The Conference had a total of six sessions, one of which was organizational and the remaining five substantive.

In February 1993, prior to the organizational session of the Conference, Canada took the initiative to organize in St. Johns Newfoundland, a meeting of coastal States to consider issues relevant to the Conference. The purpose of the meeting was essentially to foster solidarity among coastal States and to raise the level of consciousness on issues germane to UNGA resolution 47/192.

In this pre-Conference meeting, coastal States were encouraged to review a range of issues of common concern relating to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, to exchange information and ideas concerning likely negotiating positions and scenarios in the Conference, together with possible Conference outcomes. Canada prepared documents for the meeting and also made available a range of other papers for participating States.

In line with UNGA resolution 47/192, the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) of the UN Office of Legal Affairs, was assigned the responsibility of providing the Secretariat to the Conference. In turn, DOALOS set in train arrangements for an organizational session in April 1993.

At this session Ambassador Satya Nandan of Fiji was elected Chairman of the Conference. Widely acclaimed internationally as a jurist and Law of the Sea Expert, Ambassador Nandan had previously been closely involved in the negotiation of the 1982 Convention, inter alia, acting as rapporteur of the Second Committee of the 1973-82 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and chairing its Negotiating Group on item 4. He subsequently served as Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea from 16 January 1984 to 29 February 1992.

The Conference also elected, by acclamation, three vice-chairmen from Mauritania (African States), Italy (Western European and other States) and Chile (Latin American and Caribbean States). It was agreed that consideration of the appointment of a fourth vice-chairman should be deferred until the second session.

Rules of procedure were adopted, and the organization of work for the second session of the Conference was agreed. In addition, a credentials committee consisting of Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Burundi, China, Kenya, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, and USA, was appointed. The rules of procedure required that the credentials committee meet at each session of the Conference and duly report to the Conference prior to the conclusion of each session. At each session, under the chairmanship of Argentina, the credentials committee met and reported, as required by the rules of procedure.

Attendance at the organizational session was strong, and in addition to UN Member States and IGOs, a large number of NGOs were represented. A significant part of the session was taken up with debate relating to the role of the European Economic Community (EEC) in the Conference. However, it was finally agreed that:

With respect to the organization of work of the Conference, it was agreed in the first session, on the basis of recommendations from the Chairman, that all substantive issues would be considered in plenary, though it was recognized that ad hoc working or negotiating groups would need to be established to consider specific issues.At this session, the Chairman sought assistance from participants in elaborating the substantive issues to be considered by the Conference. In particular, the Chairman requested participants to provide him with a listing of issues that should be addressed. In the inter-sessional period prior to the second session a large number of submissions were received by the Chairman. These submissions were distributed by the Secretariat for the information of the Conference participants.

In recognition of FAO's mandate for fisheries matters within the UN system, and in accordance with paragraph 11 of UNGA resolution 47/192, an FAO staff member joined the Conference Secretariat as Scientific and Technical Adviser.

At the organizational session, FAO indicated that it would make available a number of technical documents for the second session, including the report and documents of the 1992 FAO Technical Consultation on High Seas Fishing; the Declaration of Cancún adopted by the 1992 International Conference on Responsible Fishing in Cancún, Mexico; the Strategy for Fisheries Management and Development adopted by the 1984 World Conference for Fisheries Management and Development; the draft Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement), at that time available in draft form.

At the conclusion of the organizational session, FAO was requested by the Group of South Pacific States to provide a paper for the second session of the Conference. The South Pacific States pointed out that FAO had done much valuable work in technical assessments on key fisheries issues and requested that an updated report summarising the characteristics of the main high seas fisheries, covering details of current stock status, characteristics of the fleets operating in the fisheries and recent trends in catch and effort, be provided as a document of the Conference.

In his opening statement at this session, the Chairman reminded the Conference that many of the world's fish stocks were not being harvested in a sustainable manner and that this situation, if allowed to continue, could threaten the long-term supply of this important source of food and adversely affect the fishing industry. He also noted that there was a need to secure an internationally agreed solution if the conservation and management of high seas fisheries resources was to be successful. The Chairman underscored the importance of technical work being initiated by FAO with respect to high seas conservation and management but pointed out that such work required reinforcing by the Conference through the clear definition of a legal and political framework.

At the beginning of the second session States, IGOs (including regional fishery bodies) and NGOs were invited to make general statements, but focusing specifically on matters to be addressed by the Conference. These statements permitted participants to outline their national and organizational positions on the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Depending on their respective interests in high seas fishing and the degree of interaction with high seas fisheries, the positions of States fell clearly into two groups: coastal States and DWFNs.

On 12, 13 and 14 July 1993 general statements were made by Australia, EC, Peru, Chile, China, Russian Federation, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, USA, Korea, Japan, Argentina, Solomon Islands (on behalf of the 16 member States of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)), Fiji, Poland, UK (on behalf of its territories in the Caribbean and the Southern Atlantic), Brazil, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Ukraine, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Cook Islands, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the 12 member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Indonesia, Philippines, Ecuador, India, Iceland, Costa Rica, Latvia, Cuba and Kiribati. In addition, the following IGOs and NGOs made statements: FAO, IOC-Unesco, FFA, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), Greenpeace International, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) UK (on behalf of the National Audubon Society and the Council for Oceans Law of the USA), Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Oceans Institute of Canada, Fogo Island Fish Cooperative, and the Four Directions Council.

