36. This agenda item was introduced by the Secretariat based on Document ACFR/IV/2002/3 which encapsulated the key fisheries-related themes of the WSSD 2002 Plan of Implementation. It was noted that the FAO Fisheries Department had a considerable input into the preparatory work and meetings leading up to the WSSD. The Committee was informed that while the WSSD outcome would also be considered by the next session of COFI, the expectation was that the ACFR could make its views known on (i) the scientific issues implied by the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (“the Plan”) and (ii) the coherence of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget of the FAO Fisheries Department for 2004-2005 with the Plan.
37. Mr Ichiro Nomura, Assistant Director-General of the FAO Fisheries Department, provided some additional information on the handling of fisheries issues at the WSSD. He remarked that Chapter IV of the Plan dealing with “Oceans, seas, islands and coastal areas” was among the least contentious Chapters of the Plan and the first one to be adopted at the Summit. He also observed that the major works of COFI and the FAO Secretariat since the 1992 Rio Conference, especially the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its related IPOAs, were fully reflected in the Plan.
38. The Committee welcomed the attention and prominence given by WSSD to fisheries issues. This fact confirmed that the fisheries stakeholders and international community had been very responsive to the 1992 Rio Conference and developed a range of instruments including, inter alia, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the series of important international plans of action (IPOAs). The challenge was now, as expressed in the Plan, to seek the effective implementation of these instruments at national, regional and international levels within reasonable time frames.
39. The Committee noted that the Plan was the outcome of a political process and thus should not be evaluated from a purely scientific perspective. It further noted that the time bound goals dealing with fisheries emphasized ecological sustainability rather than important economic and social considerations. The Committee observed that the time frame specified in the Plan for some of the fisheries goals was optimistic and that the scientific rationale for some of them was not apparent. This said, the Committee thought it entirely appropriate to offer its scientific advice to facilitate and support the implementation of the Plan.
40. The Committee stressed that from a scientific purview, a high priority was to strengthen existing structures and put in place new structures to effectively monitor the progress in the implementation of the Plan. This was among the core mandates of FAO and the Committee re-iterated the importance for the international community to support this mandate through the adoption and implementation of the draft Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries.
41. The Committee noted that the Plan’s time-bound fisheries targets aimed at attaining multiple objectives such as through the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) were neither made fully explicit nor prioritized. The implementation of the targets would, therefore, be pursued in a very broad context and by different interest groups. For this reason, the Committee emphasized the need for the interests of fisheries stakeholders to be well represented and reflected when operationalizing these targets and developing implementation strategies.
42. The Committee recommended that FAO play a key facilitating role in support of national, regional and international efforts towards implementation of the Plan targets. This role should encompass, inter alia:
43. The Committee then directed its attention to the specific WSSD targets and offered its advice on the scientific aspects that might be particularly critical for their attainment.
44. The Committee noted that MPA-related work had not been a priority area of FAO in the past. While acknowledging biodiversity conservation as a major, if not over-riding, objective of MPAs, especially in the context of the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the Jakarta Mandate, the Committee recognized the potential impacts of MPAs on the fisheries sector including eventual social and economic effects on poor fishing communities. The Committee noted that the current knowledge was inadequate on both the biodiversity conservation function of MPAs and their function to achieving fisheries management objectives. The Committee recognized that extensive scientific literature existed which documented clearly ecological benefits within MPAs and some evidence of ecological beneficial spill-over effects in the vicinity of MPAs. However, it felt that the research had not matured to the point where it could be applied operationally in the design of objective-based ecosystem approaches to fisheries. In this regard, it suggested that more emphasis needed to be placed on decision-making processes in terms of the implications for fish yields and social and economic benefits.
45. The Committee expressed the view that it was of critical importance that more research, case studies and pilot experiments be undertaken in order to gain a better understanding on how MPAs work and how their positive impacts on biodiversity conservation and on sustainable fisheries livelihoods could be assured through judicious design, placement and operation. Further details on the scientific issues and research priorities related to this WSSD time-bound target are given in Appendix E. The Committee recommended that FAO play an important role in the development and dissemination of a complete and cohesive body of scientific understanding on the functions and impacts of MPAs, drawing too upon the lessons learned from terrestrial systems. FAO’s role should also encompass the elaboration, or adaptation, of methods and indicators to assess the MPAs’ conservation and economic and social performances.
