John Beddington, Director, Marine Resources Assessment Group, Centre for Environmental Technology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, 48 Prince’s Gardens, London SW7 1NA, United Kingdom

Edgardo Gomez, Director, Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 3004, Philippines

Alain Laurec, Director, Directorate C, Directorate-General for Fisheries (DG XIV), European Commission, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

H.P.C. Shetty, "Manorama", II Main, Lohithnagar, Mangalore 575006, India

Mohammed Tangi, Directeur des relations internationales de la formation et des affaires juridiques, Ministère des pêches maritimes et de la marine marchande, Rabat, Morocco

Lee Weddig, 15 Old Creek Court, Rockville, MA 20854, USA

Meryl J. Williams (Ms), Director General, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), P.O. Box 2631, 0718 Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines

1. The High-Level Panel of External Experts in Fisheries met at FAO Headquarters in Rome on 26 and 27 January 1998. Seven Experts participated in the Panel. The list of documents placed before the Panel is in Appendix B.

2. The Director-General of FAO, Dr Jacques Diouf, opened the meeting. He made note of the importance of securing independent advice as a means of enhancing the work of the Fisheries Department and thanked the Experts for their willingness to participate in the work of the Panel. Among other matters Dr Diouf referred to issues such as the need to secure sustainability in capture fisheries, the strengthening of aquaculture, the problem of fleet over-capacity, appropriate legal frameworks for fisheries, future implications for fishing in international rivers and lakes, eco-labelling and the role of fisheries and aquaculture in FAO’s Special Programme on Food Security.

3. The Panel adopted the Agenda as shown in Appendix A.

4. Ms Meryl Williams was unanimously elected Chairperson of the meeting.

5. The Panel discussed the contribution of fisheries to food security concentrating on supply issues and on fish producing countries which were potentially vulnerable to food insecurity.

6. It was noted that the supply and demand for fish varied greatly between regions and that the issue of food security should be considered in the context of food supplies in general rather than in isolation from the larger issues of food security. Such issues could include population growth rates projected for each area. As an example, one Panel member drew attention to the high population growth rates projected for Sub-Saharan Africa which would lead to a doubling of the population by 2020 and consequent large increase in demand for fish.

7. In relation to the contribution of fish to food security, the Panel made the distinction between "fish for food" and "fish for funds", both of which contributed to food security. Countries may have a choice: for example, should particular fish be exploited primarily as a source of local food fish supplies or as a source of revenue (foreign exchange) for the individual or the country?

8. One Panel member suggested that FAO conduct a case study on this issue, possibly using the case of shrimp trawling. What would be the net benefit to the country and the communities concerned if shrimp trawling was not carried out, and presumably, the immature fish caught in shrimp trawls left unharmed, possibly producing increased yields in other fisheries?

9. One Panel member suggested that FAO might make it a task to assemble, as in case studies, relevant information on household and fish consumption in rural communities with a view to generalizing the information requirements for assessing strategies addressed to food security issues.

10. In discussing "fish for food" the Panel noted the present limitations in supply and opportunities for increasing supply:

• from natural fish stocks;
• through the promotion of aquaculture; and
• through stock enhancement.

It was noted that as a general rule, irrespective of the source of fish, effective supply to households experiencing food insecurity was constrained by the fact that demand for some species pushed prices up to levels where they could not be accessed by the poorer sections of the population.

11. The Panel noted that reducing access to fish made some groups more vulnerable to food insecurity than other groups. Among the more susceptible were:

• populations in small island developing States (SIDS);
• artisanal coastal fishing communities in coastal areas; and
• inland fishing communities.