At the conclusion of the general statements, and on the basis of written submissions provided by some States, the Chairman identified those key issues before the Conference where there was some measure of agreement. The issues identified by the Chairman included the following:

(i) the 1982 Convention to be the framework within which conservation and management measures for the two types of stocks would be developed;

(ii) a clear need for conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and that such conservation and management should be compatible over stock ranges;

(iii) international cooperation is required for effective conservation and management;

(iv) a need for an international code of conduct for international fishing;

(v) effective flag-State enforcement to be exercised on the high seas in respect of the two types of stocks;

(vi) data and information are essential for the development of conservation and management measures and that in the absence of such data a precautionary approach to management should be invoked;

(vii) regional conservation and management practice should be based on globally agreed principles to ensure uniformity and consistency;

(viii) the principle of resource sustainability is an essential component of conservation and management;

(ix) proper monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is necessary for effective conservation and management;

(x) effective conservation and management to be underpinned by proper dispute settlement mechanisms;

(xi) conservation and management measures not to be undermined by the activities of States not party to regional management arrangements and new entrants to fisheries need to be accommodated inasmuch as this is possible, and

(xii) technical cooperation to be extended to developing countries to enhance their capabilities in fisheries conservation and management.

After providing this summary, the Chairman pointed out that the Conference had discharged the first component of its mandate in that existing problems relating to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks had been identified and their relative importance assessed.

Having made this assessment, the Conference commenced to consider in greater detail the issues before it. This was done on the basis of a comprehensive and well-structured guide to the issues prepared by the Chairman.

The guide to the issues was presented in two sections: (i) the purpose of the Conference, and (ii) issues to be addressed by the Conference. The latter section included:

(i) the nature of conservation and management measures to be established through cooperation;

(ii) the mechanisms for cooperation;

(iii) the responsibilities of regional fisheries organizations or arrangements;

(iv) compliance with conservation and management measures;

(v) enforcement of high seas fisheries;

(vi) conservation and management measures;

(vii) non-parties to a regional agreement or arrangement;

(viii) the settlement of disputes on matters of a technical nature, and

(ix) compatibility and coherence between national and international conservation measures for the same stock.

The importance and practical benefit of the Chairman's paper on the issues before the Conference was that it sharply focused discussion on the range of complex and difficult issues under consideration, facilitating forward movement in debate and negotiation. In a structured and methodical way participants were invited to outline their respective positions on the various issues. Some of the issues were considered in informal sessions as a means of giving States maximum flexibility in discussion and debate.

As the basis for a negotiating strategy the Chairman sought initially to develop points of agreement and preliminary text on relatively non-controversial technical straight-forward issues such as data and information requirements for effective conservation and management. With some technical points and text virtually agreed, the informal sessions then progressed to consider more difficult matters such as the question of compatibility in conservation and management between EEZs and the high seas. On issues such as these, no clear consensus existed between coastal States and DWFNs.

Drawing on national positions outlined by States both in plenary and in informal sessions, and taking account of other information (e.g., statements of NGOs and subregional or regional fishery organizations) before the Conference, the Chairman elaborated the first draft of a negotiating text. The text paralleled closely the issues identified by the Chairman in his discussion paper. After the introduction, the negotiating text addressed:

(i) the nature of conservation measures to be established through cooperation;

(ii) mechanisms for international cooperation;

(iii) regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements;

(iv) flag State responsibilities;

(v) compliance and enforcement of high seas fisheries conservation and management measures (compliance and enforcement by flag States and regional arrangements for compliance and enforcement);

(vi) port States;

(vii) non-parties to a subregional or regional agreement or arrangement;

(viii) dispute settlement;

(ix) compatibility and coherence between national and international conservation measures for the same stock;

(x) special requirements of developing countries, and

(xi) review of the implementation of conservation and management measures.

After the Chairman tabled his negotiating text, the Conference moved to consider it in depth, and as a consequence of having text with which to work, discussion became even tighter and more focused than it had been previously. It was essentially at this point in the Conference that serious negotiations among States commenced, as opposed to national posturing and the delivery of general statement and the reiteration of national positions.

While the form of the outcome of the Conference had not been considered previously in detail, it was evident from discussion on this matter that there were markedly differing positions among States. Some States, and most notably coastal States, expressed the view that the conservation and management of high seas resources could not be guaranteed, nor would conservation and management be effective, in the absence of a legally binding instrument to govern the exploitation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

Indeed, early in this session a group of 'like-minded States' sponsored a paper, drafted in convention format, for consideration by the Conference. However, some coastal States and DWFN delegations expressed the view that the tabling of the document was premature, and even ill-timed, because all the issues before the Conference had not been considered in sufficient depth. For this reason, this draft convention failed to gain the attention it probably deserved, nor to have a significant and sustained impact on the Conference's deliberations.

On the question of form, other States, and especially those with distant-water fishing interests (e.g., China, EC, Japan, Korea and Poland) indicated that a declaration on conservation and management or UNGA resolution, for example, would be a more appropriate form of the outcome of the Conference.

