2. Contemporary regional issues

This section deals with the issues currently facing the sectors, and that have been addressed by APFIC in the last biennium. In Asian inland waters, most fisheries are small-scale activities where the catch per capita is relatively small and used mainly for subsistence purposes. There are some notable exceptions, e.g. where there are fishing concessions such as the "fishing lots" and the dai or bag net fisheries of Cambodia, the fishing inns of Myanmar and reservoir marketing concessions. The lack of accurate reporting of small-scale fisheries operations makes it difficult to describe their status, but it is generally felt that they are under considerable pressure from loss and degradation of habitat as well as overfishing. There are consistent reports of declining catch and declining catch per unit effort. The size and quality of landings from inland capture fisheries is also generally declining. There are a few places where fisheries enhancements and restocking may be contributing to increased catch (such as enhanced reservoir and lake fisheries, or some of the fishing inns in Myanmar), however these are relatively limited volumes when placed against the total production from inland waters.

In marine waters there has been a significant shift in the perception of what the important issues are. After a long period of heavily emphasizing increasing fishing effort and production, there is now an apparent growing realization that we have entered an era where there is an urgent need for improved fisheries management. The two chief targets of this are identified as the need to reduce fishing capacity in coastal and nearshore fisheries and to tackle the extensive problem of IUU fishing. The trend of decentralization of government in many countries, including in the management of natural resources, is also challenging institutions and ways of working, offering opportunities for more effective local management (so called co-management systems). This is set within a broader problem of lack of resources and experience as to how to start up the significant task of empowering and mobilizing resource users to take advantage of the opportunities presented by these changes.

In aquaculture there are clear challenges to meet the growing demand for fish and this can be translated into opportunity if the conditions are right. It is not a straightforward process as feed and fuel prices are spiraling upwards and the demands for land and water in the region make finding suitable sites for aquaculture increasingly difficult. Mariculture offers great opportunities if the challenge of constrained marine-based feeds can be overcome. The environmental restrictions on aquaculture also require more innovative efforts to produce products that are acceptable to markets that are increasingly sensitized to production practices and methods. Certification and branding of aquaculture products have seen rapid gains in the past two years and these are now clearly becoming major areas of interest for accessing marketing chains, especially for export markets.

The inland fisheries in Asia and the Pacific region, and especially in Southeast Asia, are increasingly being recognized as very important for food security and the livelihoods of poor people in rural areas.10 In the rural areas, almost all households, regardless of whether they are farmers or fishers, engage in fishing or collecting aquatic organisms at some time of the year. In cultural terms, aquatic resources also mean more than a mere source of income or food supply as they often play a central role in traditional dishes and food of the region and even in festivals where these enormous inland fisheries resources exist.

Furthermore, the high population density in Asia makes the per capita availability of freshwater the lowest in the world. Hence, there is a high demand for and competing uses of freshwater which have a major impact on fisheries. In this region, most inland fisheries are small-scale activities where the catch per craft (or catch per capita) is relatively small and the catch more often than not is disposed of on the same day. The main exceptions are the industrialized fisheries concessions in the lower Mekong Basin such as the "fishing lots" and the dai fisheries in the Tonle Sap of Cambodia and on some of the large rivers and the fishing inns of Myanmar.

Unfortunately, inland fisheries are often poorly recognized and given low priority by governments, since they are not a visible part of income generation and staple food production. There is an urgent need for information that adequately reflects these realities. A recent review of current fisheries statistics in Southeast Asia highlighted that there were serious discrepancies between the current statistics and the reality.¹¹ One reason for these discrepancies is that the involvement of millions of rural people in small-scale activities is not included in most current national statistics.

China and other developing countries accounted for 94.5 percent of the global inland catches in 2004 as reported by FAO.12 In 2006 the figure was 90.6 percent, with China being the biggest producer followed by Bangladesh and India. Furthermore, the lack of inclusion of recreational catches and the fact that many countries still encounter great difficulties in managing and funding the collection of inland capture statistics are highlighted as major problems by FAO. In addition, the very poor species breakdown reported by many countries risks bias trend analysis by species or species groups of the inland catch data. In 2006, global inland catches classified as "freshwater fishes not elsewhere included"¹³ again exceeded 50 percent (57.2 percent) of the total, and about 74 percent in Asia and the Pacific region. A most worrying trend is that these figures are actually increasing both globally and in the region. As most fisheries management schemes require species level data to function optimally, the fact that they are unavailable is a major obstacle for successful inland fisheries management. Consequently, in countries where inland fisheries are significant for food security and economic development, as in Asia, the mismanagement of inland fisheries could lead to economic losses far greater than the expenditures needed to improve significantly the quality and detail of inland catch statistics.¹⁴

There have been two major increases in the Southeast Asia regional inland capture fisheries statistics in the last 15 years, namely in Cambodia and in Myanmar (Figure 2). Part of the rapid increase in these two countries probably can be explained by improved reporting of fisheries statistics. Hence, over that last 15 years the trend is that production has been stable in Southeast Asia. We can also interpret this as suggesting that inland fisheries are not being measured and thus estimates are not varying from year to year. We do know that inland fisheries are highly sensitive to the rainfall and flooding-monsoon seasons and that these vary between years thus giving clear fluctuations in catch between years that are rarely reflected in national statistical reporting.

APFIC RECOMMENDATION

MEMBER COUNTRIES SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DERIVE MORE SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION REGARDING WHETHER THE GENERAL TRENDS IN INLAND FISHERIES CATCHES ARE INCREASING OR DECREASING.

Additionally, a recent estimation of Thailand's inland capture fisheries production came up with the figure 1.0 million tonnes for the current production, compared to 0.2 million tonnes reported earlier¹⁵. Hence, it can be expected that Thailand will revise its official statistics for inland capture production in the coming years. Again, although probably a few years away, this jump in the statistics does not reflect a real increase in production, but really just reflects an improvement/change in how the statistics are collected.

There is therefore no room for complacency about inland fisheries. In reality we are not seeing a major trend of increasing production from the inland fisheries, but more a general revision upward to what the fisheries are actually producing. The real trend may well be a decline, as we know that inland fisheries, although quite robust (in terms of total production) when faced with increasing fishing effort, are very sensitive to environmental changes. Water flow modification, river training, wetland conversion and floodplain developments, agricultural transformations all have subtle or even dramatic effects on the behaviour of inland fisheries and can result in sudden and significant changes in the quality and quantity of the fish catches.

A critical starting point is to estimate the actual production of the fisheries. One way has been to look at consumption figures and back calculate this into what actually has been caught.16 This helps us know the yield of the fishery and in this specific case the underreporting by official statistics of actual catch. The Mekong River Commission has used this method to estimate the production in the Mekong Basin and concluded it was four times higher (on average) than officially reported. These revised estimates have implications for official statistics, since once they are more formally reflected in officially submitted statistics, the increased values will reflect the change in the collection methodology and not represent a real production increase. Nevertheless, all these historical and tentative revisions highlight the importance of inland capture fisheries for food security and rural livelihoods.