12. In considering the possibilities for improving food security through increased supplies from natural fish stocks the Panel noted:

• the need for sustainable management of stocks and, given the inherent natural fluctuations in stocks, further noted that an appropriate strategy might be to aim for a level of exploitation below that level which was technically and biologically possible under peak conditions;
• the need to minimize losses from poor handling;
• the difficulty of developing countries, and in particular SIDS, to make use of their offshore resources. It was recognized that difficulties arose in obtaining suitable large vessels to exploit the stocks themselves, in the surveillance of offshore fisheries, and in obtaining equitable returns when these resources were exploited by foreign partners, including joint ventures;
• the complications introduced by cross-border issues, in particular those caused by trade and shared or straddling stocks;
• restrictions imposed by product quality standards and the fact that the main markets (Japan, USA and the European Commission) do not utilize a common set of quality criteria;
• the fact that a large portion of mostly small pelagic species (poisson bleu), once they have become animal feed (fishmeal) reappeared in edible form (e.g. chicken and veal) which were too expensive for those people that suffered food insecurity; and
• the idea that the addition of nutrients to the sea to stimulate productivity may make it possible to establish commercially harvestable fish stocks where none were available.

13. In the course of reviewing the contributions of natural and other stocks to food security, it was recommended that FAO:

• review the implication of international trade on the most economically vulnerable groups;
• help expand and promote uniform quality criteria for internationally traded fish and fish products;
• assemble and make known existing standards with regard to environmental regulations for fisheries and aquaculture; and
• monitor new developments in technology and ensure that the precautionary approach is applied to any new situation so as to minimize the environmental and socio-economic negative impacts.

14. The Panel noted the rapid growth of aquaculture, particularly in Asia, as a source of increased fish supplies. Aquaculture now represented about 20 percent of total fish production and would likely represent 30 percent by 2010.

15. Notwithstanding the growth of aquaculture generally, the Panel noted that:

• the lack of success of aquaculture growth in many parts of Africa where food security is particularly important;
• increased aquaculture production does not automatically lead to improvements in food security; and
• the need to avoid environmental degradation from inappropriate aquaculture development, which could negatively affect food security through impacts on wild stocks and aquaculture.

16. With respect to the contribution of aquaculture to food security, the Panel recommended that FAO study the constraints to small-scale aquaculture production, particularly in Africa, and suggest how these constraints can be removed. In the African context the Panel noted that stock enhancement in small and larger water bodies may suffer from fewer constraints than farm pond aquaculture production, but its successful application is likely to involve different socio-economic issues.

17. Under this issue the Panel noted the following needs:

• artisanal fishers should obtain adequate and equitable payment for products delivered by them both in national and international markets;
• trade in fish products which have been caught by unlicensed vessels, caught outside established quotas, or which are immature specimens, should be prevented; and
• the difficulties developing countries experience in adhering to fish quality standards imposed by importing countries should be recognized.

18. The Panel considered the issue of fisheries governance and recognized the challenges in achieving good governance at the international, regional, national and local levels. Many of those involved, including government fisheries managers, lacked the knowledge and capacity to undertake the complex tasks involved. In addition, even well trained and knowledgeable parties were continually challenged to determine fisheries management policies and actions which were effective for stock conservation, made economic sense and were equitable.

19. Among FAO’s major international policy outputs aimed to improve fisheries governance, the Panel stressed the importance of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted by the FAO Conference in October 1995. The Code and its guidelines were technically credible to fisheries experts and readable to non-experts. They are directed toward all States, fishing entities, international organizations, non governmental organizations (NGOs) and all persons concerned with the conservation of fishery resources management and development of fisheries.

20. The Panel considered that a priority for FAO was to ensure that the Code and its guidelines be effectively implemented starting with their wide dissemination and translation into official languages. Efforts should be made to highlight and implement major provisions such as those that prohibit fishing unless specifically allowed i.e., it is no longer a given right for all to go fishing. The Panel discussed ways in which FAO could further encourage improved fisheries governance.

21. The Panel supports FAO efforts at:

• positive reinforcement through recognizing good performance, such as the new Margarita Lizarraga Medal for persons or organizations that carry out outstanding work in implementing the Code;
• analysis, scrutinizing and reporting on governance mechanism and experience which may be appropriate at the international, regional and national level, particularly giving greater emphasis to monitoring, control, trade and equity issues;
• developing model legislation for the Code and its guidelines to assist governments in their legal implementation; and
• translating existing scientific data into concrete policy and operational management tools.