At the end of the second session the Chairman submitted that substantial progress had been made in fulfilling the mandate set out in UNGA resolution 47/192. He summarized briefly the status of the issues that had been discussed during the session, and proposed that the Conference agree that:

(i) there should be two further sessions during 1994 with dates to be confirmed by the UNGA at its forty-eighth session;

(ii) facilities be made available to permit two simultaneous meetings during the session, and

(iii) FAO be requested to provide two information papers on the precautionary approach to fisheries management and reference points for fisheries management, in advance of the third session.

These three proposals were endorsed by the Conference.

Closing statements on 30 July 1993 were made by Solomon Islands (on behalf of the 16 members States of the FFA), Peru, Colombia, Russian Federation, Japan, Argentina, UK (in response to a query by Argentina concerning the composition of the UK delegation), Korea, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, EC (on behalf of its 12 member States), Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the 12 member States of CARICOM), China, Iceland, South Pacific Permanent Commission (CPPS), Fiji, Women's Fisheries Network, Fishermens' Food and Allied Workers of Canada, and the Japan Federation of Tuna.

At its Forty-eighth Session in 1993, the UNGA received a progress report on the Conference. Following considerable and substantial debate, the UNGA resolved that the three proposals endorsed by the Conference at its second session be accepted and requested the United Nations Secretary-General to report again on progress at the Conference at the Forty-ninth Session of the UNGA in 1994.

At the third session of the Conference, the Chairman in his opening statement again emphasized the need for the Conference to achieve international cooperation for the effective conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. He also informed the Conference, inter alia, that FAO's Compliance Agreement was open for signature, that FAO had convened an Ad hoc Consultation on the Role of Regional Fishery Agencies in Relation to High Seas Fishery Statistics (Ad hoc Consultation), and that work was progressing in FAO on the development of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Chairman pointed out that all of these initiatives were relevant to the work of the Conference.

On 14 March 1994 opening statements were made by EC, Peru, Canada, Korea, Argentina, Japan, China, USA, Samoa (on behalf of the 16 member States of the FFA), Ecuador, Russian Federation, New Zealand, Poland, Australia, FAO, Greenpeace International, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

It was agreed by the Conference that the work of the third session would commence with general remarks by States, IGOs and NGOs and be followed, in informal sessions, by a section-by-section examination of the Chairman's negotiating text. The form of the outcome of the Conference would then be considered and a revised negotiating text would be issued by the Chairman. Concurrent with the plenary or informal sessions, it was further agreed that two working groups would be convened to consider the two critical issues of the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and reference points for fisheries management. Discussion would start from, and be based on, the two documents prepared for the Conference by FAO, as called for in UNGA resolution 48/194.

The informal sessions prompted intense discussion and negotiation and provided ample scope for the Chairman to refine substantially his negotiating text. While retaining the essential elements, features and structure of the initial negotiating text, the revised Chairman's text was more comprehensive and sophisticated in the treatment of the issues being considered by the Conference.

In its revised form the Chairman's negotiating text contained a preambular section, and articles relating to:

(i) objective;

(ii) application;

(iii) general principles (the nature of conservation and management measures, precautionary approaches to fisheries management, and compatibility);

(iv) international cooperation (mechanisms for international cooperation and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements);

(v) compliance with an enforcement of high seas fisheries conservation and management measures (duties of the flag State, compliance and enforcement of the flag State, and regional agreements and arrangements for compliance and enforcement);

(vi) port States;

(vii) non-participants in subregional or regional organizations or arrangements;

(viii) dispute settlement;

(ix) special requirements of developing States, and

(x) review of the implementation of conservation and management measures.

The revised Chairman's negotiating text also contained three annexes dealing with:

(i) minimum standards for data requirements for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks;

(ii) suggested guidelines for applying precautionary reference points in managing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, and

(iii) arbitration.

On 28 March 1994 prior to the conclusion of the third session Ecuador tabled a working paper in the form of a draft convention. Although referred to in subsequent sessions by some Latin American delegations, the draft convention appeared to have little impact on deliberations in the Conference.

In his statement at the close of the third session of the Conference the Chairman indicated that considerable progress had been made towards securing agreement on key issues. He noted that such progress had been made on the important and fundamental issues of the:

(i) coherence in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in areas of national jurisdiction and in the high seas;

(ii) general principles on which conservation and management should be based;

(iii) international cooperation, including regional and subregional cooperation, for achieving the goal of effective conservation and management, and sustainable resource use;

(iv) compliance with, and the enforcement of, high seas fisheries conservation and management measures, in particular the duties of the flag State in this regard;

(v) role of port States in support of effective conservation and management;

(vi) cooperation required to deal with States that do not participate in the work of regional fisheries bodies or arrangements;

(vii) special requirements of developing countries to enhance their national capacities to more effectively participate in fisheries conservation and management;

(viii) need for compulsory settlement of disputes in support of effective fisheries conservation and management, and

(ix) procedures for the review of the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the conference.

In keeping with established UN practice, the Chairman indicated in the third session that he sought consensus on all major decisions taken by the Conference. The inclusion of compulsory settlement provisions and a review process in the Chairman's negotiating text were seen as important measures designed to strengthen the effectiveness with which straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks would be conserved and managed.

On 31 March 1994, closing statements were made by EC, New Zealand, Ecuador, Peru, Japan, Russian Federation, Tunisia, Samoa (on behalf of the 16 member States of the FFA), Canada, Norway, Argentina, USA, Korea, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the 12 member States of CARICOM), China, Australia, Poland, Chile, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, OLDEPESCA, CPPS and Greenpeace International.

