC) **	20,165 MT	18,590 MT
Japan	3,199 MT	2,949 MT
Korea	672 MT	619 MT
Libya	1,300 MT	1,199 MT
Morocco	820 MT	756 MT
Tunisia	2,326 MT	2,144 MT

4. Quantities to be deducted from the 1999 catch quota under the terms of paragraph 2 of the "Recommendation by ICCAT Regarding Compliance in the Bluefin Tuna and North Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries", shall be calculated for all Contracting Parties, with respect to the catch data referred to in paragraph 2 above, as revised by SCRS in 1998.

5. These provisions replace the 1995 "Recommendation by ICCAT on Supplemental Management Measures for Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna".

6. For those non-contracting parties, entities or fishing entities with catches of bluefin tuna in the east Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea from 1993 onwards, the catch limit for 1999 and 2000 will be calculated according to paragraph 2.

* Quota allocations for the year 2000 may be reviewed in light of agreements deriving from discussions of the Working Group on Allocation Criteria that will meet in 1999.

* * This share is calculated by adding the relative shares of each Member State of the European Community, in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2.

*** This total includes a special allocation to Chinese Taipei of 714 MT in 1999 and 658 MT in the year 2000, as Chinese Taipei has cooperating status.

(UPDATE OF GFCM RESOLUTION 97/3)

CONSIDERING the need to take measures regarding the gears used during periods when their impact is most notable on juveniles as well as on spawning stock;

CONSIDERING the insufficient efforts made by Contracting Parties to reduce their own catches of the bluefin tuna in accordance with different Recommendation adopted by the Commission;

CONSIDERING the highly-migratory characteristics of bluefin tunas, including juveniles, as well as the appearance of these juveniles at different times in different areas of the Mediterranean Sea;

CONSIDERING and RECALLING the conclusions of the Commission=s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) that the existing closed season is not established on scientific data, as well as the obligation of each Contracting Party to provide data about catch composition throughout the fishing season for the Mediterranean Sea and which was provided for the Adriatic Sea.

1. Prohibiting purse seine fishing in the Adriatic Sea during the period from 1 - 31 May, in order to protect juveniles;

2. Prohibiting purse seine fishing in the other areas of the Mediterranean Sea during the period from 16 July - 15 August in order to protect juveniles;

3. The border line between Adriatic and other parts of the Mediterranean will be the line which connects the Albanian - Greek border line and Cape Santa Maria- Leuca;

4. That each Contracting Party, Cooperating non-contracting Party, entity or fishing entity which has a purse seine bluefin tuna fishery in areas of the Mediterranean Sea prohibit any transfer of its fleets to either of the two areas during the above respective closed seasons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above;

5. That this recommendation replace the regulatory measure currently in effect on a closed season for the Mediterranean bluefin tuna purse seine fishing.

CONSIDERING the Recommendations adopted by the Commission in 1974 and 1994 concerning bluefin tuna minimum size;

IN ORDER to facilitate commercial transactions without jeopardizing the quality of information on catches and trade of bluefin tuna;

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION
OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT) RECOMMENDS:

FIRST: the prohibition of retaining on board, landing and sale of fish less than 3.2 kg by fishing vessels of Contracting Parties and non-Contracting Parties.

SECOND: that adequate measures be taken by the Commission in November 1997 to guarantee greater transparency and more reliability of statistics, with the aim of identifying the origin of catches.

This Recommendation is supplemental to the minimum size regulations currently in effect on bluefin tuna.

CONSIDERING the Recommendations adopted by the Commission in 1974, 1994, and 1996 concerning bluefin tuna minimum size;

IN ORDER TO ensure adequate enforcement and monitoring of the prohibition on harvest of age zero bluefin tuna.

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION
OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT) RECOMMENDS THAT:

In addition to the prohibition on retaining on board, landing and sale of fish less than 3.2 kg by fishing vessels of Contracting Parties and non-contracting parties, entities or fishing entities, each Contracting Party and non-contracting party, entity or fishing entity shall take the necessary measures to prohibit the landing, possession, or sale in markets in nations bordering the Convention area of Atlantic bluefin tuna of fish less than 3.2 kg.

This Recommendation is supplemental to the minimum size regulations currently in effect for bluefin tuna.