APFIC — A REGIONAL CHALLENGE

IF THE PROBLEM IS THAT INLAND FISHERIES ARE UNRECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CRITICAL ROLE AND IMPORTANCE TO FOOD SECURITY, HOW CAN THIS BE CORRECTED?

Aggregated production statistics are useful in highlighting the role and importance of inland fisheries to the economy and food security. They are not particularly useful for management decision-making. A critical challenge is how to get the right information to manage these fisheries. The small diffuse and high participatory fisheries of Southeast Asia can, by their nature, not be measured by traditional information gathering systems. Traditional information gathering systems that require a specific landing place and possibly registration by fisher/fishery/ or gear simply does not catch the high number of low-level and dispersed fishers. However, management actions and decisions relating to the management of the fishery cannot be undertaken without such information.

A recently concluded FAO project (AQUIIF) with several case studies on inland fisheries in the region, used alternative methods to generate information about inland fisheries. Although different approaches were used, a common feature of all was that the methods explored in the project focused on people, institutions and the link between fish, people, organizations and the ecosystem. The project concluded that it is important to look outwards from the fishery sector to engage with other stakeholders in aquatic resources management. In fact, this was probably the most important feature for management. These other non-fishery sectors include environmental stakeholders and also those involved in basin and flood plain management, flood management and stakeholders whose actions affect connectivity (as for example road planning, drainage, river training). A specific example in road planning could be how many culverts to use per kilometre of newly developed road to try to maintain connectivity between the floodplain and the river. Other areas of interest are the deliberate retention of water bodies within a drained system to sustain some re-recruitment to the fishery.

When we look at this expanded view of fisheries management it is clear that the information needs go far beyond simple information about the fishery resource production. The use of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management¹⁷ is intended to ensure the inclusion of all stakeholders in the management of aquatic biological systems. To date, the application of the ecosystems approach in an FAO context has only been applied to marine ecosystems.¹⁸ When it comes to inland fisheries there may actually be more examples of the application of the ecosystem approach, although often referred to under different names. The closest resemblance is probably integrated river basin management (IRBM)¹⁹ which also focuses on the inter-sectoral interactions with respect to water. IRBM "is the process of coordinating conservation, management and development of water, land and related resources across sectors within a given river basin, in order to maximize the economic and social benefits derived from water resources in an equitable manner while preserving and, where necessary, restoring freshwater ecosystems."²⁰ The main difference here is that the ecosystem approach to fisheries management focuses on the management of fisheries, whereas basin management, watershed management etc. uses water as the principle focus. New approaches place fisheries, biodiversity and living resources at the centre of the planning process since these resources are excellent indicators of the health and integrity of the environment (e.g. European Union water framework directive).

Information generation needs to focus on the information needs for management. This information will be of a wide variety of types covering resources, value, use and human and sectoral interactions. The process of using information needs to be changed. It is not adequate to simply print and publish data expecting it to be utilized. There is the need to communicate the meaning of the information and put it into the broader context. This requires clear engagement of the fishery sector in broader planning initiatives and the recognition of the services that are delivered by the fishery. Some key steps in this process are:

• national fisheries information strategy developed;
• resourcing of information collection addressed in the strategy;
• identification of key relationships between sectoral institutions (planning, environment, water management etc.) and development of formal arrangements for communication;
• identification of information needs according to the types of fishery;
• preparation of the information into a form that can be used by the stakeholder (i.e. impact predictions for water management discussions, trends for fisheries management groups);
• prioritization of the information collection process (including monthly, annual or periodic collection); and
• contingency plans for unforeseen episodes that require rapid focussed assessment (e.g. localized impact, pollution events, EIA etc.).

Marine protected areas as a tool for fisheries management: promises and limitations22

The notion that marine protected areas (MPAs) are a useful tool for fisheries management has developed over the last 15 to 20 years. Although MPAs may have clear benefits as a management tool, without broader fishery management measures and without being integrated in a wider management environment their use remains questionable. However, it is apparent that MPAs are part of a strong belief system with a steadily growing number of adherents both inside and outside the marine and fisheries science communities.

Map C Blue dots represent MPAs as recorded in a global database (2005)²³

Real or assumed failures of conventional fisheries management approaches and the fashionable, but probably misunderstood and therefore distorted, understanding of ecosystem approaches to fisheries management have led to a growing emphasis on the role of MPAs as an appropriate and effective fisheries management tool. This section seeks to challenge the assumption that fisheries management requires MPAs. This will be done by questioning what MPAs can actually do and what they cannot do and what benefits they produce, where and for whom. More specifically we ask:

• Does the status of a fishery really depend on habitat condition?
• Are the benefits derived from MPAs greater than those derived from reduced effort?
• Do MPAs address excess effort in a fishery?
• Do the assumed benefits from spill-over and dispersal compensate for the loss to a fishery or even exceed the loss to a fishery through the reduction of the potential sustainable harvest from any given stock?

Arguments for establishing MPAs for fisheries management

The faith in MPAs as a suitable fisheries management tool is founded on a handful of arguments that challenge the wisdom of conventional fisheries management approaches. It is argued that conventional fisheries management, with its focus on single species and maximum sustainable yield, is incapable of dealing with the complexities of marine ecosystems and food webs. MPAs are suggested as an alternative that seeks to protect these complex and unpredictable systems and to provide the organisms living within them with refuges in which they are safe from human exploitation.

Modelling of the biological benefits of MPAs clearly shows how the removal of human activity from an ecosystem results in some immediate benefits and then a series of longer term changes that see the ecosystem restore itself to a new equilibrium, with higher biological diversity and increased abundance. The assumptions are that with these gains inside the MPA, there are concomitant impacts on a broader area. The benefits within the MPA are seen to be the opening up of new opportunities for "non- extractive" type activities that are based on the "natural value", the most obvious being the potential for tourism and tourism-related activities (diving etc.) Based on this model, proponents of MPAs are quick to point out the benefits of MPAs for fisheries. The predictions of the model have been confirmed by numerous case studies around the world, confirming that marine areas closed to fishing have the potential to produce huge biological gains within the protected area.

Biological benefits within MPAs

Summarizing some research findings from around the world, PISCO's²⁴. The science of marine reserves seeks to dispel any reservations about the biological gains that can be achieved within, what they call, a marine reserve. A global review of studies of 124 of such marine reserves revealed that fishes, invertebrates, and seaweeds had the following average increases inside marine reserves:

• biomass, or the mass of animals and plants, increased an average of 446 percent;
• density, or the number of plants or animals in a given area, increased an average of 166 percent;
• body size of animals increased an average of 28 percent; and
• species diversity or the number of species increased an average of 21 percent in the sample area.