22. The Panel discussed possible ways in which FAO could assess the performance of fisheries governance regimes and improve the capacity of personnel involved, noting that the Organization presently produced biennial scorecards on the status of fish stocks and was frequently called upon by countries to evaluate management performance on a bilateral basis. Whereas FAO could not act as an accreditation body on fisheries governance, it could facilitate the many actors in developing objective policy frameworks and performance criteria for their particular subsectors. One successful recent example was FAO’s work on principles for sustainable shrimp farming. This has been agreed among countries under FAO’s leadership and, appropriately, much of the technical development was undertaken by concerned industry representatives.

23. Panel members differed in their views, however, as to how prescriptive FAO should be in recommending governance mechanism. Some felt that FAO should take a strong stand on what it considers right whereas others felt that FAO should be careful in its recommendations, promoting rather the advantage and disadvantage of certain governance approaches, e.g. market instruments, and highlighting the conditions and situation in which the advantages were most likely to apply.

24. The Panel recommended that:

• FAO could also work with national and regional fishery bodies to promote objective self evaluation of governance performance including the development of performance indicators appropriate to governance; and
• FAO address the legal institutions and scientific issues relating to international inland freshwater fisheries. These are often complicated by the fact that, for example, river basins are used for irrigation, hydropower, transport and for fisheries, fisheries being often a minor use. Although such complex multiple uses do not occur in the marine environment, Panel members felt that some lessons in governance may be transferred from international marine fishery governance experience.

25. The Panel noted that there were over thirty regional fishery bodies (RFBs) currently operating worldwide, and that the bodies fell into two main categories: ten RFBs established under the FAO Constitution (FAO bodies) and 24 RFBs or arrangements established under international agreements or conventions between three or more Contracting Parties (non-FAO bodies). Within these two categories, some of the bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) laid emphasis on the gathering of scientific information and the promotion of scientific collaboration; others, (e.g. the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic) had basically advisory powers, in addition to regulatory powers with respect to conservation and management. Other bodies, particularly those established after the adoption of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (e.g. the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission) had clear management functions.

26. The Panel recognized that RFBs were essential in reinforcing regional cooperation and that recent events concerning the conservation and management of fisheries required that these bodies be strengthened to cope with new and additional responsibilities, including the provisions of Agenda 21, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and the Code.

27. The Panel expressed the opinion that the last 30 years were essential to collect information and gain experience on the functioning of RFBs and that the next ten years would be to implement and enforce decisions so that world fisheries resources could be exploited and utilized in a responsible manner.

28. The Panel further considered some basic differences between FAO and non-FAO bodies and remarked that the performance and effectiveness of both types of bodies were hampered by several factors. The most salient factors of RFBs included:

• regulatory and other conservation measures were often undermined by countries not party to the agreement or convention, particularly through illegal fishing, the use of flags of convenience, non-regulatory fishing gear, etc.;
• members did not generally provide information in a timely manner and, in some cases, did not report catches at all;
• national political pressures and priorities exemplified by the attachment to sovereignty, national interests and the biased interpretation of recommendations, that in many cases were taken by consensus, tended to further undermine the effectiveness of some bodies;
• mechanisms such as monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems to enforce conservation and management measures were often absent or inadequate;
• outputs of some bodies were non-operational owing to the absence of the appropriate link between the scientific and technical experts on the one hand, and the decision/policy makers and those responsible for implementing decisions/policies, on the other hand;
• several bodies did not have the financial means to carry out their mandates satisfactorily;
• some bodies had produced adequate scientific information but the senior officials with major responsibility for policy and programme implementation had not usually participated at the sessions, while the reverse was true for other bodies; and
• the frequency of meetings of most RFBs, usually annual, was considered too low for taking appropriate and realistic management decisions. It was remarked that in the USA some of the regional fishery management councils met monthly.

29. The Panel cautioned against RFBs becoming too involved with socio-economic matters as such involvement could impinge on national sovereignty.

30. The Panel also recognized the potential contribution of NGOs of all types to the operation of RFBs by providing expertise and in creating awareness on specific issues. The Panel noted that early consultation with all stakeholders was usually beneficial in resolving conflicts and in consensus building.

