COFI/2003/3Rev.1

INTRODUCTION

1. Article 4 of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries states, inter alia, that FAO will report to the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) concerning the implementation of the Code. This report is the third such report prepared for COFI by FAO. The information provided in this report has been supplied by the FAO Secretariat, FAO Members, Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Information from FAO Members, RFBs and NGOs is collated and analyzed on the basis of self-assessment questionnaires provided by FAO.

2. For this report, 105 FAO Members (57 percent of the FAO Membership)¹ responded to the questionnaire in comparison to 102 Members in 2000 (56 percent of Members). These figures show a three percent increase in the level of reporting over the two periods. Significantly, for the current report, there was a marked increase in reporting by Members that had not responded previously.² This is an encouraging development but it is also disappointing that some Members that reported in 2000 did not do so in 2002.³

3. Nineteen RFBs⁴ (70 percent of the bodies to which FAO sent questionnaires) responded for this report in comparison to 14 RFBs in 2000 (an increase of 36 percent in terms of the level of reporting). In addition, reports were received from five NGOs⁵ for this report in comparison to four NGOs in 2000 (an increase in reporting of 25 percent for these organizations). The NGOs responses provide a representative balance among organizations with different interests and roles in the fisheries sector. All the NGOs responding to the questionnaire have a strong concern to support the implementation of the Code.

4. The responses to the questionnaire provide a broad and substantive base for analysis of issues relating to the implementation of the Code of Conduct both in terms of regional assessments and a global evaluation. Despite some slippage in the Asia and Near East regions in terms of the response rates, and the non response by several important fishing States, the overall level of response to the questionnaires is encouraging.

ACTION BY FAO TO PROMOTE IMPLEMENTATION

5. FAO undertakes a wide range of activities to promote the implementation of the Code of Conduct and indeed, the entire Programme of Work and Budget of the Fisheries Department is geared, to a greater or lesser extent, to the implementation of the Code. An important aspect of promoting awareness of the Code is the dissemination of the Code itself and the technical guidelines prepared to support implementation. In the past two years in excess of 13,000 copies of the Code and guidelines have been printed for distribution. The Code is now available in more than 40 languages. Since the last Session of COFI one technical guideline⁶ has been prepared. In addition, a CD-ROM containing all the Code of Conduct related documents has been prepared and distributed.

6. FAO has continued to promote intensively the International Plans of Action (IPOAs) relating to reducing the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries (IPOA-Seabirds), the conservation and management of sharks (IPOA-Sharks), the management of fishing capacity (IPOA-Capacity) and preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU).

7. With respect to the IPOA-Seabirds, FAO is working with Members, especially in those fisheries and regions where the bycatch of seabirds in fisheries is most problematic. Mitigation measures already being applied by some Members to minimize the catch of seabirds include observer coverage on longline vessels, the use of tori-streamers and other bird-scaring devices, night setting, the strategic dumping of offal, the use of fully thawed baits, removal of hooks from discarded offal, and mandatory handling and release of birds that come on board alive. FAO has provided assistance to two Members to develop their national plans of action (NPA-Seabirds).⁷

8. FAO support for the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks has largely involved the preparation of publications and the maintenance of a webpage. Technical assistance has also been provided to two Members⁸ to assist with the development of NPAs.

9. Promoting the implementation of the IPOA-Capacity has focussed on two regional workshops⁹ which included the development of indicators for capacity management. Technical assistance to some developing countries and organizations has been provided¹⁰ and a number of technical documents to support the implementation of the IPOA-Capacity have been prepared.

10. Following its endorsement by the FAO Council in June 2001, the IPOA-IUU has been printed and distributed widely. A supporting technical guideline¹¹ on how to facilitate its implementation has been prepared and is being disseminated. Extra-budgetary funding to support several activities designed to promote the implementation of the IPOA-IUU has been secured.¹²

11. In keeping with request from Members at COFI, simple language texts of the Code of Conduct, the IPOA-IUU and the technical guideline dealing with inland fisheries¹³ have been prepared and distributed.¹⁴ These publications have proven to be extremely popular among officials, fishers, fishing communities and national NGOs. It is proposed to continue making these simple text documents available as a means of deepening the penetration of the Code.

12. As part of its dissemination activities of the Code and the IPOAs, FAO has prepared papers and provided inputs to FAO and non-FAO workshops and training courses. Substantive input was provided to the GEF-funded, UN/DOALOS-led initiative under the TRAIN-SEA-COAST Programme to develop a regional training course focussing on the implementation of post-UNCED international instruments.¹⁵ These training inputs have been primarily geared to the needs of developing countries and have been greatly appreciated.

13. The regional promotion of the Code and the IPOAs has been encouraged by FAO’s regional structures and through FAO and non-FAO RFBs. In addition to addressing these instruments in more generic terms, some RFBs are focussing on specific issues such as the precautionary approach, ecosystem-based management, enhanced MCS and VMS and measures to deal more effectively with so-called ‘flag of convenience’ or non-compliant vessels. FAO recognizes that regional action is indispensable to promote the implementation of the Code and the IPOAs and the Organization remains strongly committed to the support of regional initiatives and activities.

14. FAO’s FishCode, a trust fund supported currently by the Governments of Japan, Norway and the United States of America, facilitates activities designed to implement the Code and the IPOAs in developing countries. Assistance has focussed principally on scientific advice in support of fisheries management and MCS. Funds have also been secured to support activities designed to promote responsible fisheries in small-island developing States and the implementation of the IPOA-IUU.

15. The Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP) financed by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom and executed in 25 countries in West Africa continued to use the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and poverty profiling as tools to facilitate the process of change in policies and institutions to achieve poverty reduction in small-scale fisheries communities. The Programme financed 39 community projects in 19 countries and identified, formulated and initiated three Pilot Projects on the Improvement of Policies and Institutions for Co-Management in Inland Waters, Post-Harvest Livelihoods Issues and Participatory Coastal Fisheries Management in 12 countries. The Programme also assisted countries in elaborating poverty reduction strategy papers.

16. Meetings, since the last Session of COFI sponsored by FAO, or held in cooperation with FAO, that aim to strengthen the implementation of the Code of Conduct and the IPOAs have included:

· March 2001. FAO and WECAFC. Meeting of Fisheries Managers and Ministers of the WECAFC Ad Hoc Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Resources in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
· May 2001. FAO in cooperation with the Government of Indonesia.  Workshop on the Draft Management Plan for the Bali Strait Sardine Fishery. Banyuwangi (East Java), Indonesia.
· April 2001. FAO. Workshop on the Impact of Policies, Institutions and Processes on the Livelihoods of Fisheries Communities in West Africa. Dakar, Senegal.
· April 2001. FAO. Workshop on the impact of Policies, Institutions and Processes on the Livelihoods of Fisheries Communities in West Africa. Banjul, The Gambia.
· June 2001. FAO. Workshop on the impact of Policies, Institutions and Processes on the Livelihoods of Fisheries Communities in West Africa. Libreville, Gabon.
· September 2001. FAO Regional Workshop on the Management of Fishing Capacity in West Africa. Dakar, Senegal.
· October 2001. Iceland and FAO. The Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Reykjavik, Iceland.
· November 2001. FAO in cooperation with CEMARE/SFLP Workshop on Small-scale Fisheries, Poverty and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Cotonou, Benin.
· January 2002. FAO in cooperation with the Meeting of RFBs. Expert Consultation of the Regional Fisheries Management Bodies on the Harmonization of Catch Certification. IATTC Headquarters. La Jolla, USA.
· March 2002.  FAO and WECAFC. First Regional Conference on the Sustainability of Fisheries Resources in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf.  Paramaribo, Suriname.
· March 2002. FAO in cooperation with the University of the Philippines in the Visayas. Regional Workshop on the Use of Demographic Data in Fisheries and Coastal Development and Management. University of the Philippines in the Visayas. Philippines.
· April 2002. FAO Meeting of a Working Party Promoting the Contribution of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in Poverty Alleviation. FAO Headquarters. Rome, Italy.
· April 2002. FAO/SFLP Workshop on Poverty in Fisheries. FAO Headquarters, Rome. Italy.
· April 2002. FAO and the FAO Bay of Bengal Programme in cooperation with the Government of Bangladesh. National Workshop on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
· September 2002.  FAO and WECAFC. Second Workshop on the Management of the Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in the WECAFC Area.  Havana, Cuba.
· October 2002. FAO Expert Consultation on Catalyzing the Transition away from Overcapacity in Marine Capture Fisheries. FAO Headquarters. Rome, Italy.
· October 2002. FAO Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Workshop on Vessel Monitoring Systems. Saly, Senegal.
· October 2002. FAO Regional Workshop on the Management of Fishing Capacity (Adriatic Sea). Fano, Italy.
· November 2002. FAO Expert Consultation to Review Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. FAO Headquarters. Rome, Italy.
· November 2002.  FAO and WECAFC. Workshop on the Assessment of Stocks Shared by Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. (WECAFC Ad Hoc Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Resources in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf.)  Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
· November 2002. FAO in cooperation with the Government of Indonesia. Workshop on Fisheries Management.  Jakarta, Indonesia.
· December 2002.  FAO in cooperation with DFID and GTZ.  Workshop on Enhancement of Resources through Participatory Management; Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward.  Burkina Faso.

ACTION BY FAO MEMBERS TO IMPLEMENT THE CODE OF CONDUCT

17. The information provided by Members has been aggregated on a regional basis with a view to indicating differences in regional priorities and needs and as a means of assisting the international donor community better target regional fishery¹⁶ needs.¹⁷

Objectives and themes of the Code of Conduct

18. The Code has ten objectives and Members were invited to rank them from 1 (not very relevant) to 5 (extremely relevant). Overall, there was a bunching of responses towards the top end of the evaluation scale (i.e., relevant to extremely relevant) (Table 1). African Members¹⁸ ranked the Objectives with a degree of variability. Objectives A, B, E, F, G, in particular, were considered by Members to be extremely relevant. Asian Members¹⁹ gave relatively high rankings to the majority of the Code’s Objectives, and notably to Objectives A, B, C and D. European Members^20, in general, ranked all Objectives from relevant to highly relevant, Objectives A, B and C. Latin America and the Caribbean Members²¹ stressed the importance of most of the Objectives, in particular Objectives A, B, F, G, I and J. Near East Members ²² generally indicated that all the Objectives were relevant to extremely relevant. North American Members²³ ranked all Objectives with a high degree of relevance. Southwest Pacific Members²⁴ gave a high ranking to most of the Objectives.

TABLE 1
Priority rating by FAO Members of the Objectives of the Code of Conduct
(Ranking: 1=not very relevant, 3=relevant, 5=extremely relevant)

19. Members were invited to rank the eight themes of the Code. Rankings ranged from top to low priority (Table 2). African Members ranked fisheries management, and fisheries research very highly, with fishing operations, the integration of fisheries into coastal and basin area management, trade and inland fisheries development have a priority ranking. None of the themes was assigned a low ranking overall. Asian Members indicated high rankings for fisheries management, aquaculture development and post-harvest practices, with a priority ranking going to fishing operations, trade and research. European Members gave high rankings for the themes relating to fisheries management, fishing operations, aquaculture development and post-harvest practices. Rankings of the remaining themes were more variable. Latin America and the Caribbean Members general indicated high priority for fisheries management, aquaculture development, post-harvest practices and fisheries research. Near East Members assigned high priority to most themes of the Code, in particular fishing operations, aquaculture development and fisheries research. North America assigned high priority or priority ranking to all themes except for inland fisheries development in one case. Southwest Pacific Members generally gave a priority or priority ranking to most themes.

TABLE 2
Prioritization of themes in the Code of Conduct by FAO Members

20. The rankings provided by Members to both the Objectives and the themes indicate that they remain relevant to the promotion of responsible fisheries, in all activities of the sector, in both developing and developed countries.

Conformity of policies and national legislation with the Code

21. Most Members indicated that their policies and legislation conform totally or partially to the norms of the Code.²⁵ To implement the Code in a sustained manner, national policies and legislation should ideally reflect its spirit and provisions as policies and legislation form the basis for implementation. Members indicated, in all regions, that steps are being taken to facilitate implementation of the Code by revising fisheries policies and legislation, initiating training and workshops for officials and stakeholders as a means of generating greater awareness about the Code, encouraging of partnerships among stakeholders, adapting the Code to local (national and regional) conditions, promoting responsible behaviour by fishers, strengthening fisheries management measures (including community-based fisheries management and monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)), translating the Code into local languages, establishing fisheries cooperatives, facilitating the elaboration of NPAs to implement the IPOAs, preparing and distributing newsletters, and disseminating the Code among stakeholders and training/education institutions.

Fisheries management

22. Members reported that they have developed a total of 472 marine fishery management plans (74 percent of which on average have been implemented)²⁶ and 228 inland fishery management plans (72 percent of which on average have been implemented)²⁷(Table 3). As might be anticipated, the rate at which plans are being implemented varies somewhat between regions, reflecting to a large extent levels of capacity and resources available to implement the plans.

TABLE 3
Number of fishery management plans reported to have been developed and implemented
by FAO Members for marine and inland capture fisheries in accordance with
the Code of Conduct

23. Members were invited to indicate whether their marine and inland fisheries plans contained measures designed to promote responsible fishing and fisheries activities in accordance with the principles of the Code. In general, Members indicated that their plans contained measures to ensure that the level of fishing is commensurate with the state of fisheries resources, allow for depleted stocks to recover, selectivity of fishing gear and prohibition on the use of destructive fishing methods. However, fewer plans contained stock specific reference points.

24. Where target reference points are not used, Members reported that other indicators employed include production levels, catch and reproduction data, catch statistics and analysis of fish sizes. In addition to these measures Members reported that their plans also contain other measures such as area and species limitations, creation of marine parks, reserves and protected areas, obligatory inspections for catch when it is being unloaded, the use of individual transferable quotas (ITQs), tax and related technical related measures, special recognition of the rights of artisanal fishers and provision for community-based fisheries management.

25. Many Members noted that reference points or other management measures are being approached or exceeded.²⁸ When reached or exceeded, Members indicated that they take different types of action to, inter alia, impose penalties on fishers who exceed individual quotas, introduce additional licence reductions, enact tighter area, season and species restrictions, increase gear restrictions, reduce fishing efforts through stronger controls on vessel operations and limit or stop authorizations for the purchase of certain species.

26. Many Members responded that they apply the precautionary approach.²⁹ This is done through a range of measures including the implementation of ecosystem approach to fisheries management, determining limit and buffer reference points, entry restrictions (including freezing capacity until further stock assessment work is undertaken and suspending fishing when required) effort limitation (including moratoria on new licences), catch and quotas controls (including setting total allowable catches (TACs) at lower levels that a stock should be able to support), gear standardization, restrictions and bans, vessel restrictions on engine power, closed season and areas, strengthening monitoring MCS, establishment of sanctuaries, strengthened provision against destructive fishing practices, zoning changes to protect artisanal fishers from industrial fishers, surveys to assess the status of stocks and fishing impacts and landing prohibitions in cases of uncertainty.