Between the third and fourth session of the Conference an intersessional meeting was hosted in June1994 by Argentina with the participation of both DWFNs and coastal States: Argentina, Canada, Chile, EC, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States. The FFA also attended. The Chairman's revised negotiating text was the focus of discussion in the meeting, with an emphasis on how to narrow differences on important outstanding issues before the Conference.

The fourth session of the Conference was devoted almost entirely to negotiation. Few new proposals were put forward for consideration, though some States and groups of States sought, through negotiation, to modify substantially particular parts of the Chairman's revised negotiating text.

The Chairman opened the session with a statement reminding the Conference that lack of order and regulation, inappropriate economic policies, and insufficient cooperation between States on fisheries matters had led to a failure of States to properly manage fisheries resources. He continued that voluntary systems of fisheries conservation and management had been ineffective, and that industry subsidization and massive fleet over-capacity were characteristic of the fishing industry. The Chairman pointed out that the right to fish, whether it be in an EEZ or on the high seas, was a conditional right in that the right was accompanied by a duty to conserve and manage resources for both current and future generations.

The Chairman then addressed the issue of the outcome of the Conference and outlined the six key elements that any outcome must contain in order to meet international expectations with respect to effective fisheries conservation and management. These elements were that the outcome of the Conference must:

(i) establish minimum international standards in sufficient detail for the conservation and management of fish resources;

(ii) ensure that the measures taken for conservation and management in the EEZs and in the adjacent high seas areas are compatible and coherent, in order to take into account the biological unity of the stocks and the supporting ecosystem;

(iii) ensure that there is effective mechanisms for compliance and enforcement of those measures;

(iv) provide for a globally agreed framework for regional cooperation in the field of fisheries conservation and management, consistent with the situation prevailing in each region, as is envisaged by the 1982 Convention, and

(v) provide for a compulsory binding dispute settlement mechanism, consistent with the 1982 Convention, while providing the necessary flexibility to the parties to a dispute to use the mechanism of their choice.

On 15 August 1994 general statements were made by Canada, Norway, USA, EC, Japan, Korea, Australia, Argentina, UK (on behalf of its territories), Poland, Peru, India, China, Iceland, Sweden, Uruguay, FAO, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, WWF UK, and Greenpeace International.

The Conference endorsed the work programme proposed by the Chairman and the Bureau for the session. In their general comments most States, IGOs and NGOs did not refer specifically to the Chairman's revised negotiating text, but rather to broader issues of concern. Several States expressed support for a legally binding agreement as the outcome of the Conference, while other States sought an outcome that would not be legally binding. Several other States pointed to the need to resolve the issue of form at the fourth session.

Following these remarks, the Conference moved to review the Chairman's negotiating text section-by-section. Many former arguments and positions on issues were restated, but the Chairman and many delegations believed that the debate had led to a further clarification of issues and had permitted the Conference to find new common ground on some issues, including the issue of compatibility. In addition to plenary, the Chairman also convened small informal groups of interested parties to consider issues that could be better dealt with in this way. Discussion in these groups was intensive and tightly focused. These groups contributed significantly to the Chairman's search for neutral language and concepts for the revision of his text.

At the conclusion of the review of the revised negotiating text, the Chairman issued his draft agreement, based on the Chairman's revised negotiating text. The Chairman's draft agreement had a total of 48 articles, consisting of a preamble, 13 parts and two annexes.

Many States expressed support for the content and structure of the Chairman's draft Agreement though the States with high seas fishing interests continued to oppose such a draft Agreement, arguing that the question of form had not yet been decided by the Conference. Nonetheless, and despite objections to the form of the document, in an initial review of the Chairman's draft agreement, States with high seas fishing interests indicated that it was generally a more balanced document than the previous text. However, most coastal States complained that the Chairman's draft Agreement had softened language and concepts too much, tilting the text in favour of the DWFNs. Coastal States indicated that this matter would need to be addressed in the next session of the Conference.

With respect to the role of regional fishery organizations in high seas fisheries conservation and management, there was further debate in plenary about whether minimum standards should be specified by the Conference or whether only guidelines should be provided, leaving decisions as to the actual measures to be adopted by the subregional or regional organizations or arrangements themselves. The latter approach, favoured by States with high seas fishing interests, was not supported by coastal States which maintained that effective conservation and management could not be achieved unless minimum international standards were specified for, and adopted by, all subregional or regional organizations or arrangements.

In his statement at the close of the fourth session, the Chairman with the concurrence of the Bureau, again noted that excellent progress had been made in moving closer to agreement on the outstanding issues before the Conference, but that a further two sessions would be required in 1995 to enable the Conference to discharge fully its terms of reference. The Conference accepted this proposal as the basis for a recommendation for the 1994 Forty-ninth Session of the UNGA.

Having accepted this recommendation for a further two sessions, the Chairman made a plea that no attempt be made at the Forty-ninth Session of the UNGA to re-open debate concerning the terms of reference for the Conference, as these had been negotiated in UNGA resolution 47/192. The Chairman noted that such attempts could hinder the good progress being made in the Conference and, ultimately, be prejudicial to its outcome. In making this plea, the Chairman was clearly seeking the cooperation of all parties to avoid the type of debate that took place at the Forth-eighth Session of the UNGA.