31. The Panel acknowledged that the work of FAO RFBs was coordinated at the global level through the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), which provided the central framework for collaboration. However, the Panel regretted that no practical links existed between COFI and non-FAO RFBs.

32. The Panel agreed that, in spite of their shortcomings, RFBs still represented the best option for regional management and that, for the majority of the existing bodies, there have been perceptibly significant improvements in performance during the last decade. It appeared that RFBs had developed better capacities through time. The Panel suggested that:

• RFBs needed to be proactive and anticipate crises which might confront them in the future;
• the missing link between FAO and non-FAO RFBs should be addressed;
• the full participation by members, including greater participation in determining and funding the work programmes of these bodies and in the implementation of decisions should be encouraged; and
• there should be better coordination, where necessary and appropriate, between RFBs and other economic groupings.

33. The Panel endorsed the recommendation of the Twenty-second Session of COFI and the Twenty-ninth Session of the FAO Conference that FAO bodies should be reviewed and evaluated in depth by their members to determine what measures might be taken to facilitate the strengthening of each body, as appropriate.

34. The Panel recommended that:

• FAO should work to encourage and promote more coherent management approaches among RFBs, where possible, and approach with caution the creation of new regional fishery bodies. In this respect, it suggested that FAO could encourage the convening of ad hoc consultations and working parties to address certain emerging issues as a mid-way alternative to the creation of new bodies;
• FAO should continue their systematic analysis of FAO RFBs concerning their institutional and financial arrangements, the strategies used to implement decisions and recommendations and measures taken to address current international fishery issues;
• FAO should convene a Special Meeting of Managers and Secretaries of FAO and non-FAO Bodies, and in the first instance the tuna bodies, to identify and address common problems and constraints, identify and develop strategies and mechanisms to address constraints, share experiences and lessons learned, and improve the effectiveness of the bodies;
• RFBs should explore the possibility through which a number of them could receive scientific advice from an independent arrangement, the membership of which would include a sufficient number of competent, independent scientists who were not directly involved in management, as is presently the case with ICES, and
• RFBs and governments should recognize the collection of reliable data and information, and routine stock assessment based on these, as a primary responsibility.

35 The Chairperson noted that the paper on this topic described the wide range of current partnership arrangements involving the FAO Fisheries Department. She noted that with development assistance from traditional ODA sources declining, it would be essential to find new partners if the level of fisheries programme activity was to be maintained. It was FAO’s intention to seek new funding sources including the private sector, and to extend cooperation with NGOs. She invited the Panel to focus on opportunities for developing new partnerships, particularly with the private sector.

36. It was suggested that two areas of FAO's fisheries programme which were strong and worthy of development through further partnerships were:

• dissemination of research outputs using the efficient FAO publishing mechanism; and
• the Atlas resources and large databases which were unique to FAO.

37 It was noted that the list of current partnership activities was impressive in its number and scope. Strategies for creating new partnerships would not need to be developed from scratch, but rather should be built on the existing sound foundations. It was suggested that the future priority activity for FAO should be facilitating cooperation in exchanging expertise within regions (rather than transplanting it from developed countries) so as to develop and maintain human capital. The second priority should be to provide access to information. FAO also needed to consider how to be more efficient and to ensure that work was shared with partners rather than duplicated.

38. Although the current partnership activities cover a wide range of topics, there were some gaps which offered new opportunities. One example was the tourist industry which had a large, and usually unrecognized, impact on fisheries. It was believed that there were opportunities for obtaining funding through new partnerships, but that these could only be established by developing sound project proposals which are also well presented. NGOs had demonstrated that funds could be raised for such projects which commanded public attention. One such subject, which might well attract NGO partnership funding, was fisheries governance.

39. There were some constraints to developing partnerships with the private sector. One was that the private sector may wish to obtain profits through sales of products which have been developed using data provided free to FAO by countries. Another was that companies were more interested in local issues which specifically impacted on their business in the short term rather than in broader international issues which had a long-term impact. One way of overcoming these problems might be to encourage companies to participate in partnerships with FAO as responsible "global citizens" rather than for direct profit, thus enhancing the company's reputation and profile.