Fishing operations

27. Some Members³⁰ indicated that they had taken steps to ensure that vessels fishing in their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs), in the EEZs of other States or in international waters were properly authorized while other Members³¹ indicated that their vessels were partially authorized (Table 4). However, there was a difference in the response rate among regions in that European, North American and Southwest Pacific Members indicated generally that all or most vessels are properly authorized to fish.

TABLE 4
Fishing operations in marine capture fisheries in accordance
with the Code of Conduct

28. Members use a range of measures to ensure that fishing operations are properly authorized including comprehensive licensing arrangements, vessels registers, checks to ensure that vessels comply with international safety regulations, quotas, supervision of transhipments, on-board observers, MCS, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), surface and aerial surveillance, at-sea inspection, port inspections, gear checks, heavy penalties for violations, consultations with fishers, fishing communities and industry concerning fishing policies and regulations, collection and sharing of information on a regional basis and cooperation with RFBs. Some Members also stressed the importance of accepting recently concluded international fishery instruments as a means of ensuring that fishing operations are conducted in a responsible manner and establishing community-based fisheries management for small-scale fisheries.

29. Many Members³² reported that they have taken measures to limit bycatch and discards in their fishing operations while other Members³³ indicated that they had partially done so (Table 4). Measures that have been adopted to limit bycatch and discards include gear restrictions modifications and controls (e.g. turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and bycatch excluder devices (BEDs) in the trawl fishery), providing information and education about the harmful impact of environmentally unfriendly gear, closed seasons and areas (e.g. prohibition on trawling in near shore areas, excluding industrial vessel from artisanal fishing areas), establishment of size limits, on-board observers, checks on rejected fish at sea and in port, prohibitions of transport and sale of undersized fish, providing bycatch and discard quotas for fishers, prohibitions on discarding at sea, designation of marine reserves, the prohibition of targeting non target or undersize species, forceful penalties for infringements.

30. Many Members are moving towards the implementation of VMS (Table 4). Some Members³⁴ indicated that they have deployed VMS on their vessels while a large number of Members³⁵ have partially done so. Other Members³⁶ reported that they intend to implement VMS. There appears to be no controversy with respect to the implementation of VMS. Rather, it is a question of resources and capacity. Twenty-nine Members reported that they had not implemented VMS.

Aquaculture development
31. There were some differences by region in Members’ responses concerning whether or not they had legal and institutional frameworks in place with which to promote responsible aquaculture development. On a regional basis, Asian³⁷, European³⁸ and both North American Members tended to have higher proportions of legal and institutional frameworks than the other regions. Frameworks range from specific aquaculture legislation, dedicated sections of the fisheries act, to several pieces of legislation spread over different levels of government (e.g. state/provincial and national governments) and different government ministries. Some Members without frameworks indicated that it was their intention to develop them.
32. Members indicated that they have a total of 140 codes or instruments with which to promote responsible aquaculture (Table 5). Codes promoted by government³⁹ and industry⁴⁰ are the most numerous. Many of the codes involve practical policy guidance (administrative, legal and environmental) and best practices for aquaculture development, including, inter alia, standards and guidelines on fish culture and registries and accreditation of laboratories and qualified auditors that award certificates and quality labels and regulations concerning the establishment operations and disease prevention measures at fish farms.

TABLE 5
Number of FAO Members that have developed and adopted a code or instrument
of best practices for aquaculture in accordance with the Code of Conduct

33. Most Members indicated that they have procedures available to undertake environmental assessments of aquaculture operations, as envisaged in the Code⁴¹ (Table 6). Many Members⁴² reported that they monitor aquaculture operations while many Members⁴³ also indicated that they have measures in place to minimize the harmful effects on the introduction of non-native species or genetically altered stocks used for aquaculture. Some Members noted that they were progressively extending these procedures to cover all aquaculture operations. Some Members noted that these procedures were considered to be efficient and effective.

TABLE 6
Number of FAO Members with procedures to assess, monitor and minimize harmful effects on species introductions or genetically altered stocks in aquaculture in accordance
with the Code of Conduct

34. To enhance the effectiveness of procedures used to develop and monitor aquaculture Members identified issues such as a lack of resources to support responsible aquacultural practices, training for farmers, skills-development for technicians to strengthen monitoring and the availability of reference documents and poor logistical support for extension work.
35. Many Members indicated that they were aware of the potential harmful effects resulting from the introduction of non native species or genetically altered stocks and that, as a consequence, they have measures to addresses these situations. Measures include the prohibition or strict control of exotic species and the propagation of non-native species, stringent quarantine facilities and strengthening the quality of brood stock and seeds.
36. To promote more responsible aquaculture many Members are focussing attention on developing responsible policies and best practices backed by appropriate legislation, developing management plans, strict controls on the introduction of exotic species, training for artisanal production, creating awareness among stakeholders for responsible behaviour, farming of indigenous species, the promotion of farming practices appropriate to the socio-economic status of farmers, the promotion of integrated aquaculture-agriculture practices, implementing regulations against the use of chemicals that adversely impact the industry and the environment, enhancing monitoring of operations, developing more environmentally-friendly technology, greater emphasis on extension, accreditation of hatcheries and the involvement of communities in management, strengthening aquaculture cooperative, applied aquaculture research and strengthened Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS).
37. In term of technical assistance needs, many Members indicated that they would welcome assistance, especially in the areas of policy development, credit and management of aquaculture enterprises, disease and stock management, strengthened diagnostic laboratories and quarantine measures (including demonstration of new techniques and species introduction), improved statistical and methodology assessment, skills enhancement for field officers, improved risk assessment, monitoring and enhanced research, training and extension, environmental impact assessment, and acquisition of materials to support aquaculture.
Integration of fisheries into coastal and basin area management
38. Many Members, especially those with developing country status, reported that they do not have a specific framework (specific legislation or regulations) in place for the integration of fisheries into coastal and basin area management. Members⁴⁴ with such a framework indicated that they are promoting the integration of fisheries into coastal and basin area management as foreseen in the Code.
39. Members’ reports indicate that the situation with respect to conflicts within the fisheries sector and between sectors in coastal and basin areas is mixed (Table 7). Overall, Members indicated that there are strong to moderate conflicts between coastal and industrial fisheries and between gear types in coastal areas. Significantly, levels of conflict between fisheries and other sectors were reported not to be excessive.

TABLE 7
Conflict levels within the fisheries sector and between the fisheries sector and activities of other sectors reported by FAO Members on the implementation of the Code of Conduct

40. Some Members⁴⁵ have well developed mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts within the fisheries sector and between the fisheries sector and other sectors (Table 8). A significant proportion of other Members⁴⁶ indicated that they have measures to deal with conflicts between coastal and industrial fisheries, gear interactions and fisheries and recreational development and activities. Fewer Members⁴⁷ have mechanisms to address conflicts between fisheries and other sectors.

TABLE 8
Number of FAO Members with mechanisms to resolve conflicts over the use of coastal resources in accordance with the Code of Conduct

Post-harvest practices and trade
41. Many Members⁴⁸ indicated that they have effective food safety and quality assurance systems in place for fish and fishery products (Table 9). Twenty-nine Members indicated that this was not the case.