There are a variety of agreements that relate to different fishery issues in the region. The agreements come in different forms: binding and voluntary; global and regional. The agreements may specifically cover fisheries or be indirectly related through environment, biodiversity, labour or other international norms that relate to the fishery sector and its activities. More information on these can be found on the APFIC website.25

Binding agreements

The binding agreements are usually adopted at global level; hence most of them are deposited in a UN organization. Among these, a few are of special importance:

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
• United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)
• FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (FAO Compliance Agreement)
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• (In process) Agreement on Port State Measures
• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78 (specifically Annex V)).

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) mainly deals with conservation, utilization and management of living resources, and the responsibility to deal with shared stocks and stocks of the high seas through regional mechanisms (e.g. regional fisheries organizations). There are still some countries in the region that have not signed and/or ratified this convention (Table 5). The agreement entered into force on 16 November 1994 and is today the globally recognized regime dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea.

The main purpose of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement is to implement the UNCLOS. It further elaborates general principles concerning conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and emphasizes the special role of regional fisheries management organizations in conservation and management. It also highlights the obligations of states with respect to vessels flying their flags on the high seas and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMO) or arrangements, e.g. the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The agreement entered into force on 11 December 2001, but there are still many countries that have not signed or ratified the convention (Table 5).

The FAO Compliance Agreement places a general obligation on flag states to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that vessels flying their flags do not engage in any activity that undermines the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures. In addition, it seeks to limit the freedom of vessels that have a bad compliance record to "shop around" for new flags. The Agreement applies to all fishing vessels over 24 metres in length used or intended for use for the commercial exploitation of living marine resources, including mother ships and any other vessels directly engaged in such fishing operations and entered into force on 24 April 2003, but has still to see acceptance instruments from many of the countries in the region (Table 5).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments. It aims to ensure that the international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Species are categorized according to the degree of threat to their survival and this classification determines the extent to which the species can be traded and/or moved.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has been ratified and/or signed by all countries in the region and is dedicated to promoting sustainable development and was developed as a practical tool for translating the principles of Agenda 21 into reality. CBD deals with fisheries issues separately for inland, marine and coastal systems. In addition, CBD also covers issues relating to alien species introductions and movements.

The objective of the FAO international plans of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by providing all states with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures by which to act, including through appropriate regional fisheries management organizations established in accordance with international law. The IPOA in particular encourages states to develop national plans of action to implement the IPOA-IUU. For Pacific Island states, a specific model scheme has been developed to help in the formulation and implementation of the NPOA.26

The Regional Plan of Action for Responsible Fishing27 (2007) is a voluntary instrument and takes its core principles from the above mentioned and already established international fisheries instruments for promoting responsible fishing practices. It is a commitment to implement those aspects of fisheries management that relate to combating IUU fishing. The coverage of the RPOA is the areas of the South China Sea, Sulu-Sulawesi Seas (Celebes Sea) and the Arafura and Timor Seas. The ministerial meeting to sign the RPOA was convened from 2 to 4 May 2007 in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia and was attended by representatives of 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam. The countries signing the RPOA agreed to work together on the following key areas of fishery management:

• collecting statistics and exchanging data;
• managing fishing capacity and effort;
• flag state responsibilities;
• regional market measures;
• regional capacity building to develop core competencies for fisheries research, management and compliance;
• strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems; and
• managing transshipment at sea.

The main objectives of the APEC Bali Plan of Action (2005) are to ensure the sustainable management of the marine environment and its resources and to strengthen regional fisheries management organizations. Based on the commitment made by ministers in the 2002 Seoul Ocean Declaration, the Bali Plan of Action contains practical commitments to work towards healthy oceans and coasts for the sustainable growth and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific community. The APEC Bali Plan of Action (2005) seeks to balance conservation and management of marine resources with regional economic growth. It was adopted at the close of the second APEC ocean-related ministerial meeting. This new plan is intended to guide the work of APEC ocean-related working groups for the rest of the decade through domestic and regional actions in three key areas: ensuring the sustainable management of the marine environment; providing sustainable economic benefits from the oceans; and ensuring the sustainable development of coastal communities.

The Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) is a regional environmental agreement covering a large part of the marine area within APFIC's direct area of interest. The East Asia Seas region does not have a regional convention; instead COBSEA promotes compliance with existing environmental treaties and is based on member country goodwill. The Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region (the East Asian Seas Action Plan) was approved in 1981 stimulated by concerns about the effects and sources of marine pollution. Initially, the action plan involved five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). In 1994, it was revised to involve another five countries (Australia, Cambodia, China, Republic of Korea and Viet Nam) and to this date the action plan still has ten member countries. The main components of the East Asian Seas Action Plan are assessment of the effects of human activities on the marine environment, control of coastal pollution, protection of mangroves, seagrasses and coral reefs, and waste management. The East Asian Seas Action Plan is steered by COBSEA. The East Asian Seas Regional Coordinating Unit (EAS/RCU) serves as the Secretariat for COBSEA.

Promoting long-term sustainable management of marine capture fisheries in the APFIC region by addressing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing28

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing²⁹ impacts the long-term sustainable management of marine capture fisheries in the APFIC region. Through national action and regional collaboration, Commission Members are addressing IUU fishing in a range of ways with a view to improving the manner in which the region's fish stocks are harvested and utilized.

In combination with efforts to strengthen public and fisheries sector governance, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) provides a framework for countries to promote greater responsibility and long-term sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture. This is especially important because the productivity of capture fisheries in the APFIC region has declined over recent decades, primarily because of high and unregulated levels of fishing effort.

In addition to excess fleet capacity, overfishing, open-access fisheries and the use of destructive fishing practices in the APFIC region, IUU fishing presents major challenges. In common with other regions, IUU fishing in Asia is widespread and problematic. It undermines national and regional efforts to manage fish stocks sustainably and inhibits efforts to rebuild them. It is characteristic of all capture fisheries, irrespective of their location, scale, gear type or species targeted. To maximize revenue and profits, most IUU fishers act ruthlessly, targeting high-value species that have a strong market demand and fishing areas where the chances of being apprehended are lowest (i.e. in the more remote high seas areas and the EEZs of developing countries).

In 2004 and 2006 two FAO regional workshops on the elaboration of national plans of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Penang, Malaysia, 10 to 14 October 2004 and Bangkok, Thailand, 19 to 23 June 2006)³⁰ considered a range of IUU fishing problems prevalent in Asia and developed priority listings of problems by country.³¹ In turn, a prioritized ranking of issues for the region was developed. Participants also proposed actions to be taken to prevent and deter the IUU fishing problems identified.³² The outcomes of the workshops were important in that they confirmed the existence of extensive IUU fishing in the APFIC region. Significantly, the problems identified and the solutions proposed were similar to the challenges and solutions found and proposed in other regions.