The Chairman also advised the Conference that it was his understanding that there was a widespread and substantial view that a binding outcome was essential. He added that he saw the Chairman's draft agreement as a turning point in the Conference since substance and form has been brought together for the first time. For his part the Chairman undertook to consult widely with States and groups of States in the intersessional period as a means of facilitating progress in the next session of the Conference.

Closing statements on 26 August 1994 were made by Indonesia, Sweden, USA, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand, Canada and Greenpeace International. Contrary to the Chairman's assessment in his closing statement, some delegations regarded the close of the fourth session as being a low point in the Conference. This was because little substantive progress had appeared to have been made on several important issues and it was clear that time was running out for the Conference to complete its work.

In his opening statement the Chairman outlined the work of the fifth session based on the consensus reached at the close of the fourth session and the directives from the UNGA in its resolution 49/121. Following general statements by States, IGOs and NGOs on the text as a whole, it was proposed that the text should be examined in detail in informal meetings of the plenary. The Chairman indicated that this method of proceeding would enable text to be revised, and further examined so that outstanding issues could be identified.

In his opening statement the Chairman also made note of two sets of intersessional discussions that had taken place since the fourth session; a meeting of DWFN States, convened by Japan, in Tokyo in January 1995, and a meeting of 25 coastal States, convened by the 'like-minded States' in Geneva in February 1995. At both meetings the Chairman's draft Agreement, which was issued at the end of the fourth session, was reviewed and issues clarified, though no conclusions were reached.

At these intersessional meetings proposals had been made for textual changes as a means of enhancing the scope and content of the draft Agreement. The Chairman stressed that the intersessional discussions had been most helpful for the Conference process but that they did not, in any way, pre-empt discussions and negotiations in the Conference proper. He added that the matters which generated most discussion and debate at the intersessional meetings were the issues of compatibility of conservation and management measures in areas under national jurisdiction and in high seas areas; new participants in subregional or regional fisheries organizations or arrangements; enforcement of conservation and management measures in high seas areas by non-flag States, and the desirability of using the provisions of the 1982 Convention with respect to the settlement of disputes.

The Chairman also summarized the state of world fisheries, drawing extensively on a recent FAO publication. Without mentioning the States involved, he referred to the international dispute between Canada and Spain in the Western Atlantic Ocean and indicated that such disputes underscored the need for international fisheries cooperation and for the Conference to secure a lasting instrument for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

In the opening session on 27 March 1995 statements were made by Canada, EC, USA, Chile, Peru, Australia (on behalf of the 16 member States of the FFA), Thailand, China, Brazil, Japan, Korea, Poland, Iceland, Norway, Argentina, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Mexico, Ecuador, Morocco, OLDESPESCA and Greenpeace International.

Significantly, the form of the outcome of the Conference was more or less confirmed in the opening session, a matter that had been previously held in abeyance and subject to controversy. In this connexion, the EC noted that "...there is a clear momentum towards a binding international instrument. On this question the EC has stated that it would be flexible.", while Japan indicated that it would acquiesce in favour of a binding arrangement even though its preference was for a non-binding outcome. These two statements were most helpful to progress at the session in that they deflected further discussion on this matter.

The session was largely taken up with intense discussion and negotiation. The session opened with a review of the Chairman's draft Agreement. This review enabled the Chairman to incorporate proposals and suggestions made by States, IGOs and NGOs.

During this initial review of the draft Agreement there was also considerable discussion as to whether the annexes to the draft Agreement should have the same standing as the body of the document. Some delegations argued that the annexes should not be binding and therefore should have a different legal status. However, other delegations led principally by the USA argued most strongly that the annexes must be mandatory if the agreement was to have "real teeth". It was agreed, finally, that the annexes would be an integral component of the Agreement, but that Annex 3, dealing with the settlement of disputes, be eliminated from the draft Agreement in favour of using the dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 Convention.

With respect to Annex 1 of the draft Agreement concerning data requirements for high seas fisheries, FAO submitted a paper to the session reporting on the deliberations of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP). In this document, the CWP recognized the importance of stipulating the minimum data requirements for high seas fisheries and stressed that the requirements in Annex 1 should be considered minimum standards for stock assessment and fishery management. This strong and unambiguous support from the world's major fishery bodies indicated clearly the need for the specification of minimum standards for high seas fisheries in the draft Agreement.

Following the initial reading of the draft Agreement, a second review of the text was undertaken by the Conference. This second review enabled a number of outstanding issues to be further clarified, and areas of primary disagreement to be underscored and delineated. Although some delegations continued to have conceptual and textual difficulties with a range of articles in the draft Agreement, it became increasingly evident that there were two primary areas of disagreement: Articles 14 and 21.

Article 14 deals with areas of high seas surrounded entirely by areas under the national jurisdiction of a single State. This issue has been pursued strongly throughout the Conference by the Russian Federation, and in a written submission the Federation further highlighted the fisheries problems in the Sea of Okhotsk. At the end of the fifth session, there was considerable agreement on the revised text for Article 14, but with opposition primarily from two DWFNs - Korea and Poland.

During the session, the Chairman convened a number of informal meetings to discuss Article 21 of the draft Agreement concerning regional agreements or arrangements for compliance and enforcement. It was this Article, which many delegations identified early in the fourth session as being the heart of the Agreement, that presented most difficulty for DWFNs.