TABLE 9
Numbers of FAO Members with an effective food safety and quality assurance system for fish and fisheries products

42. Most Members reported that they have taken measures to encourage those involved in fish processing, distribution and marketing to reduce post-harvest losses and wastes by promulgating new policies and revision to legislation, registration of processing facilities, strengthened veterinary services, increased inspecting and evaluating catches at the points of landing and at processing facilities, creating an awareness about such practices and applying standards relating to good handling and processing practices (including systems such as HACCP), requiring that all fish caught is landed, promoting the construction of proper processing facilities, encouraging the use of ice in fisheries and freezing where appropriate, the introduction of better handling techniques (e.g. the use of plastic and insulated cases for holding fish), the modernization of vessels (including better on board storage of fish), demonstrating processing techniques, enhancing port infrastructure, encouraging personal hygiene for fish handlers, promoting training and providing technical advice to fishermen, enhanced extension services for fish handling, processing and preservation, provision of credit to fishers and processors and the utilization of fishery products discarded from processors for fertilizer (e.g. offal).
43. Furthermore, Members have encouraged those involved in fish processing, distribution and marketing to improve the use of bycatch by considering the introduction of new and more efficient processing technologies (e.g. new drying techniques and the production of surimi), creating awareness among operators to improve utilization, imposing levies on bycatches and banning the practice of their discarding to ensure the maximum economic utilization of bycatch, the initiation of studies to consider new ways of utilizing bycatch, the establishment of fishmeal and fish powder production facilities, consumer education about new products and transferring bycatch from industrial vessels to artisanal fishers.
44. Most Members⁴⁹ indicated that processors could readily identify the origin of fish and fishery products while a fair proportion of Members⁵⁰ reported that consumers could identify product origin (Table 10).
TABLE 10
Number of FAO Members reporting that consumers can identify the origin of fish and fisheries products

45. Members indicated that they have a range of measures that have been taken to ensure that fish processors, brokers and dealers do not process or trade in illegally harvested products. These measures include policy and legislation revision, monitoring of catches (including catches for domestic consumption and export), confiscation of illegally caught fish, prohibitions in the trade of illegally landed fish, imposition of severe penalties (especially for repeat offenders), MCS and the use of VMS, strict port controls (customs and fishery inspections and the use of import licences) on landing with a declaration as to where the fish was caught, taking action against processing plants that utilize illegally caught product, strengthened inspection of processing facilities, checks of vessel logs and licences, implementation of international catch documentation systems, consultations with fishers and stakeholders concerning IUU fishing, and public awareness campaigns about illegal fishing.
Fisheries research and data gathering
46. Members reported that in the last three years they have obtained reliable estimates for 753 stocks (an average of 64 percent of important national stocks) (Table 11). Moreover, many Members⁵¹ indicated that they are collecting timely, complete and reliable statistics on catch and fishing effort while some Members indicated that this was not the case. Many Members⁵² reported that they have qualified personnel available to generate data to sustainably manage fisheries while a significant proportion of Members noted that they lacked such personnel.

TABLE 11
Summary information relating to responses by FAO Members concerning the status of fisheries research in accordance with the Code of Conduct

47. Members identified a range of areas where they need additional qualified personnel. To boost their research capacity and activities additional qualified staff are needed in population/stock dynamics, stock assessment and modelling, biomass estimation, ecology and bio-limnology, sampling and monitoring techniques, risk assessment and analysis, ecological assessment statistics and database development and management, habitat assessment, fish enumeration, multi-species fisheries management, freshwater fish culture and management, eco-system modelling, GIS application, remote sensing, integrated computerized databases on fish resources and MCS, VMS, species introductions, disease control, pathology, port and vessel observers, gear technology, fisheries economics and sociology.
48. For the development of fishery management plans, most Members⁵³ indicated that they have catch and effort data available for this purpose (Table 12). However, fewer Members⁵⁴ had data available from research vessel surveys, on-board sampling from commercial vessels⁵⁵, while a good number of Members⁵⁶ collected data from in-port sampling from commercial vessels. As might be anticipated, developing Members were less well placed to collect the data required for these plans.

TABLE 12
Availability of data for input to fishery management plans developed by FAO Members

49. Many Members indicated that they are routinely monitoring the state of the marine environment, if only partially, through such activities as monitoring water quality, seabed and sediment residues and assessing pollutants in marine fisheries. In some cases information is exchanged among research institutes and studies on marine biological biodiversity are undertaken. Fewer Members routinely monitor bycatch and discards. This is done through the use of onboard observers, vessel and catch inspections and other types of studies.
50. Overall, Members identified the following constraints in undertaking research and data collection: insufficient human, financial and material resources (including port infrastructure for research and research vessels) to ensure basic and on-going research programmes, insufficient baseline studies and a general lack of information about species being managed (especially species subject to multi-species management), lack of reliable information and data on indicators, lack of social and economic studies, lack of statistical coverage and difficulties in collecting data, inadequate training and insufficient information about fishing grounds. Members indicated that to address these constraints additional resources are needed together with enhanced international cooperation. In addition, there is a need for enhanced stock assessment, the placement of observers on fishing vessels, decentralization and establishment of research stations and the implementation of training programmes in data collection and scientific observations.
International plans of action
51. Four international plans of action (IPOAs) have been concluded within the framework of the Code. These IPOAs focus on specific fisheries issues that have been identified by Members as requiring particular and directed attention.
52. A few Members⁵⁷ have indicated that they have developed their NPAs-Capacity while other Members⁵⁸ have partially done so (Table 13). Some Members reported that they have not proceeded to develop a NPA-Capacity. A few other Members⁵⁹ indicated that they would not have their NPAs-Capacity in place by the 2005 deadline.

TABLE 13
Summary information relating to responses by FAO Members concerning the implementation of the International Plans of Action