In a subsequent initiative, countries considered the relationship between excess fleet capacity, overfishing and IUU fishing at the APFIC regional consultative workshop on managing fishing capacity and IUU fishing in the Asian region (Phuket, Thailand, 13 to 15 June 2007).³³ Two key messages came out of that workshop: that overcapacity and IUU fishing threatened economic development and food security and that pro-active tackling of overcapacity and IUU fishing would deliver concrete benefits throughout the fisheries sector and the economy at large. The workshop also agreed on a set of strategies for managing fishing capacity, IUU fishing and information needs.

The international community recognizes that IUU fishing should be dealt with forcefully and in a multi-pronged manner. Indeed, this approach was foreseen in the 2001 FAO international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU). It is also recognized that one of the most effective means of addressing IUU fishing is to block the revenue flows to persons and companies engaged in, and supporting, such fishing and related activities. This recognition led to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) to call for the adoption of different but related measures to block IUU-caught fish from entering international trade, thereby depriving IUU fishers from benefiting from the sale of their stolen product. Some of these measures build on existing initiatives and include the elaboration of national and regional plans of action on IUU fishing as foreseen in the IPOA-IUU, principally as a means of assembling coherent and comprehensive national and regional policies and measures to combat IUU fishing; negotiation of a binding agreement on port state measures; development of a global register for fishing vessels, refrigerated transport vessels and supply vessels; development of criteria for flag state performance and the adoption of measures to be taken when a state fails to meet the agreed criteria, and strengthening of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), including vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

Adherence to international instruments and reporting on activities germane to combating IUU fishing

The IPOA-IUU (paragraphs 10 to 15) encourages all countries to ratify, accept or accede to international instruments, as a matter of priority, and in turn, to implement them fully. The ratification and implementation of these instruments are considered to be essential for laying firm foundations for promoting long-term sustainable fisheries management and for dealing effectively with IUU fishing.

A review of ratification and acceptances for key instruments by APFIC Members shows that three countries in the Asian region have not ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 11 countries have not ratified the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and 12 countries have not accepted the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement (Table 5). This is despite the fact that some of these APFIC Members authorize their vessels to fish outside their national jurisdictions in the EEZs of other countries and on the high seas.

Importantly, the 2007 regional ministerial meeting on promoting responsible fishing practices that adopted the regional plan of action to promote responsible fishing practices including combating IUU fishing (RPOA-IUU) and the joint ministerial statement (Bali, Indonesia, 2 to 4 May 2007)³⁴ inter alia called the attention of countries to the need to implement the international fisheries instruments referred to in the review (Table 5), noting that the instruments contained the structures and measures upon which to build long-term sustainable fisheries. Ministers emphasized the importance of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other FAO international plans of action. This means that the international call to ratify and accept these instruments in the IPOA-IUU has been reinforced by regional agreement to comply with the global call in the RPOA-IUU.

The pattern of ratifications and acceptances of key international instruments points to the need for APFIC Members to review their commitment to national and regional fisheries management and to take appropriate action. This situation is especially important for those countries that authorize their flag vessels to fish beyond zones of national jurisdiction.

National and regional plans of action, port state measures, global register of fishing vessels, flag state performance and monitoring control and surveillance including vessels monitoring systems

National and regional plans of action

An integral component of the IPOA-IUU is the development of national plans of action to combat IUU fishing (NPOA-IUU). The purpose of the national plans, as referred to in paragraphs 25 to 27 of the IPOA-IUU, is to give full effect to its objectives. Based on the information available to FAO, most Asian APFIC Members have not developed a NPOA-IUU, even though several countries have indicated that they are in the process of finalizing an NPOA-IUU (Table 7). Disappointingly, and despite FAO capacity building efforts, the Asian region is the only region in the world where not all countries have taken action to elaborate NPOA-IUU. However, it is also noteworthy that several of the countries that do not have an NPOA have a national equivalent in their planning documents.

The development of NPOA-IUU is an important means for assessing what actions are already being taken by countries to combat IUU fishing and what action and measures still require to be implemented. It has been noted by countries in other regions that the process of developing NPOA-IUU has been an especially productive and valuable exercise because it has enabled them to identify gaps in existing policy and measures. The process has also facilitated a logical and parallel approach in dealing with IUU fishing and related activities.

Despite the lack of action at the national level, certain countries in the Southeast Asian region have collaborated to develop a RPOA-IUU, with leadership and support coming from the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Australia.³⁵ This outcome has been a landmark achievement and it is highly commendable. In adopting the RPOA-IUU the ministers of the participating countries inter alia agreed that regional cooperation among countries to promote responsible fishing practices and to combat IUU fishing was essential, particularly in order to sustain fisheries resources, ensure food security, alleviate poverty and to optimize the benefits to the region's people and economies.

The ministers endorsed the RPOA-IUU as a sign of tangible regional commitment to conserve and manage fisheries resources and the environment in the areas of the South China Sea, Sulu-Sulawesi Seas and Arafura and Timor Seas. As a follow-up activity, it was agreed to establish a coordination committee that would monitor and review the effective implementation of the measures agreed in the RPOA-IUU. It was agreed also that an interim secretariat would be established in 2008, hosted by the Government of Indonesia.

As a second step in the process, countries will proceed to develop their respective NPOA-IUU. The national plans will be consistent with the thrust and intent of the RPOA-IUU and support its implementation.

Port state measures

The implementation of port state measures, primarily to block the movement of IUU-caught fish, is one of the most cost-effective and safe means of preventing the import, transshipment or laundering of illicitly harvested products. In 2005 at COFI, FAO Members endorsed the model scheme on port state measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (model scheme).³⁶ This is a non-binding instrument that focuses on general considerations relating to port state measures, inspections, action to be taken, information and other matters. The model scheme also contains a number of important technical annexes. Some countries and RFBs have taken steps to implement the instrument, as have APFIC Members participating in the RPOA-IUU: they agreed to adopt port state measures based on the model scheme, which is a highly encouraging development.

In 2007 COFI revisited the issue of port state measures. It agreed to move forward with the development of a legally binding instrument based on the IPOA-IUU and the model scheme. At COFI, many FAO Members stressed that the new instrument would represent minimum standards for port states, with countries having the flexibility to adopt more stringent measures. An expert consultation to consider a draft text of a binding instrument was convened by FAO in 2007 (Washington DC, 4 to 8 September 2007).³⁷ This draft, with certain additions by the FAO Secretariat, was to be tabled at the forthcoming FAO Technical Consultation (Rome, Italy, 23 to 27 June 2008). The outcome of the consultation will be reported to COFI in 2009.

The elaboration of a binding international instrument of port state measures represents an important development in international law because Article 218 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea refers to port state enforcement in relation to pollution. The new instrument will extend port state measures and enforcement only to support long-term sustainability, enhanced ocean governance and strengthened fisheries management. APFIC Members are urged to participate fully in the process for the elaboration of the instrument and to pro-actively facilitate its implementation after it is concluded.

