A range of issues and challenges have faced RFBs in recentyears, including those relating to effective governance by the RFB and to theconservation and management of the resource. The Secretariats of the RFBs wererequested to indicate the five most important issues for them, and the reasonswhy they are important. Some RFBs indicated more than five issues, and someindicated less. If an RFB did not indicate an issue as a priority, this does notnecessarily mean the issue is unimportant for the RFB. A summary of the priorityissues and reasons identified by the Secretariats is in Part I.
The identification of priority issues is indicative only,since member countries have not formally reviewed the information, and mandatesof RFBs are diverse. Many of the areas identified are overlapping, and for thisreason issues important to some RFBs were not designated. This may not be clearfrom the categories identified by RFBs. However, taken together they show thegeneral trends at the time of writing and may assist in reaching a clearerunderstanding of the challenges facing RFBs.
ISSUES | CECAF | COFREMAR | GFCM | IBSFC | NASCO | NEAFC | SEAFO | WECAFC | APFIC | IOTC | RECOFI | SEAFDEC | CPPS | FFA | IATTC | IPHC | NPAFC | PSC | SPC | CCAMLR | CCSBT | CIFA | COPESCAL | EIFAC | LVFO | MRC | IWC | AMMCO | ICES |
MANAGEMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Implementing responsible fisheries management |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. Ecosystem approach to fisheries management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. Bycatch | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4. IUU Fishing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. Control and enforcement | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6. Application of precautionary approach | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7. Fisheries and aquaculture policies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8. Conflicts of interest at national level | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9. Increasing fishing capacity of the fleets | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10. Pollution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11. Red tide,bacterial infection phenomena | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12. Transboundary fishing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13. Measures to minimize impacts of aquaculture, andintroductions and transfers on wild stocks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14. Managing conflicts between artisanal and industrialfisheries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15. Urbanization, reclamation of nursery grounds | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16. Enforcement of interim measures contained in the Annex oninterim arrangements | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SCIENCE/RESEARCH | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17. Building a foundation for science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18. Sound scientific advice, research, stock assessments,ecosystems,[114] etc. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19. Statistical database; need for timely statistics,information collection/ distribution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20. Decline, restoration, recovery and conservation of certainfish stocks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21. Evaluation of high seas fisheries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22. Need for a Scientific Research Programme | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23. Factors affecting mortality at sea | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24. Regional Frame Survey for Lake Victoria | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25. Cooperation on issues surrounding initiatives to list fishon CITES appendices | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26. Administrative difficulties on internationalresearch/monitoring programmes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INSTITUTIONAL | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27. Strengthening cooperation/coordination internally, withother RFBs and bodies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28. Need for financial resources to execute mandate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29. Method of determining financial contributions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30. Need for capacity building/financial support foradministrations in member States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31. Diversity among members in development and naturalresource base | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32. Human resource development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33. Maintaining and increasing the added value of theOrganization | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34. Information exchange among member States, todecisionmakers and the public | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35. Membership | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36. Competence to implement the 1995 UN Fish StocksAgreement | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37. Competence to address certain issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38. Competence for management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39. Harmonization of fisheries regulations, Fish QualityAssurance Regulations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40. Cross regulatory/ Cross governance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41. Establishing dispute settlement procedures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42. Private sector involvement in the work of theCommission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43. Negotiation of a new Convention | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44. Establishment of the Western and Central Pacific TunaCommission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45. Ratification of Convention | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46. Upgrading to a Commission under Article XIV of the FAOConstitution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47. Aquaculture development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48. Artisanal fisheries development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49. Cumulative impact of development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50. Processing, marketing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51. Tuna industry development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52. Change in balance between subsistence/ commercialfisheries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [114] This includesproducing scientific advice decision-makers need, need for continuing, accurate,comprehensive stock assessments, assessments of associated species andecosystems at national, regional levels. |