¹ Undertaking or undertaken initial assessments.
53. For the assessments for the development of their NPAs-Capacity, Members have used a wide range of techniques including the establishment of a register for all fishing vessels, the introduction of catch logbooks, the diagnosis and identification of fisheries and vessels requiring urgent measures to reduce capacity, the quantification of vessel engine power and number of fishers, the implementation of controls over access to fishing zones and the evaluation of the status of stocks, estimation of the biomass of fishery resources, power factor analysis (propulsion power and tonnage), vessel overall-length/power factor analysis, assessment of vessels characteristics and average/expected catches by type of vessels, categorization of vessels by size and type and gear employed, swept area models and surplus capacity/production models with and without reference points. Significantly, one Member⁶⁰ reported that its long distant fleet has been reduced from 139 vessels to currently only 9 vessels and it is anticipated that further reduction will take place as funding to renovate vessels is no longer available. Some Members that have vessels that fish on the high seas and which are not already supplying data to FAO under the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement indicated that they would do so in the near future.
54. Where excess fleet capacity exists, Members reported that they are implementing awareness campaigns among fishers to highlight the damaging effects of overfishing, introducing limited entry schemes and ITQs, instituting controls on fishing efforts (by way of vessel licensing schemes), prohibiting the exploitation of species that are particularly threatened, intensifying MCS/VMS, undertaking a review of fishing licences and in some cases reduced number of licences issued, introducing zone and time restrictions, promoting work on the selectivity of fishing gear, introducing size limits, establishing processing quotas, initiating and strengthening publicly-funded vessel buyback and early retirement schemes, encouraging fishers to move to other fisheries and occupations outside the fishery sector and discouraging credit for inshore fishing.
55. To prevent excess fishing capacity from developing, some Members have elaborated plans and national policies, established vessel registers and sought to strengthen databases. Steps to prevent excess capacity have included banning the issuance of new fishing licences, introducing seasonal and area closures, withdrawal of licences and imposing maximum capacity restrictions on gear.
56. Some Members⁶¹ have developed NPAs-Sharks (Table 13). Other Members⁶² are working towards the development of their NPAs. Some Members⁶³ indicated that they would have their NPAs developed in 2003 and 2004.
57. Many Members⁶⁴ reported that they have longline fisheries. Those Members that indicated that they would implement the IPOA-Seabirds did not generally indicate a timeframe. A few Members⁶⁵ have developed their NPAs-Seabirds, while other Members⁶⁶ have partially done so (Table 13). Members reported that measures they are taking to mitigate seabird catches in longline fisheries include the setting of lines at night, the reduction of offal discharges from vessels, the deployment of observers to report all bird mortality, the use of scare blinds (Tori lines) and the waiting of lines.
58. IUU fishing impacts efforts to achieve sustainable fisheries and many Members⁶⁷ indicated that IUU fishing is problematic in their countries.⁶⁸ Some Members⁶⁹ indicated that they had taken steps towards developing and implementing the IPOA-IUU (Table 13). Members reported that IUU fishing occurs in both marine and freshwater capture fisheries as well as in aquaculture. However, the extent and full impact of IUU fishing is not well known in all cases. Members reported on the type of IUU fishing being encountered. These problems included incursions (poaching) into EEZs and inshore areas by foreign fishing vessels which impact small-scale fishers, unauthorized fishing in restricted areas, incomplete catch and effort reporting by industrial fleets, fishing by unauthorized vessels, lack of compliance by fishers with the terms of their authorization, under-reporting of catches, use of banned gears, fishing with explosives and poisons which results in the non-selective destruction of resources and the use of dams for the illegal netting of fish in inland fisheries.
59. Some Members⁷⁰ indicated that they would take steps in the near future to finalize their plans while other Members⁷¹ indicated that the plan would be completed before the 2005 deadline indicated in the IPOA-IUU.
60. Members reported that measures taken to deter IUU fishing include the ratification of international agreements, strengthened policy and legislation to conform with the IPOA-IUU including tougher licensing/management arrangements and improved mechanisms to address flag State and port State responsibilities, control over nationals working on vessels, measures to address “flag of convenience vessels”, higher penalties and imprisonment terms for fishers engaged in IUU fishing, increased MCS and the mandatory implementation of VMS, the seizure and destruction of catches resulting from IUU fishing, seizure and destruction of fishing gear, tightened catch reporting, enhanced observers’ programme, strengthened regional cooperation through RFBs, the introduction of certification to trace the origin of fish and prohibition of certain landings, catches of vessels from third Party countries, the promotion of fishers’ associations, and awareness building among stakeholders about the effects of IUU fishing.
1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement

61. International fora and resolutions have called upon States to ratify, accede to, or accept, as appropriate, and implement international instruments as a means of strengthening fisheries conservation and management. Instruments referred to, in particular, are the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Table 14 shows FAO Members that have ratified, acceded to, or accepted the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. It also indicates the number of Members that have the intention to take such action.

TABLE 14
Ratification, accession or acceptance of the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement
and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement by FAO Members

62. A good number of Members indicated that they had accepted the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement⁷² while some Members⁷³ indicated an intention to do so. Similarly, some Members reported that they had ratified the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement⁷⁴ while other Members⁷⁵ indicated their intention to do so. Most Members indicating their intention to accepted or ratify the agreements indicated that they would do so in 2003 or 2004.

63. In the framework of implementation of Part VII of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, entitled “Requirements of developing States”⁷⁶ and subsequent to UNGA Resolution 56/13 of 28 November 2001⁷⁷, the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 57^th Session, examined the outcome and recommendations of the first Informal Meeting of States Parties to the Agreement held in New York, on 30 and 31 July 2002⁷⁸, and adopted, on 12 December 2002, Resolution A/RES/57/143 entitled “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” (See Annex A).
64. In paragraph 14 of this Resolution, the General Assembly notes “that one component of a programme of assistance to be developed in accordance with Part VII of the Agreement should be the establishment of a voluntary trust fund (Part VII fund) within the United Nations system, to support developing States parties, in particular the least developed among them and small island developing States, dedicated to Part VII implementation, notes the role of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as the specialized agency responsible for fisheries, and that of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat as the secretariat for the Agreement, and requests the Committee on Fisheries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at its next meeting to consider its participation in the development and management of the Part VII fund”.
65. The Committee may wish to offer its views on General Assembly Resolution 57/143 of 12 December 2002 with particular reference to its operative paragraphs 14 regarding the proposed Part VII fund and 19 regarding a voluntary survey to solicit information from States parties and other States that may wish to participate, as well as fisheries management organizations and arrangements, on activities related to the implementation of provisions of the Agreement, similar to the survey in use by FAO concerning the Code of Conduct⁷⁹.
66. Subject to such views and guidance as the Committee may wish provide on the matter, through the Council, the Director-General is prepared to enter into consultations with the United Nations Secretary-General with a view to defining practical detailed modalities for the implementation of the relevant provisions of General Assembly Resolution 57/143, with particular reference to paragraphs 14 and 19. In expressing its willingness to enter into consultations with the United Nations Secretary General, the Director-General wishes, in line with the explicit reference in paragraph 14 of the resolution to FAO’s role “as the specialized agency responsible for fisheries” within the United Nations system, to bring to the attention of the Committee FAO’s general experience in assistance on fisheries matters to developing States, as well as in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and Related International Plans of Action, in particular, which would be both very relevant in light of the purposes of the proposed Part VII fund.

RESPONSES FROM REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES AND NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Regional fishery bodies

67. Replies were received from 19 out of 27 regional fishery bodies (RFBs) to which FAO had sent the questionnaires.

68. Regarding Article 7 (fisheries management) of the Code, most RFBs indicated (at a level of more than 80 percent) that existing fisheries management plans or measures including those adopted by their respective organizations contained key management tools such as: measures to ensure the level of fishing is commensurate with the state of fisheries resources, allow depleted stocks to recover and prohibit destructive fishing methods and practices (e.g. dynamiting and poisoning). More than 70 percent of RFBs addressed fishing capacity including the economic conditions under which the fishing industry operates and more than 60 percent of RFBs also indicated that those measures contained stock specific target reference points and addressed selectivity of fishing gear. On the other hand, only half of RFBs indicated that those plans or measures addressed the biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems including identifying essential fish habitats, and the protection of endangered species. Only a few RFBs addressed the interests of small-scale fisheries.

69. In view of the difficulty in addressing ecosystems and endangered species, most RFBs indicated interest in the precautionary approach. Almost 70 percent of RFBs introduced the precautionary approach into the management of fisheries in the waters covered by the mandate of their respective organizations. Less than 30 percent of respondent RFBs indicated that the reference points had been exceeded, while about 50 percent indicated that the reference points had been approached. For those for which the reference points have been approached, appropriate precautionary measures to control fishing pressure on resources were being taken. Those measures included the Catch Documentation Scheme (CCAMLR) to eliminate IUU fishing, effort limitation or capacity reduction (GFCM), closure of certain fisheries and prohibition of certain fishing gears or devices (IATTC), introduction of resources recovery or rebuilding plans (IBSFC, ICCAT and NASCO), quota limitation and strengthening inspection and control (NAFO and NEAFC).