Noting that some APFIC Members have already committed themselves to the implementation of the model scheme, with the progression towards the conclusion of a binding instrument on port state measures that builds on, and consolidates, the provisions of the IPOA-IUU and model scheme, it is anticipated that APFIC Members will move to accept the more stringent measures reflected in the binding instrument.

Global register of fishing vessels

Another potential new tool in the fight against IUU fishing received endorsement from a team of experts convened by the FAO (Rome, Italy, 25 to 28 February 2008) to study its future development, following a recommendation from the 2007 session of COFI that FAO further explore the concept.³⁸ The tool, a comprehensive global record of fishing vessels, refrigerated transport vessels and supply vessels, is envisioned as a global database where data from many sources would be gathered in a single location. The proposal of a global record was advanced initially by the 2005 Rome Declaration on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.³⁹ The concept was also the subject of an FAO feasibility study that concluded that a global record was technically feasible if a number of conditions were met.

One of the major obstacles faced by fisheries enforcement bodies is the lack of access to information on fishing vessel identification, ownership and control. Currently there is no single source where basic information about fishing vessels of all sizes is contained. The proposed global register would fill that void.

There is a sense of urgency about the need to develop this tool. Expectations are that work on its development might be started quickly and proceed in phases. Moreover, for maximum utility the global record should be extensive in scope: for this reason a very broad definition of "vessel" was proposed at the expert consultation although it was recognized that this would have implications for the size of the database. It was acknowledged that IUU fishing was a problem both on the high seas and in EEZs and that smaller-scale vessels should be included as well. Mandatory, unique vessel identifiers would be needed to be assigned on vessels.

In addition to providing information to fisheries enforcement agencies, the global record could improve the traceability of vessels and products regarding IUU fishing detection; enhance transparency of vessel information and operation; strengthen risk assessment for both governments and industry at all levels, and support decision-making on a broad range of issues including fleet capacity, fisheries management, safety at sea, pollution, security, statistics and related issues.

Flag state performance

Reflecting the impatience of the international community with the failure of some flag states to exercise effective control over their vessels in accordance with international law, the 2007 session of COFI addressed the matter of "irresponsible flag states" and many FAO Members suggested the need to develop criteria for assessing the performance of flag states as well as examining possible actions against vessels flying the flags of states not meeting such criteria. Subject to the availability of funding, it was proposed that FAO take the matter forward by organizing an expert consultation.⁴⁰

As an initial step, the Government of Canada, in cooperation in FAO and with support from the European Commission and the Law of the Sea Institute of Iceland, hosted an expert workshop on flag state responsibilities (Vancouver, Canada, 25 to 28 March 2008). Its objectives were to identify criteria to assess performance of flag state responsibilities; appropriate instruments and mechanisms to ensure commitment and implementation of the criteria; compliance mechanisms; possible actions against vessels in the event of non-compliance and avenues for assistance to developing countries to assist them in meeting commitments under these criteria.

The workshop was the first step towards identifying definitive actions that might be taken to improve flag state performance. Experts were invited to present and consider a number of papers on the subject and to identify performance assessment criteria, compliance mechanisms and appropriate instruments to promote implementation, as well as possible actions against vessels that are non-compliant. The workshop also considered avenues to assist developing countries meet their flag state obligations.

A report of the meeting is being prepared and the presenters of the papers agreed to take comments into account for follow-up revisions. Discussions were vibrant and wide ranging. The workshop agreed that it would be necessary to focus on concrete issues to ensure that real progress could be made on flag state issues. The complementarily of port state measures and flag state performance was recognized in the workshop.

An FAO expert consultation on the use of monitoring systems and satellites for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (Rome, Italy, 24 to 6 October 2006)41 brought together legal, technical and operational experts to provide FAO with advice in these areas. The consultation concluded that VMS have been inappropriately overvalued by some authorities as the ultimate MCS tool. The consultation recognized that VMS data should be integrated with other data, such as vessel registrations, licenses, management data, electronic logbook data and others if their potential is to be fully realized. But concerns remain about the need for increased data sharing among nations and RFMOs, as well as concerns about tampering, data quality and harmonization.

The 2006 expert consultation further considered whether a new binding international instrument on VMS would be appropriate. Given the current widespread use of VMS, the potential disruption of existing practices a new instrument could cause and the judgment that the current international legal frameworks are adequate, the consultation recommended against a new instrument, but advised that other mechanisms might be considered to address gaps in implementation such as an international plan of action, a declaration or strategy or other means, although COFI 2007 did not move forward on any of these suggested mechanisms.

Finally, the twenty-second session of the coordinated working party on statistics in 2007 ⁴² requested a broad VMS inventory in advance of its consideration of an international standard for electronic data transmission. FAO agreed to undertake this inventory and make it publicly available. An extensive questionnaire was developed and distributed to more than 150 countries in June 2007. A response rate in excess of 50 percent has been achieved. Responses are still being encouraged to facilitate global and regional analyses and the development of a database and directory of VMS coordinators.

APFIC Members that have responded to the questionnaire are shown in Table 8. Those who have not responded yet are encouraged to do so as soon as possible so as to permit a comprehensive regional VMS analysis to be undertaken.

Capacity building

In 2004 and 2006 FAO conducted workshops to assist APFIC Members elaborate NPOA-IUU. The capacity building was comprehensive in that all APFIC Members participated in one or other of the regional workshops together with some countries that are not APFIC Members. No further training of this nature is envisaged, though technical assistance may be needed in some cases to support the development of NPOA-IUU.

To enhance the implementation of the 2005 FAO model scheme and after COFI in 2007 and to sensitize countries about the possibility of the conclusion of a binding instrument on port state measures, FAO embarked in 2006 upon a global series of capacity-building workshops.⁴³ They have been convened in conjunction with RFBs given that they will play a central role in developing and implementing regional port state measures schemes.

In 2008 a port state measures workshop was held in Bangkok, Thailand (31 March to 4 April 2008).⁴⁴ Convened in conjunction with the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), it was considered to be a very successful meeting. Importantly, the workshop agreed on six key issues for future action and cooperation in strengthening and harmonizing port state measures to combat IUU fishing. The issues were: ensuring political will and support; harmonization and standardization; legal framework; regional and subregional MCS networks; training and human capacity building and information sharing; and activity coordination. Specific and concrete actions for each of the issues were identified. It is anticipated that other workshops will be undertaken in 2009 to include those APFIC Members that did not participate in the Bangkok workshop.

At the 2008 Expert Consultation on the Development of a Comprehensive Global Record of Fishing Vessels, it was urged that consideration be given to establishing capacity-building mechanisms to provide financial assistance and technical support to developing countries. The consultation noted that this was especially important because some countries do not maintain fishing vessel records, not even for their large-scale flagged vessels. Consequently, capacity building and technical support would be required on many levels to ensure that the global record is comprehensive and implemented fully.