The difficulty for DWFNs was the issue of whether non-flag States could apprehend vessels fishing on the high seas, which had undermined, or which were believed to have undermined, internationally agreed conservation and management measures for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. On this point coastal States took the position that the provisions of the 1982 Convention required further elaboration and strengthening, and that the Conference should address this matter directly. DWFNs, on the other hand, argued that it would be contrary to international law to permit the arrest and detention of vessels on the high seas by a non-flag State.

In his closing statement, the Chairman noted that progress had been made in the fifth session. He pointed out that it had been possible to review two versions of the Chairman's draft Agreement prior to issuing the Chairman's revised draft Agreement. The Chairman reminded the Conference that it was mandated to seek means for promoting the effective implementation of the provisions of the 1992 Convention with respect to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In so doing, the Conference was required to identify and assess problems relating to conservation and management for these stocks and to consider means of improving international fisheries cooperation and the formulation of appropriate recommendations for management.

With respect to the Chairman's draft revised Agreement, the Chairman further noted that he believed that the text balanced the interests of coastal States and DWFNs. He added that the collective interest of the international community must be taken into account if sustainable use of high seas resources was to be secured. The Chairman pointed out that the text, as it stood, created three essential pillars: (i) it provided the principles and practices on which enhanced stock management should be based; (ii) it ensured that conservation and management measures adopted for high seas fisheries would be adhered to and complied with and that they would not be undermined by those engaged in high seas fishing; and (iii) it provided for the peaceful statement of disputes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1982 Convention.

In conclusion, the Chairman urged all participants to study the Chairman's draft revised Agreement with an open mind and not to lose track of the importance of achieving long-term sustainable use of high seas fisheries resources. Noting that the sixth session of the Conference would be its last, the Chairman stated that he looked forward to the cooperation of all delegations in finalizing the Agreement at that session.

The fifth session was a very productive one in that all delegations negotiated flexibly and in a spirit of understanding. At the conclusion of the session, the Chairman indicated, and all delegations agreed, that the next session of the Conference scheduled for July/August 1995, must be the last session. While adjustments needed to be made to the text to ensure conformity in all languages, the only articles that remain substantially outstanding were Articles 14 and 21. These articles will be informally addressed by the Chairman and delegations during the intersessional period and they will be considered formally at the commencement of the next session. When agreement is secured on wording for the articles, the focus of the Conference will move to authentication and standardization, etc., of the texts in the official languages. It is still envisaged that the agreement will be open for signature at the end of the next session.

Concluding statements were made on 12 April 1995 by Brazil, Peru, Estonia, Norway, Chile, USA, the EC, Japan, Indonesia, China, Australia (on behalf of the 16 member States of the FFA), Argentina, Poland, Russian Federation, Uruguay, Korea, Canada, Iceland, Senegal, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Greenpeace International, and WWF UK.

At the conclusion of the fifth session the Chairman re-issued his draft Agreement.

In his opening statement, the Chairman stressed the need for a consensus outcome at the Conference, and he urged all States to show flexibility in their negotiations. He noted that the work of the Conference must be concluded at this session.

In keeping with past practice the Chairman reported on two intersessional meetings that had been held since the fifth session. The first of these meetings had been convened by the United States in Washington DC in June 1995. Key DWFNs and coastal States participated in this meeting: Argentina, Canada, EC, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. The Washington DC meeting led to the drafting of a non-paper by the United States on Article 21. This non-paper became a centrepiece for discussion in the sixth session in the Chairman's efforts to secure agreement in the Conference on this Article. The second meeting was convened in New York by the Chairman immediately prior to the opening of the session. Both of these intersessional meetings focused on Article 21 of the Chairman's Draft Agreement. This Article, which was subsequently split into two Articles in the final Agreement (Articles 21 and 22), concerned regional agreements and arrangements for compliance and enforcement.

Article 21 of the Chairman's Draft Agreement had been identified previously as being the most controversial and difficult Article in the text. This was because this Article effectively involved an extension of international law in that authorized personnel from one State, within the framework of subregional or regional organizations or arrangements, could board and inspect vessels, fishing on the high seas, from another State. This issue was extremely sensitive in terms of the legal principles involved since DWFNs viewed such a provision as an erosion of flag State control; a principle clearly enshrined in the 1982 Convention.

The work of the sixth session opened with an article-by-article review of the text of the Chairman's Draft Agreement. In the intersessional period the Secretariat had studied the text and had proposed drafting changes to make it internally consistent and to bring the text in line with the 1982 Convention. This revised text of the Chairman's Draft Agreement was issued as a conference room paper and formed the basis of the initial review of articles.

Following opening statements on 24 July 1995 by States, IGOs and NGOs that included Canada, Poland, Samoa (on behalf of the 16 member States of the Forum Fisheries Agency), EC, USA, Norway, China, Japan, Korea, Peru, Argentina, Malaysia, Ukraine, Brazil, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Russian Federation, Uruguay, CPPS, Greenpeace International and the Offshore Fishworkers' of Chile, Peru, Argentina and Ecuador, the Conference met in informal sessions to consider the Chairman's Draft Agreement. In general there was a reluctance to alter the text significantly as most delegations, and in particular those States that had been represented at all sessions of the Conference, recognized the delicate and sensitive balance that had been struck in negotiations in previous sessions.