70. Most RFBs indicated that they provided for stakeholder participation in determining management decisions. CECAF indicated that particular efforts were taken for enhancing collaboration with NGOs in a national sensitization program on the Code.

71. Regarding Article 8 (fish operations) of the Code, about 60 percent of RFBs indicated that they had taken steps to ensure only fishing operations in accordance with the fisheries management measures adopted by the respective organizations be conducted within the waters covered by the mandate of the respective organizations. More than 40 percent of those introduced a vessel monitoring system implemented by the member States. About a half of RFBs indicated that they had taken measures in the last two years to limit or strengthen measures on bycatch and discards. Those measures include catch limits for bycatch species (CCAMLR, IBSFC and NAFO), assessment of bycatch for the priority stocks and measures to reduce juveniles fishing (GFCM), requirement of releasing non-target species and no-dumping target species, introduce or research on gears and technology to reduce bycatch (IATTC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO and SEAFDEC) and program to reduce incidental catch of dolphin (IATTC), time and area closure to reduce bycatch (IOTC and NAFO) and video camera monitoring (IPHC).

72. Regarding Article 12 (fisheries research) of the Code, most RFBs indicated that they used catch and effort data from commercial fisheries for the development of fisheries management plans or measures adopted by their respective organizations. More than 60 percent of them also used data from research vessel surveys and in-port sampling surveys, but only half of them used on-board sampling from commercial vessels.

73. The IPOA-Capacity is being addressed by CCAMLR, FFA, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO and SEAFDEC.

74. The IPOA-Sharks is being addressed by CCAMLR, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO and SEAFDEC.

75. The IPOA-Seabirds is being addressed by CCAMLR, ICCAT, and IOTC.

76. More than half of RFBs addressed IPOA-IUU. In particular, RFBs dealing with specific species such as tunas (IATTC and ICCAT) and salmon (NASCO and NPAFC) showed more positive approach to implementation of IPOA-IUU. IATTC created a Permanent Working Group on Fishing by Non-Parties to address IUU fishing. IATTC also agreed to establish a regional register of vessels authorized to fish in its competent area and measures to discourage landings and trade of fish caught by IUU fishing. ICCAT indicated that many of its measures were stricter than those of IPOA-IUU. ICCAT also held a special meeting on ways to combat IUU fishing in May 2002. The Council of NASCO adopted a Protocol for States not Party to the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, calling for each Party to the Protocol to prohibit fishing for salmon beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction. The organization also promoted exchange of information and coordinated surveillance activities. The Committee on Enforcement of NPAFC coordinated enforcement activities by its Contracting Parties for eliminating IUU fishing in its competent area. APFIC and CECAF distributed all IPOAs to member States.

Non-governmental organizations

77. Five NGOs replied to the questionnaire. Two of them are particularly involved with aquaculture (EAS and GAA), one with small-scale fisheries (ICSF), another with industrial fisheries (ICFA), and the other is a federation of transport trade unions (ITF).

78. The ten objectives listed in Article 2 of the Code were generally assessed by these NGOs as being relevant or extremely relevant. ITF rated lower Objectives E, F and G which particularly relate to fisheries and living aquatic resources. Fisheries management, aquaculture and fisheries research are indicated as higher priority among the substantive themes of the Code.

79. RFBs identified a range of major constraints in the implementation of the Code. These constraints included difficulties in enforcement, need for regionalization of the Code, lack of financial resources, lack of appropriate legal frameworks, lack of coordination and consultative mechanism among different levels of implementation, lack of participation by vessel owners, local fishermen and consumers, lack of control over international trade of fish and fishery products and so forth. The solutions proposed by NGOs to address these constraints including international assistance for enforcement and capacity building, more regional consultations for implementation of the Code, establishment of a coordinating and consultative mechanism and legal frameworks, public awareness for vessel owners, fishermen and consumers at a local level etc.

80. There is the unanimous assessment by the NGOs that countries and RFBs have established fisheries management plans to ensure the sustainable utilization of living aquatic resources in marine and inland fisheries. However, regarding aquaculture, most responding NGOs indicated that most countries do not have adequate procedures to undertake environmental assessment and monitor aquaculture operations, and minimize the harmful effects on the introduction of non-native species of genetically altered stocks used for aquaculture. Among the proposed solutions are development of adequate policy frameworks, collaboration among national and international producers’ organizations, introduction of a precautionary approach and enforcement including proper record keeping, certification and restriction of introduction of non-native species or genetically altered stocks, promotion of research and so on.

81. NGOs indicated that they have taken concrete steps to assist in the implementation of the Code through technical publication such as “Code of Practice for Responsible Shrimp Farming” by GAA, organizing consultations and conference such as “Aquaculture Europe 2002” by EAS, several Regional Workshops and the Conference by ICSF in Latin America, West Africa and the Indian Ocean region. ICFA introduced the Organization for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fisheries (OPRT) as an initiative taken by the Japanese industry to organize international NGOs to combat IUU fishing.

CASE STUDIES

82. As directed by COFI⁸⁰, sixteen member countries⁸¹ responded to the request made by the Secretariat to undertake case studies on problems associated with the efficient implementation of the Code and its related IPOAs.

83. The studies indicated that the Code of Conduct has provided an important reference tool for the management of fisheries and the development of aquaculture in all the countries. The implementation of the Code was contributing significantly to attitudinal and behavioural changes within fisheries administrations and fishing communities – changes which are essential in securing the future of national and global fisheries resources. Other positive outcomes include the adjustment or creation of more suitable sets of fisheries rules, plans and policies at national and regional levels, the development of new approaches to governance involving fishing communities in decision-making and implementation of measures, the creation or strengthening of fishing and related organizations, and a heightened public awareness to the need for conservation and management of fisheries.

Political will on the part of governments and the strengthening of national legislation and policies were critical ingredients in the implementation of the Code and its related IPOAs. The management of fishing capacity and the implementation of the provisions of the Code, and other IPOAs/NPOAs were facilitated when governments had a clear vision for their fisheries and efforts were made to acquire sufficient information/data in a timely manner. Greater awareness of all stakeholders about the Code and its related IPOAs was also considered essential for achieving responsible fisheries. In the case of IPOAs where there are specific timeframes, it was suggested to (1) start implementation early; (2) segment the process; (3) identify a lead person; (4) share the work; (5) set deadlines: (6) ensure accountability; (7) maintain momentum; (8) be aware that many people will know a little and few will be truly conversant with all issues; and (9) provide for outreach and coordination.

84. The main constraints are of a structural, legislative, financial and social nature:

§ The structural and legislative difficulties include: a lack of resources for staff and for research (the most common constraint); insufficient political will on the part of governments to implement the Code; the inability to resolve conflicts and grievances within the fisheries sector, or between the fisheries sector and other related sectors; an inadequate legislative framework or absence of a general fisheries development strategy; and insufficient communication within fisheries administrations or with other sectors of governments.

§ Financial and social constraints were related to: a lack of funds to improve working techniques to ensure the application of the Code and the elaboration of appropriate national plans of action; inadequate awareness of the mechanics of implementation of the Code, especially at the local and stakeholders levels; insufficient resources for stakeholders; lack of timely, complete and reliable data; illiteracy or low levels of education among aquaculturists and fishers; resistance of fishers and aquaculturists to new technology or to changes in their working methods; and poverty and demographic pressure.