Capacity-building requirements to support the implementation of flag state performance criteria will depend on the outcome of the deliberations within FAO, if and when they take place. Nonetheless, it is recognized that there will be capacity-building needs and they will have to be fined tuned to the requirements of the criteria and follow-up action that might be ultimately agreed.

In 2004 FAO convened the Southeast Asia Vessel Monitoring Systems Workshop (Bangkok, Thailand, 6 to 8 October 2004).⁴⁵ Eight APFIC Members participated. The workshop addressed the history and future of MCS and the IPOA-IUU, fisheries issues and RFBs in Southeast Asia, fishing vessel monitoring, institutional options for VMS, implementing VMS, legal issues related to VMS, the use of electronic logbooks and satellite observation of fishing vessels and recent technological developments. There were also country reports and working groups addressed issues relating to VMS cooperation in the region, in what fisheries and for what fleets VMS might be applied, the type of VMS/MCS cooperation required, and the most appropriate forum for pursuing regional cooperation in VMS/CS in Southeast Asia.

Further specific VMS/MCS capacity building initiatives are not planned at this time for the APFIC region but it is anticipated that APFIC Members will benefit from the global and regional analyses resulting from the VMS inventory, especially if it is comprehensive for Asia.

Challenges for APFIC Members in implementing measures to combat IUU fishing

The most significant challenge for APFIC Members with respect to the IPOA-IUU will be the implementation of their NPOA-IUU and the RPOA-IUU. Moving from words to action is always a major and difficult step and the development of strategies and concrete measures to give life to national and regional plans will test the capacity and resolve of countries. Given the enormity of the problems facing Asian marine capture fisheries, especially in terms of the need to reduce fleet overcapacity and implement management measures to promote long-term sustainability, including measures to reduce the incidence of IUU fishing, it is to be expected that progress will be achieved in incremental steps rather than in large strides.

If FAO Members agree to conclude a binding international instrument on port state measures, countries that accept it will be required to put national policies and measures in place to implement it. This will require legislative adjustment to give legal force to national action. Implementation will also involve administering a number of technical measures. These measures would include the collection and processing of information provided by vessels in advance of port calls, the inspection of vessels when they are in port, reporting on inspections, the establishment of information systems relating to inspections and the training of inspectors. It is likely that some countries will require technical assistance to implement the policies and measures underpinning the instrument.

The 2009 session of COFI will consider developments on the global register and provide direction for further action. It is premature, therefore, to seek to identify specific challenges for APFIC Members. However, while awaiting COFI's decision, countries should focus attention on the state of their national vessels registers and commence internal discussions among relevant agencies on how they might be improved and strengthened.

Some APFIC Members operate open registers and are considered by the international community to offer "flags of non-compliance". If action is not taken to ensure that effective flag state control is exercised in accordance with international law over the vessels flagged by these countries, they will certainly be the target of international action. This action could have serious commercial consequences and include the negative listing of "flag of non-compliance" countries and their vessels and the closure of important markets to fish harvested by the vessels or exported from these countries. It is not premature for APFIC Members to review their national positions with respect to the flagging of fishing and associated vessels so as to ensure that they are compliant with international standards and norms.

Maximizing the potential of VMS in the APFIC region includes not only utilizing VMS data in conjunction with other fisheries and non-fisheries data streams, but also working on a regional basis to facilitate VMS data exchange. This activity requires consideration of harmonized formats and compatibility whenever possible. Coordination among MCS officials and administrations and regular exchanges of data and experiences enable the technology benefits to be applied with maximum utility in the fisheries enforcement context.

These types of exchanges of data, experiences and regular contact among MCS staff in the APFIC region are encouraged on MCS issues in general, especially in light of the shared fish stocks in the region and the high level of unmanaged fishing activity. These types of activities are already being promoted actively in Southeast Asia within the framework of the RPOA-IUU.

Follow-up activities

APFIC Members should undertake periodic assessments to determine the extent to which NPOA-IUU and the RPOA-IUU are being implemented, i.e. whether the instruments are achieving their goals and the purpose for which they were concluded. The IPOA-IUU (paragraph 26) calls on countries to review the implementation of their NPOA-IUU at least every four years. The purpose of this review process is to ensure that NPOA-IUU remain living documents, capable of addressing new and changing circumstances. Similarly, in the section on implementation, it is stated that the RPOA-IUU will be reviewed from time to time by the coordination committee.

In undertaking assessments of their NPOA-IUU and the RPOA-IUU, countries are encouraged to establish a set of realistic indicators against which progress on implementation can be measured. The indicators, if constant over a reasonable period of time (e.g. ten years), will facilitate unbiased national and regional evaluations.

It is anticipated that a binding instrument on port state measures will be concluded prior to COFI in 2009. APFIC Members that opt to ratify the instrument will need to undertake a number of policy and legal measures to give effect to the instrument. There will also be capacity-building implications to ensure that vessel inspectors are equipped to undertake the tasks required in relation to port state inspections.

Further analysis of the viability of the global record is likely to occur during the remainder of 2008, and in March 2009, proposals regarding its further advancement will be submitted to COFI. In the event that COFI endorses the proposals, development and implementation of the global record will remain conditional on the availability of funding to ensure the viability of the project. Funds will also be required and employed to assist some countries in the development of their national registries and/or records.

The outcomes of FAO's work on flag state performance will need to be followed up in the APFIC region once the outcomes have been agreed and adopted. APFIC Members should participate in meetings to address this issue and monitor developments carefully, acknowledging that commercial impacts could be anticipated in some important markets.

APFIC Members that have not already done so are requested to complete the VMS questionnaire that was despatched in 2007 to all FAO Members and return it as soon as possible to FAO. Without these responses FAO will not be able to undertake a comprehensive VMS analysis in the APFIC region. This lack of information will also inhibit the global VMS analysis that is being undertaken.

Conclusion

Open access, poor management and IUU fishing are characteristics of fisheries in the APFIC region. Fish stocks are heavily fished and IUU fishing in EEZs and on the high seas by national and foreign small- and large-scale operators, both authorized and unauthorized, are common. Indeed, the nature and scope of the IUU fishing problems and challenges are similar to those encountered in other areas of the world.

Some APFIC Members, through their involvement in the RPOA-IUU, have a head start in dealing with IUU fishing. Providing a comprehensive and flexible framework and platform for action, the RPOA-IUU marshals into a single instrument the key elements of the IPOA-IUU and the model scheme. This is highly beneficial as many other regions do not have equivalent springboards to support the implementation of these instruments. However, although regional issues are being addressed adequately at the present time, national initiatives and implementation are lagging. APFIC Members are encouraged to devote greater attention to this matter as stronger and more decisive regional outcomes depend, to a large extent, on resilient underpinning national measures.