Most negotiating time in the sixth session was taken up with Articles 14, 21 and the final provisions of the Agreement.

Article 14 (which became Article 16 in the final Agreement) concerned areas of the high seas surrounded entirely by an area under national jurisdiction of a single State. This Article had been problematic in previous sessions and primarily focused on the fisheries situation with respect to pollock stocks in the Sea of Okhotsk.

The text for Article 14, as considered by the Session, was based on text proposed by Canada, Norway, Peru, Russian Federation, and the United States at the fifth previous session and, as such, essentially reflected a coastal State position. It would seem that the United States was associated with this proposal because it did not want to witness the collapse of the fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk, as had been the case with the valuable fishery in the Bering Sea.

In the debate on Article 14 the Russian Federation argued that the fisheries conservation and management measures adopted for straddling fish stocks by the coastal State in its EEZ must be respected when conservation and management measures for the high seas enclave were being drawn up and implemented. Poland on the other hand, with the support of Korea and China, all of which have important fisheries in the Sea of Okhotsk, sought to minimize any restrictions that might be imposed on fishing activities in the high seas enclave. Intensive negotiations between the Russian Federation and Poland lasted on this issue right up until the final meeting of the session, when text was agreed.

The renegotiation of Article 21, and subsequently Article 22, was the main substantive issue of debate at the sixth session. While the two intersessional meetings in Washington DC and New York had refined the Chairman's draft text on these articles, and had led to a convergence of positions between coastal States and DWFNs, there remained several matters in this article that required substantial negotiation. These matters included:

(i) the boarding and inspection of vessels within the context of subregional or regional organizations or arrangements;

(ii) clarification of the roles of, and procedures for, the flag State and the inspecting State in cases where vessels are boarded and violations have, or have not been committed;

(iii) detention of crew;

(iv) the listing of serious violations (e.g., fishing without a licence, failing to maintain accurate records of catch and catch-related data, fishing in a closed area, using prohibited fishing gear etc.), as opposed to providing a definition of a serious violation;

(v) application of the proportionality principle when action is taken by a non-flag State against a vessel that has operated contrary to subregional or regional conservation and management arrangements, and

(vi) the liability for damage or loss arising from enforcement action taken in accordance with Article 21.

For clarity, the Conference opted to include in the new Article 22, basic procedures for boarding and inspection pursuant to Article 21. The purpose of including these procedures in the Article was to provide guidance for boarding and inspection and to try to ensure that abuses did not result.

With respect to the final provisions of the Agreement (Part XIII), there was considerable negotiation, albeit in a small group, concerning the provisions relating to the EC. A change in the EC situation vis-a-vis its competence in fisheries matters since the adoption of the 1982 Convention meant that Annex IX of the 1982 Convention relating to the participation by international organizations, could not be simply cross referenced in the Agreement. Rather in Article 47 (Participation by International Organizations) of the Agreement, the application of Annex IX of the 1982 Convention is qualified with respect to the application of the Agreement.

During the sixth session the Chairman issued two revisions of the draft Agreement, as Conference Room Papers, prior to the adoption of the Agreement. In addition, there were several versions of Articles16, 21 and 22 and the final provisions circulated by the Chairman. Indeed, the Chairman's capacity to work so decisively and speedily under tight time and administrative pressures was noted by almost all delegations in their closing statements.

On 4 August 1995 the Conference adopted, by consensus, the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

The Conference also adopted, at the same time, the Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The Final Act, given in Annex 2, provides a factual summary of the Conference and contains two resolutions concerning the Early and Effective Implementation of the Agreement, and Reports on Developments by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. With respect to the second resolution, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, inter-alia, is requested to cooperate with FAO to ensure that there is coordination in reporting for all major fisheries instruments and activities so as to avoid duplication and to minimize the reporting burden for national administrations.

The Conference agreed that the Final Act of the Conference and the Agreement would open for signature on 4 December 1995. The Agreement will enter in force 30 days after the receipt of the thirtieth instrument of ratification or accession.

In debate on this matter concerning the number of ratifications or accessions to bring the Agreement into force, DWFNs and some Latin American States sided against other coastal States. Chile opened the debate by supporting 40 instruments of ratifications or accessions and, in turn, was supported by EC, Mexico (which indicated that the number could be as high as 60 ratifications or accessions), Japan, Uruguay, Colombia, Korea, China and Poland. For the grouping of coastal States, Peru proposed that 20 ratifications or accessions be required to give effect to the Agreement, and in so doing, was supported by Argentina, New Zealand, USA, Papua New Guinea, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Iceland, Namibia, Norway, Federated States of Micronesia and Russian Federation.

On 4 August 1995 closing statements were made by Canada, Norway, EC, Russian Federation, Chile, United States of America, Mexico, Japan, Panama, Turkey, China, Korea, Peru, Philippines, Argentina, Estonia, Colombia, Australia (on behalf of the 16 member States of the Forum Fisheries Agency), Poland, Namibia, Uruguay, Syria, Papua New Guinea, FAO, WWF UK, Greenpeace International, and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers. Most statements, inter alia, recognized the exceptional skills, energy and stamina of the Chairman of the Conference in bringing it to a successful conclusion, with a consensus decision rather than a decision by voting.