85. The steps taken to alleviate the above constraints across countries included institutional strengthening; promoting the use of guidelines; setting-up of outreach and extension programmes and capacity building; involvement of fishers in the implementation and monitoring of the Code through community-based management approaches; fishers and fishing organisations involvement in data collection; monitoring and assessing the impact of the Code and the setting up of national steering committees for drafting of national codes and national plans of action (NPOAs).

86. Several developing countries indicated that assistance would be needed in the following priority areas: drafting national codes and NPOAs; implementation and monitoring of the Code and its related IPOAs; the conduct of informative workshops, the organization of training and the transfer of knowledge to fishers; the institutional strengthening of fisheries administrations; identification and assessment of new and under-exploited fisheries resources; and moving towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries.

CONSTRAINTS AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS IDENTIFIED BY FAO MEMBERS

87. Many Members face similar constraints in their efforts to implement the Code of Conduct and the IPOAs. Recurring constraints⁸² across regions included a lack of political will to support implementation, fisheries not being assigned high priority nationally because of their small economic contribution and the fisheries sector being poorly organized, open-access fisheries that are not subject to management leading to high levels of overfishing, insufficient attention to the development of management plans and the application of the precautionary approach, strong social and economic pressures on fisheries including vulnerability to poverty and a lack of alternative employment opportunities for fishing communities, inadequate resources (funds, trained personnel, equipment, research capabilities and facilities), poor levels of scientific research, weak institutional capacity (including poor national inter-agency coordination), conflicts between artisanal and industrial fishers, poor and inappropriate policy and legal frameworks, poorly developed MCS, lack of fishers participation in decision making concerning management, lack of awareness by stakeholders (including officials) about the Code and what it means for fishing communities leading to a lack of cooperation and irresponsible behaviour, persistent IUU fishing, a lack of adaptation of the Code to meet local needs, insufficient copies of the Code and related instruments for distribution and a lack of availability of documents in local languages.

88. Solutions proposed by Members to addressing constraints include: additional technical support from FAO and the international donor community to strengthen capacity and institutions (including training and the mounting of meetings to disseminate information about the Code to officials and other stakeholders), improved national inter-agency cooperation concerning the implementation of the Code, expansion of vessel buy-back programmes and industry restructuring arrangements to reduce fishing capacity, enhanced research capacity with the possibility of emphasis on twinning arrangements, implement plans for the recovery of over-exploited stocks, the placement of observers on vessels the implementation of better fisheries management that control fishing effort, greater emphasis on social and economic aspects of fisheries management, initiate policy and legislation reviews to incorporate elements of the Code, improve MCS systems, promote alternative employment opportunities for fishers, translation of the Code and related instruments into local languages so as to deepen dissemination and awareness building, ensure that adequate copies of the Code are available in country, campaigns to create greater awareness about the Code to improve education and outreach including stakeholders to better organize themselves, develop technical guidelines for small-scale fisheries management, support for stronger NGOs involvement in the implementation of the Code and the facilitation of cooperation among fishers and national and regional organizations concerned with fisheries management.

SUGGESTED ACTION BY THE COMMITTEE

89. The Committee is invited to review the progress achieved in implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the IPOAs and to provide comments and guidance to enhance the implementation of the these instruments.

90. The Committee is also invited to offer its views and such guidance as appropriate on the issues raised by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/143 of 12 December 2002, with particular reference to its operative paragraphs 14 and 19, in light of the information and developments presented in this document and the Director-General’s willingness to enter into such consultations with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as may be necessary in order to define detailed practical modalities for the implementation of those provisions.

¹ Albania, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Congo, Republic of, Cook Islands, Côte d’Ivoire, Country, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Community, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

² Botswana, Comoros, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Bahamas, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, El Salvador, Mexico, Venezuela, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Cook Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu.

³ Gabon, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Rwanda, Swaziland, China, Japan, Laos, Viet Nam, Austria, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Grenada, Jamaica, Paraguay, Suriname, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

⁴ Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC), Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource (CCAMLR), Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF), f for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA), Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL), Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (I-ATTC), International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC).

⁵ European Aquaculture Society (EAS), Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA), International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA), International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) and International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).

⁶ FAO Technical Guideline for Responsible Fisheries 5 Suppl. 1 Aquaculture Development 1. Good Aquaculture Feed Manufacturing Practice.

⁷ Marshall Islands and South Africa.

⁸ Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

⁹ South-east Asia and West Africa.

¹⁰ Mauritania, Senegal, Cambodia, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries (SRCF) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

¹¹ FAO Technical Guideline for Responsible Fisheries 9 Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

¹² The Government of the United States of America has provided US $400,000 for the translation, printing and dissemination of documents relating to IUU fishing; the convening of a meeting of countries operating open registers for fishing vessels; support for the “International Network for the Cooperation and Coordination of Fisheries Related to MCS Activities”; and support for the implementation of the IPOA-IUU through the elaboration of national plans of action in the APEC region. This project entitled “FishCode: Support for the Implementation of the IPOA-IUU Fishing” will be administered under the FAO FishCode Programme. FAO has already commissioned a study to gather information in the public domain concerning fishing vessels operating under open registers.

¹³ FAO Technical Guideline for Responsible Fisheries 6 Inland Fisheries. The simple version of this guideline is not yet finalized for distribution.

¹⁴ See paragraph 29 of FAO Fisheries Report No. 655 Report of the Twenty-fourth Session of the Committee on Fisheries, Rome, 26 February to 2 March 2001.

¹⁵ This course entitled “Responsible Fisheries in the Pacific Island Region: The Implementation of Post-UNCED International Instruments”, is based on the Code of Conduct. The course was developed for countries of the Southwest Pacific Ocean with the cooperation of four regional organizations. However, using the TRAIN-X methodology the course can be adapted to other regions if there is a demand for such a course.

¹⁶ In this report, “fishery” or “fisheries” also implies, as appropriate, “aquaculture”.

¹⁷ A summary statistical regional analysis of responses to the Code questionnaire is being made available at the COFI Session in a separate statistical document. For this report where Members are named in footnotes, regional groupings are preserved. It should be noted that some of the information provided by Members in their responses was not always entirely clear (e.g., responses such as “yes and no”, “sometimes” and “50 percent of the time”, etc). Consequently, a degree of interpretation was required in some instances. For this reason there are sometimes slight discrepancies between the data in the regional statistical analysis and data used in this report.

¹⁸ Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

¹⁹ Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand.

²⁰ Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Community, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Turkey.

²¹ Argentina, Barbados, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

²² Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Sudan, Syria.

²³ Canada, United States of America.

²⁴ Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu.

²⁵ Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.

²⁶ Angola, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa and Tunisia; Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden; Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; Egypt, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.

²⁷ Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Tunisia and Uganda; Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden; Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay; Egypt, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and United States of America; Papua New Guinea.

²⁸ Burundi, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Thailand; Albania, Finland and Poland; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; Egypt and Oman; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

²⁹ Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu.

³⁰ Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Tunisia; India, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand; Czech Republic, European Community, Lithuania, Norway, Spain and Sweden; Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Uruguay and Venezuela; Jordan, Oman and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

³¹ Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Uganda and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland and Turkey; Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran and Sudan; Fiji, Nauru and Vanuatu.

³² Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand; Estonia, European Community, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Spain and Sweden; Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt; Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

³³ Angola, Burundi, Ghana, Guinea, Seychelles, Togo and Zimbabwe; Myanmar, Philippines and Sri Lanka; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Poland and Turkey; Bahamas, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Mexico and St Lucia; Sudan.