APFIC Members are encouraged to review their status with respect to the international fisheries instruments and seek to resolve impediments that might inhibit the acceptance and ratification of certain instruments. Moreover, countries are urged to respond to FAO's periodic requests for information so that complete regional and global analyses can be undertaken. The outcomes of these analyses are important not only as a means of assessing progress and achievement but also as a means of indicating to the international donor community priorities for technical assistance.

The development and implementation of NPOA-IUU and the implementation of the model scheme, the binding instrument on port state measures, the global register of fishing vessels, the criteria for flag state performance and MCS and VMS will tax the resources and capacities of APFIC over the next five years. Follow-up activities to these initiatives will be important and will require ongoing efforts to strengthen national capacity.

IUU fishing is entrenched in all marine capture fisheries and creative and innovative ways are needed to prevent IUU fishers from benefiting from their criminal activity. IUU-caught fish in most instances is stolen product and the blocking of market access is central to denying IUU fishers financial gain. Port state measures will prevent the landing, transshipment and laundering of IUU catches whereas the global register of fishing vessels, tighter flag state performance measures and more effective and diffuse MCS and VMS will facilitate better and more focussed enforcement measures against IUU fishers and their associates.

A recent FAO workshop on offshore resource management46 recommended that the following three areas are especially important for the management of offshore resources: 1) improving information; 2) addressing the challenge; and 3) improving fisheries management.

Regarding improving information, it was highlighted that it was important to address the information gaps and it was considered that it would be very useful to:

Good information is available in some countries, e.g. India, and could be used to build a better regional picture. Also, noting that an enormous amount of information already exists (exploratory fishing, assessment surveys, past joint ventures and current fishing), existing information should be compiled and made available in a form that is useful for planning and management. Information and expertise on technology development should be shared among countries in the region and exploratory surveys to find new resources involving new technologies to harvest and preserve fish quality should be conducted in the offshore areas nationally and with regional coordination. Finally, regular monitoring of the status of the resources, through standardized survey techniques should be conducted along with regular analyses of catch and effort statistics.

The best way to address this challenge is for countries to initiate desk studies to evaluate the social and economic potential of selected offshore resources and, on the basis of the regional consultations on offshore fishing, any fishery development should be accompanied by strengthening responsible fishing technology and practices as well as the fish handling and post-harvest capacity. Where social and economic benefits of fishing can be demonstrated, countries should proceed to pilot-scale fisheries projects, based on sound planning and a vision for the fishery and returns to fishing and livelihood of fishers should be improved by reducing post-harvest losses and increasing of fish quality to meet market requirements. Furthermore, it should be recognized that a move offshore will require new skills. Indeed, there is a need to increase the technical skills of all involved right from harvesting through to marketing. Safety at sea should be improved also with the adoption of safer vessels, technologies and human capacity building.

To improve fisheries management, countries must engage in developing national strategies for the sustainable utilization of offshore resources, including a future vision for offshore fisheries and objectives shared by the key stakeholders. This will be based on the best available knowledge and include costs, opportunities and risks. Furthermore, the entire system of fishery information collection, dissemination and its use will, in many cases, need to be revamped to include offshore fisheries. This may require the blending of indigenous and scientific knowledge and the development of appropriate information products for decision-making at different levels. Access rights to offshore resources will need to be determined to ensure proper resource management and equitable distribution of resources. In the offshore EEZ this will be between fisher groups within the country (especially small-scale and large-scale units), noting that RFMOs may also allocate rights under certain circumstances. On the high seas, this will be between:

Fisheries management at the national level requires the development of an adaptive co-management system with strong participation from relevant stakeholders and the development of appropriate structures at all levels backed by suitable legislation. Developing coastal states in the region need to strengthen their negotiations with distant water fishing nations and with other coastal states to improve their access to highly migratory and shared fish stocks. Where unknown, shared demersal stocks in the region and the relevant states and stakeholders involved in their management need to be identified. Where appropriate, states and regional bodies should form fishery management arrangements that will guide the future management of shared stocks. Finally, regional cooperation needs to be strengthened to ensure that the national management systems are effective and do not clash with those of other nations.

The world's fisheries have produced be-tween 20 and 30 million tonnes for the last 30 years.48 From this, 5 to 7 million tonnes of fishmeal and 1 million tonnes of fish oil have been produced. About 40 percent of this production comes from two countries in South America (Chile and Peru), although subject to rapid changes partly because of El Niño effects. The largest market for the fishmeal produced is China, which uses around 2 million tonnes annually, 75 percent of which is imported (2005). The rapid price rise of fishmeal during 2006 and the increased number of disease-affected pig populations have meant a reduction of Chinese fishmeal usage in 2007 to about 1.2 million tonnes. The price has since fallen, but the projected fishmeal usage in China remains at the same level as in 2008.

As fishmeal production is relatively fixed and the aquaculture sector is still expanding it is very likely that the price of fishmeal will increase again in the coming years. Additionally, fishmeal will become a more strategic ingredient in special diets such as starter feeds, broodstock diets and finisher diets.

The use of fish as aquaculture feeds

An FAO expert workshop⁴⁹ on the use of fish as aquaculture feeds was convened in India in collaboration with the country's Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).

Problems of definitions (e.g. "trash" fish, low-value fish, reduction fisheries, feed fish, forage fish etc.) were raised and identified for follow-up by the secretariat but not dwelled upon during the discussions. It was recognized that the guidelines and principles agreed upon should apply to aquaculture and other wild fish uses to the same extent. The influence of markets in governing wild fish uses, and the importance of the role of governments in formulating and implementing policies that preserve the interests of the poor and vulnerable groups who rely on the consumption of low-value fish were highlighted. The workshop concluded that the use of fish as feed continues to be acceptable, but should be governed by some general principles in order to ensure that this use is responsible (Box 2).

The principal outputs of the workshop were:

• a revised draft of the technical guidelines;
• the two reviews and the eleven species background papers will be edited and collected into one document and released in the FAO Fisheries Proceedings series; and
• it is expected that the workshop proceedings will be published early in the first quarter of 2008.