In their closing statements following the adoption of the Agreement, several delegations, and in particular DWFNs, indicated that they would advise the Chairman in due course if their respective States were in a position to sign the Agreement. The EC addressed the Chairman of the Conference by letter requesting that it be circulated as a document of the Conference. Most coastal States were enthusiastic about the outcome of the Conference, hailing it as, in the words of the Ambassador of Peru "... a significant step in the progressive development of international law ...".

In his closing statement the Chairman congratulated the Conference on adopting a far-sighted, bold and revolutionary instrument. He noted that the provisions of the Agreement were both practical and realistic, and firmly rooted in the principles of the 1982 Convention.

The Chairman pointed out that the Agreement was built on three pillars in that it:

(i) set out the principles on which conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks must be based and established that such management must be based on the precautionary approach and the best scientific information available;

(ii) ensured the conservation and management measures are adhered to and complied with, and that they are not undermined by those that fish for the two types of stocks, and

(iii) provided for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The Chairman also stated that he believed that if the Conference had not adopted a strong and binding Agreement, the Conference would have failed the international community and would have contributed further to the demise of the major international fishery resources. Furthermore, he warned that international conflict would have continued as frustrated States sought to initiate unilateral action to solve problems that could only have been addressed multilaterally. Moreover, the Chairman made mention that the elaboration of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and this Agreement would serve to strengthen conservation and management practice around the world. He called for the rapid implementation of the Agreement and urged governments to demonstrate their commitment in a tangible manner by signing the Agreement and becoming Parties to it as soon as possible.

On 4 December 1995, the sixth session of the Conference resumed and the Final Act of the Conference and the Agreement were opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

At the commencement of the session the Chairman called the resumed session to order and made a short opening statement. He pointed out that the binding Agreement adopted by consensus on 4 August 1995 was detailed and precise, based on sound principles providing a blueprint for fisheries conservation and management with a view to long-term sustainable use of resources; responded effectively to the environmental concerns of the international community, as called for at the 1992 Rio Summit, establishing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management based on the best available scientific data and a precautionary approach to management; was reinforced by clear provisions on enforcement of conservation and management measures and procedures for the compulsory settlement of fisheries disputes; emphasised the pivotal role of subregional or regional organizations or arrangements, and was linked intrinsically to the 1982 Convention.

The Chairman further added that although the Agreement applied only to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, the principles enunciated therein had application to all fisheries, particularly with respect to its environmentally-based provisions. He added that the principles on the application of the precautionary approach to fisheries conservation and management could be regarded as being on the cutting edge of sound fisheries management.

It was also noted by the Chairman that the Agreement was already having an impact on the work of subregional or regional fisheries organizations or arrangements around the world, as members of these organizations had started to assess the effects of the Agreement on the respective mandates of their organizations. In this connection particular attention was being paid to issues concerning conservation and management measures, decision-making, and transparency.

While reiterating that according to FAO some 70 percent of the world's fish stocks are in serious difficulty, the Chairman noted that this Agreement would provide a basis for dealing with some of the stocks that are excessively exploited, but added that the ultimate success of the Agreement would depend on how faithfully it was implemented by those involved in fisheries targeting straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

Finally, the Chairman pointed out that a large number of delegations were not able to sign the Agreement on 4 December 1995 for technical and other reasons. Some important DWFNs and organizations entitled to sign the Agreement would do so at an early date as soon as their respective internal procedures had been finalized. Consequently, the Chairman emphasised that the delay in signing the Agreement should not be construed as a lack of support for the Agreement by these States and organizations.

On behalf of the UN Secretary-General, the Legal Counsel delivered a statement noting, inter alia, that the conclusion of the Agreement was a significant achievement and one that would, if fully implemented, lead to enhanced fisheries conservation and management for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

The US Ambassador to the UN, as UN host country, stated that the Agreement struck a reasonable balance between conservation and fishing concerns, and between the interests of coastal States and States whose vessels fish on the high seas. If ratified widely and implemented properly, the Agreement will improve the health of ocean ecosystems and ensure a lasting supply of fish to feed the world's population. The Ambassador further noted that the Agreement complemented the 1993 Compliance Agreement which, is itself, an integral component of the Code of Conduct. She added that the conclusion of the Agreement was a laudable achievement.

Complementing the remarks by the US Ambassador to the UN, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska pointed out that the Agreement was a major steps forward for fisheries conservation and management. He stated that he would work hard to ensure that the US ratified the Agreement and ultimately, that bycatch was eliminated from fisheries in the US EEZ.

At the resumed sixth session the Final Act of the Conference was signed by 45 States and organizations. These States and organizations included Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, EC, Fiji, Finland, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Spain, Tonga, Ukraine, UK, USA and Uruguay.

Representatives from some delegations expressed the view that it was surprising that some delegations that had participated actively in the Conference had not signed the Final Act. Notably absent from the resumed sixth session were China and Thailand, both of which had played an important role in the deliberations of the Conference.

The Agreement was signed by 25 States. These States included Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Morocco, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Tonga, Ukraine, UK and USA. The Agreement will remain open for signature for one year from 4 December 1995.

Closing statements, principally to clarify national positions, were made by the EC, Ecuador and Peru. The EC informed the Conference that it was not possible for the EC and its Member States to sign the Agreement at the present time since internal procedures were not yet completed. Similarly, Ecuador and Peru advised the Conference that internal analyses were also being undertaken on the Agreement.