³⁴ Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo and Tunisia; Myanmar; Chile, Dominica, El Salvador and Honduras; Egypt and Sudan; Cook Islands, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

³⁵ Benin, Cape Verde, Comoros, Madagascar, Morocco, Namibia, Seychelles and South Africa; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Pakistan; Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden; Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela; Islamic Republic of Iran and Oman; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand and Vanuatu.

³⁶ Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia; Cambodia, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania and Turkey; Guatemala, Haiti, St Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago; Syrian Arab Republic; Nauru and Tonga.

³⁷ Bangladesh, India, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

³⁸ Albania, Cyprus, European Community, Finland, Greece, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.

³⁹ Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia and Uganda; Bhutan Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway and Spain; Bahamas, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Marshall Islands and New Zealand.

⁴⁰ Burundi, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda; Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand; Czech Republic, European Community, Finland, Greece and Sweden; Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico; Egypt and Islamic Republic of Iran Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Marshall Islands and New Zealand.

⁴¹ Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia and Uganda; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁴² Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁴³ Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga.

⁴⁴ Angola, Benin, Ghana, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Togo and Tunisia; India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, European Community, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru; Oman; Canada and the United States of America.

⁴⁵ Democratic Republic of Congo, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda; Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt and Oman; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁴⁶ Angola, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Tunisia; Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁴⁷ Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda; Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, St Lucia and Uruguay; Egypt; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁴⁸ Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia and Uganda; Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, and Oman; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁴⁹ Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda; Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman and Sudan; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁵⁰ Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda; Bangladesh, Cambodia, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Czech Republic, European Community, Finland, Hungary, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Chile, Dominica, El Salvador, Guyana and Uruguay; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran and Jordan; Cook Islands, Nauru and New Zealand.

⁵¹ Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Eritrea, Ghana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe; India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁵² Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bhutan, India, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, European Community, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman and Sudan; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

⁵³ Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga.

⁵⁴ Angola, Benin, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan and Oman; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁵⁵ Angola, Benin, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia and Zambia; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Oman and Sudan; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁵⁶ Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia and Zimbabwe; India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Oman and Sudan; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga.

⁵⁷ Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique and Namibia; Nepal; Spain; Argentina, and Venezuela; New Zealand.

⁵⁸ Burundi, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mauritius, Morocco, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda; India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand; Cyprus, European Community, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden; Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and Peru; Egypt and Oman; Canada and the United States of America; Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands and Samoa.

⁵⁹ Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea Bissau and Nigeria; Lithuania and Turkey; Honduras, Nicaragua and St Lucia; Jordan and Sudan; Nauru and Tonga.

⁶⁰ Poland.

⁶¹ Namibia and South Africa; Thailand; Brazil and Mexico; United States of America.

⁶² Trinidad and Tobago; European Community, Spain and Sweden; Syrian Arab Republic; Canada; Australia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

⁶³ Seychelles and Sierra Leone; Cambodia, Indonesia and Philippines; Cyprus; Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Panama and Trinidad and Tobago; Oman, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

⁶⁴ Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Togo and Tunisia; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka; Cyprus, European Community, Greece, Norway, Spain and Sweden; Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela; Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman and Syrian Arab Republic; Canada and the United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga.

⁶⁵ Brazil; Egypt; United States of America.

⁶⁶ European Community, Spain and Sweden.

⁶⁷ Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka; Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Community, Greece, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, St Lucia and Uruguay; Syrian Arab Republic; Canada; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru and Tonga.

⁶⁸ United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/142, adopted by the 2002 Session of the Assembly, addressed large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing, unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, fisheries by-catch and discards and other developments. Inter alia, the resolution notes with concern the effect of IUU fishing on fish populations, welcomes the adoption of the IPOA-IUU and notes that the incidence of large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing activities in most regions has continued to be low. The operational section of the resolution makes 29 calls to action to address the issues specified in the resolution.

⁶⁹ Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda; India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand; Albania, Czech Republic, European Community, Greece, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, St Lucia, Uruguay and Venezuela; Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic; United States of America; Australia, Cook Islands and New Zealand.

⁷⁰ Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire and Seychelles; Pakistan and Sri Lanka; Estonia and Finland; Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago; Islamic Republic of Iran; Australia, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Samoa.

⁷¹ Benin, Comoros, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa; Pakistan; Estonia; Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic and Haiti; Islamic Republic of Iran; Australia, Cook Islands, Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

⁷² As at 8 December 2002, 23 Members had deposited their instruments of acceptance with the Director-General of FAO: Argentina, Barbados, Benin, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, European Community, Georgia, Japan, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Norway, Peru, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, Seychelles, Sweden, Tanzania, United States of America and Uruguay.

⁷³ Angola, Burundi, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo and Zambia; Bangladesh, India, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines and Sri Lanka; Poland; Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic and El Salvador; Oman; Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Samoa.

⁷⁴ As at 8 December 2002, 32 Members of the United Nations had ratified, or acceded, to the Agreement (in order of ratification or accession): Tonga, St Lucia, United States of America, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Norway, Nauru, Bahamas, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Iceland, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Russian Federation, Seychelles, Namibia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Monaco, Canada, Uruguay, Australia, Brazil, Barbados, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Malta, United Kingdom on behalf of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla and Cyprus.

⁷⁵ Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo and Zambia; Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand; Albania, Czech Republic, European Community, Finland, Greece, Poland, Spain and Sweden; Argentina; Egypt, Oman, Syrian Arab Republic; Marshall Islands and Samoa.

⁷⁶ Part VII contains provisions on “recognition of the special requirements of developing States” (Article 24), “forms of cooperation with developing States” (Article 25) and “special assistance in the implementation of this Agreement” (Article 26). Article 26, paragraph 1, provides in particular that “States shall cooperate to establish special funds to assist developing States in the implementation of this Agreement, including assisting developing States to meet the costs involved in any proceedings for the settlement of disputes to which they may be parties”.

⁷⁷ Paragraph 7 of Resolution A/56/13 called upon “States to provide some assistance to developing States as outlined in the Agreement, notes the importance of participation by representatives of developing States in forums in which fisheries issues are discussed, and once the Agreement enters into force, agrees to review the implementation of the provisions calling for assistance to developing States and to facilitate the establishment of a programme of assistance within the Agreement” ; paragraph 8 requested “the Secretary-General to include in his next report on the status and implementation of the Agreement a background study on the provisions of Part VII of the Agreement concerning requirements of developing States, taking into account existing arrangements and assistance to developing States that may be relevant under the Agreement, as well as suggesting possible forms of assistance”; paragraph 9 invited “States and international financial institutions and organizations of the United Nations system to provide assistance according to Part VII of the Agreement, including, if appropriate, the development of special financial mechanisms or instruments to assist developing States, in particular the least developed among them and small island developing States, to enable them to develop their national capacity to exploit fishery resources, including developing domestically flagged fishing fleet, value-added processing and expansion of their economic base in the fishing industry, consistent with the duty to ensure the proper conservation and management of those fisheries resources”.

⁷⁸ The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement came into force on 11 December 2001 following deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification. The Informal Meeting of the Parties considered in some detail the specific question of the implementation of Part VII of the Agreement, “including the establishment of a programme of assistance within the Agreement in favour of developing States; facilitating a background study of Part VII of the Agreement and involvement of international financial institutions in the implementation of Part VII”.

⁷⁹ Paragraphs 15 and 18 of General Assembly Resolution 57/143 are also of relevance.

⁸⁰ Report of the Twenty-fourth Session of COFI, Rome, 26 February - 2 March 2001, paragraph 37.

⁸¹ Barbados, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Guinea, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, Viet Nam and the USA.

⁸² Constraints and solutions are not listed in order of priority.