46. The Committee noted that in establishing representative networks of MPAs, it was important to recognize that there are allocation implications both within the fisheries sector and between fisheries and other interests. Consequently, those involved in the fisheries sector should have a better understanding of both social and ecological objectives to enable them more effectively to participate in the MPA design process.
47. The Committee noted the particular urgency in the effective implementation of the IPOA on the management of fishing capacity. It emphasized the need to give much greater attention to the establishment of proper incentive systems for fishing capacity to adjust to the appropriate level within a market-based system. A prominent role in this regard would be played by various types of rights-based fisheries management regimes. The challenge of sustainability is to get the incentive structure right for the industry so that overfishing and excess capacity do not develop.
48. The Committee noted with concern that much of the current work at national, regional and international levels is directed primarily, if not exclusively, on issues related to the measurement of fishing capacity often in the context of a command and control-led approach. As many fish stocks exhibit wide fluctuations in abundance that are poorly understood, alternate approaches needed to be developed.
49. The Committee identified the following priority research areas concerning the implementation of the fishing capacity IPOA:
50. These priorities could be addressed through various means including the convening of expert consultations, the conduct of case studies and the elaboration of guidance and training materials.
51. The Committee noted the urgency of the early implementation of the IPOA on IUU fishing in order to attain effective fisheries management. From a scientific point of view, it stressed the importance of the link between this IPOA and the requirement to obtain timely and accurate data on the rate of harvests of target and non-target fish stocks for resource assessment and monitoring purposes. In this regard, the Committee recommended that every effort be made to fully utilize various systems of catch, fish trade and vessel monitoring systems that are being put in place or upgraded to be harmonized with and in support of the scientific requirements for accurate and fine-scale data on spatial distribution of fish harvesting activities, catches and catch rates. With regard to fish product traceability and catch certification schemes, the Committee recalled its earlier recommendation of more research being directed towards forensic techniques and product marking systems.
52. The Committee was informed that under the aegis of the FishCode Programme, studies would be initiated on the relationship between subsidies and IUU fishing.
53. The Committee noted that the transition towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management was an incremental and progressive process. Thus calling for an ecosystem approach by a specific date was meaningless unless a target level of achievement was defined in an operational sense. However, the Committee welcomed WSSD’s time-bound call for EAF since it clearly indicated the priority that should be given to the adoption of this approach. The Committee emphasized the need for the setting of operational objectives and the identification of precise measures and indicators to assess performance of EAF and including its impacts on wealth generation and equity. It was suggested that a Steering Committee be established to oversee this initiative. Further details on the research and implementation issues of EAF are given in Paragraphs 31 to 35 above and in Appendix F.
54. While noting the complementarity of this WSSD target with the mandates provided in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Committee observed that from a scientific point of view the timeline given for this target was either too pessimistic or too optimistic depending on the dynamics of fish populations and the influence of unpredictable environmental factors on stock recovery. The Committee also observed that the conditions of a healthy fish stock are inadequately described through an MSY-related abundance measure. Moreover, economic and social considerations could not be neglected in decisions concerning the rate and time at which recovery to a healthy stock size should be attained. In view of oceanographic and other environmental factors having a significant influence on stock abundance and restoration in many instances, the Committee called for closer collaboration between FAO and IOC.
55. The Committee noted that available experiences, such as from the United States of America, indicate that the concerned stocks could be restored successfully, and many within reasonable time frames. It recommended that these and other experiences and cases be carefully examined to analyse the reasons why, or why not, stocks have been successfully restored and the costs and benefits associated with these efforts.
56. The Committee noted that stock enhancement may play a role in recovery strategies. This would depend on confirmed scientific knowledge being available on the genetic and ecological impacts of such measures. In many situations such information was currently lacking and this was thus an important research area, especially for vulnerable and fragile species of low abundance but high commercial value. These latter kinds of species include valuable reef fishes and invertebrates, many of which have been severely depleted. The Committee emphasized, however, that stock enhancement measures should not be a substitute for judicious management and reduction of excess harvesting capacities.