¹⁰ FAO 2007, Report of the 3^rd regional workshop – Addressing the Quality of Information in Inland Fisheries, 20–23 March, Padang, Indonesia, TCP/RAS/3013, Field Document 17.
¹¹ Coates, D. 2002. Inland capture fishery statistics of Southeast Asia: current status and information needs. RAP Publication No. 2002/11. FAO. Bangkok.
¹² FAO. 2007. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Rome.
¹³ This refers to a conglomerate of many freshwater species.
¹⁴ FAO. 2007. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Rome.
¹⁵ Lymer, Funge-Smith et al. 2008. A review and synthesis of capture fisheries data in Thailand. RAP Publication (in progress). FAO. Bangkok.
¹⁶ Hortle, K.H. 2007. Consumption and the yield of fish and other aquatic animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Report No. 16, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane. 88 pp.
¹⁷ The ecosystem approach to fisheries management "…is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystem." FAO. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2. Rome. 112 pp.
¹⁸ FAO. 2005. Putting into practice the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rome, FAO. 2005. 76 pp.
¹⁹ http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/our_solutions/rivers/irbm/index.cfm
²⁰ Adapted by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) from Integrated Water Resources Management, Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee Background Papers, No. 4, 2000. See www.panda.org
²¹ Hortle, K.G. 2007. Consumption and the yield of fish and other aquatic animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Paper No. 16, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane. 87 pp.
²² Prepared by Theo Ebbers.
²³ Available from http://www.seaaroundus.org/ecosystemsmaps/images/mpaglobal_worldmap.pdf
²⁴ Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO). 2007. The science of marine reserves. 2^nd edition. Available from http://www.piscoweb.org/outreach/pubs/reserves
²⁵ www.apfic.org/modules/addresses
²⁶ Brown, C. 2005. Model plan for a Pacific Island country. National plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Rome, FAO. 43 pp.
²⁷ This is a regional plan of action (RPOA) to promote responsible fishing practices (including combating IUU fishing) in the region.
²⁸ Prepared by David J. Doulman and Michele Kuruc, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO. Rome.
²⁹ IUU fishing refers generally to fishing without proper authorization in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of countries or in an unregulated manner on high seas fisheries, especially in areas covered by regional fishery bodies (RFBs) such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). It is not confined only to high seas fisheries: IUU fishing is also common among fishers having proper authorizations to operate in EEZs and RFB-managed fisheries.
³⁰ (a) FAO. 2004. Report of the FAO regional workshop on the elaboration of national plans of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing: Southeast Asian subregion. FAO Fisheries Report No. 757. FAO. Rome. 88 pp. (b) FAO. 2006. Report of the FAO regional workshop on the elaboration of national plans of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing: South Asian subregion. FAO Fisheries Report No. 809. FAO. Rome. 68 pp.
³¹ The rankings developed in the workshops had no official standing and did not represent national positions. However, the exercises revealed a detailed picture of the scope and intensity of IUU fishing in the Asian region.
³² In general, discussion of the main IUU fishing issues in the workshops reflected the real problems that countries were encountering. It was evident that many of the IUU fishing problems were similar although their severity varied among countries. The workshops pointed to the merits of adopting both "hard" (e.g. confiscation of catch and vessels) and "soft" (awareness building) approaches to combating IUU fishing, recognizing that a mix of measures was needed depending on national policies and conditions and on whether nationals or foreign fishers were involved in infringements. The workshops stressed the importance of bilateral and regional cooperation in matters relating to IUU fishing, citing activities such as the sharing of information about IUU fishers and vessels and joint enforcement programmes. It was noted that such programmes had proven to be effective in facilitating coordinated monitoring, control and surveillance arrangements and reducing the incidence of IUU fishing in some cases. The use of prohibited gears and fishing methods generated considerable discussion. It was pointed out that some countries had introduced innovative measures to address these problems including the imposition of travel/movement restrictions on persons found using dynamite for fishing and requiring persons in possession of dynamite to justify why they had dynamite in their possession. However, the participants in the workshops were of the view that the use of prohibited gears and fishing methods was symptomatic of deeper-seated social and economic problems that should be addressed concurrently if the fisheries problems were to be alleviated.
³³ FAO/RAP. 2007. APFIC regional consultation workshop: managing fishing capacity and IUU fishing in the Asian Region. RAP Publication 2007/18. FAO. Bangkok. 46 pp.
³⁴ Governments of Indonesia and Australia. 2007. The regional ministerial meeting on promoting responsible fishing practices in the region. Government of Indonesia. Jakarta. 20 pp. Countries participating in the process include Indonesia, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam.
³⁵ Ministers and their representatives agreed on a common and collaborative approach to promote responsible fishing practices and to combat IUU fishing in the region where these states are located, with a focus, in particular, on the South China Sea, the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas and the Arafura and Timor Seas. It was reaffirmed that the region's shared fish stocks were very important as a source of food and for trade. It was noted that overfishing and IUU fishing depleted seriously the region's fish stocks.
³⁶ FAO. 2005. Model scheme on port state measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. FAO. Rome. 46 pp. It is a non-binding instrument.
³⁷ FAO. 2007. Report of the expert consultation to draft a legally-binding instrument on port state measures. FAO Fisheries Report No. 846. FAO. Rome. 22 pp.
³⁸ FAO. 2008. Report of the expert consultation on the development of a comprehensive global record of fishing vessels. FAO Fisheries Report No. 865. FAO. Rome. 68 pp.
³⁹ FAO. 2005. Rome declaration on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. FAO. Rome. 2 pp.
⁴⁰ FAO has scheduled an expert consultation on flag state performance for November 2008 at FAO Headquarters in Rome. However, the meeting will proceed only if it is possible to secure extra-budgetary funding to support it.
⁴¹ FAO. 2007. Report of the expert consultation on the use of vessel monitoring systems and satellites for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance. FAO Fisheries Report No. 815. FAO. Rome. 68 pp.
⁴² FAO. 2007. Report of the twenty-second session of the coordinating working party on fishery statistics. FAO Fisheries Report No. 834. FAO. Rome. 45 pp.
⁴³ Their purpose is to develop national capacity and promote bilateral, subregional and/or regional coordination so that countries will be better placed to strengthen and harmonize port state measures and, as a result, implement the relevant IPOA-IUU tools and the FAO model scheme and contribute to the development of a legally-binding instrument on port state measures. In this way, the workshops will contribute directly to the implementation of the call to develop port state measures contained in the 2007 RPOA-IUU adopted by certain Southeast Asian and other states to combat IUU fishing.
⁴⁴ FAO. 2008. Report of the FAO/APFIC/SEAFDEC regional workshop on port state measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. FAO Fisheries Report 868. FAO. Rome. 79 pp.
⁴⁵ FAO. 2005. Reports of the regional vessel monitoring systems workshops: Southwest Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, Central America and Southeast Asia. FAO/FishCode Review No. 4. FAO. Rome. 91 pp.
⁴⁶ FAO/SEAFDEC/APFIC workshop on assessment of the offshore resources of South and Southeast Asia and the management of the fisheries exploiting them. Bangkok, 17 to 19 June 2008.
⁴⁷ See the report of the APFIC Regional Consultative Workshop on certification schemes for capture fisheries and aquaculture. FAO/RAP PUBLICATION 2007/26, 32 pp. Bangkok.
⁴⁸ Jackson, Andrew. 2007. The Global Production of Fishmeal and Fish Oil, FAO Workshop Kochi, India, 16-18 November 2007.
⁴⁹ Use of wild fish and/or other aquatic species to feed cultured fish and its implications to food security and poverty alleviation. Kochi, India, 16 to 18 November 2007.