40. Other potential partners for FAO were academic institutions which might allow highly expert staff to work at FAO on sabbatical on specific projects for several months. The academic staff would benefit from contact with the wide range of technical expertise at FAO while contributing their expertise at little or no cost to FAO.

41. It was concluded that the development of new partnerships would require clear "bankable" projects which were well-presented. A wider range of private sector candidates needed to be considered (e.g. tourism and its impact on fisheries) and water-polluting industries should be particularly encouraged to participate. FAO should build on its strengths such as information dissemination and data-rich atlases and databases. Priorities need to be set and presented to potential partners. To this end, FAO needed to develop a clear strategy for partnerships and funding which would protect FAO's dissemination rights for information provided by countries. The motive most likely to secure private sector participation was to project a public image of responsible sponsorship as a "global citizen".

42. Future strategic partnerships would need to be broader than previously, to match the more complex issue being addressed. FAO could benefit from links with strategic research (e.g. on the consequences of ballast water discharge and the prediction of algal blooms or multispecies ecosystem issues). Partnerships with centres of excellence could complement FAO's extensive technical expertise with innovative academic thinking, and thus be mutually beneficial. Some partnerships may best be undertaken on a regional rather than global basis, but they should nevertheless focus on major issues. For example, new and more effective means of monitoring and enforcing fisheries management regulations was becoming a major issue which would concern all RFBs. Through its partnerships, FAO should seek to promote effective inter-regional cooperation in fisheries and aquaculture and to coordinate its international cooperation with other agencies undertaking similar or related work.

43. It must be recognized that FAO's mandate also included subjects which were not likely to attract partnership funding but which were nevertheless essential. Funding for these would have to come from traditional sources.

44. The Panel recommended that FAO develop a partnership based funds mobilization strategy to enable the Organization to support and enhance its capacity to deliver its vital fisheries mission. This strategy could involve, but not be restricted to:

• a clear strategy for the establishment of partnerships and related funding which should not compromise FAO’s dissemination policies for information provided by countries;
• serious considerations to developing new partnerships with a wider range of private sector companies and NGOs and that these be promoted as cooperation between FAO and responsible private sector interests relating to important issues of international concern; and
• partnerships with centres of excellence which should be further developed in order to complement FAO’s extensive technical expertise with innovative academic thinking for mutual benefit. Such partnership could involve academic staff working at FAO on sabbatical leave.

45. The views of the Panel on this item are contained in Appendix C.

46. The report was adopted on 27 January 1998.

1. Opening of the Session

2. Adoption of the agenda and timetable

3. Election of Officers

4. Contribution of fisheries to food security in the light of possible future constraints in supply

5. Future challenges in fisheries governance

6. Regional fishery bodies: Are there effective alternatives?

7. Partnership and funding opportunities with other international organizations and donors

8. Inputs to a proposed FAO Strategic Framework:

(i) long-term global fisheries developments; and
(ii) FAO's role.

9. Adoption of the report

The Panel considered long-term global fisheries developments and FAO's role in connection with the proposed FAO Strategic Framework. The Panel believed that the following aspects would influence the future work of FAO in fisheries and aquaculture:

• stressing the achievement of the 1995 adoption of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Panel urged the full and effective implementation of the Code, noting that it should remain a major activity for FAO over the medium term as a means of trying to secure the sustainable exploitation and utilization in fisheries and aquaculture. It was further noted that the Code comprehensively embraces the work programme of the Fisheries Department and a draft Strategy to guide the implementation of the Code had been elaborated. FAO should pursue the implementation of the Code, in line with this Strategy, at every opportunity, and seek additional funds to support implementation;
• in future society will routinely expect more from the fisheries sector. In addition to fish for food, society will look to fish for funds, employment and fun (recreation);
• depending on geography, access to markets and affordable technology, the contribution of fish to food security comes not only from fish produced for direct local food consumption, but also from aquatic products of all types which can be sold domestically or exported for funds, as well as those which generate income through recreation, tourism, and employment. The Panel recognized that access to all potential contributions would not be automatic and that specific interventions would often be required to achieve full access;
• developments in bio-technology offer the prospect of the discovery of new drugs and chemicals for human use from aquatic organisms. Often culture of the organism may offer a preferred supply of the drug compared to its synthesised material and may offer new avenues for economic development based on aquatic genetic resources. FAO can provide countries with valuable policy guidance on intellectual property issues under the International Convention on Biological Diversity;
• FAO and all fishery bodies must increasingly develop an ecosystem approach. FAO will need to act as a conduit between emerging research results and fisheries sector partners (international, regional and national) to encourage an increased emphasis on the role of fisheries in ecosystems, the way in which fisheries are affected by ecosystems, and the relationship between the alternative uses and value of ecosystems;
• a desire to explore the possibilities of going beyond the preservation of what is in the ocean and expanding the productivity resource base of the oceans;
• restocking and stock enhancement offer opportunities which must be fully taken into account, subject to an evaluation of the cost/effectiveness of such attempts, as well as a risk analysis covering ecological and genetic issues;
• priority should be given to optimal exploitation of existing natural populations and caution should be exercised in exploiting presently under-utilized resources to avoid their over-exploitation. FAO could take a lead through its species identification programme in describing the scope of under-utilized potential resources including their geographic distribution;
• as fishery resources become scarcer, demand for fish increases and fish prices rise and the so-called "rush for the blue gold" leads to an intensification of regional fishery conflicts. FAO should promote cooperation to control and eliminate those involved in illegal fishing;
• MCS will be an increasingly major issue for the future management of fisheries. Developing countries and in particular those countries such as SIDS that depend on access arrangements with foreign fleets, need MCS assistance and in particular in dealing with vessels flying flags of convenience or phantom vessels flying no flags at all. Enhanced flag-State responsibility is essential in addressing these problems. Everyone fishing must be prepared to comply with more stringent requirements. FAO could help to create a full system for enforcement including controls at sea, landing points and in trade. Tougher controls should be applied equitably so that all parties are treated in a consistent manner;
• rising real fish prices though time will support over-capacity in many fisheries and thereby continue to exert excessive pressure on resources. SIDS and the poorest will be most disadvantaged in obtaining and maintaining access to fish. Increasing world trade in fish further exacerbates this trend;
• FAO should analyze the consequences for fisheries of developing countries of competition with fleets from developed countries, especially when fishing for the same resources. Possible distortions of competition should deserve special attention;
• FAO could promote more organized and coordinated work in improving basic fishing technology by sponsoring research and by disseminating information gathered from all sources on improvements in equipment or techniques which reduce bycatch, particularly in long-line and trawl fisheries;
• aquaculture is now the fastest growing food production sector in agriculture. Aquaculture makes a major contribution to global food security and more opportunities still exist to further expand its role;
• aquaculture should be developed with care and the world should not expect it to solve all the problems of the fisheries sector. Intensive aquaculture may provide efficient and effective use of resources but will need to consider pathology, ecology and genetics in its development. Restocking and stock enhancement technologies demonstrate promise as a means for increasing fish production. However, stock enhancement should not be promoted as the panacea to fisheries management problems. Stock enhancement practice is reaching its mature phase but still often lacks technologies for ready supply of juveniles, objective cost-benefit analyses, allocation of user rights and the question of who pays for the enhancement. Typical aquaculture considerations including pathology, ecology and genetics also apply to stock enhancement. Stock enhancement appears less problematic in contained inland water systems;
• note that there are different forms of aquaculture, some of which will have greater benefits to rural economies and better assist food security than others. Small reservoir fisheries had potential to develop as community-based management initiatives gain greater favour;
• small-scale low-capital aquaculture suffers similar constraints in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific Islands and the Caribbean. Developing this sector appears to demand different approaches to those in larger scale more technically intensive systems although such larger scale systems, including peri-urban developments are likely to have spillovers and demonstration effects in the largely rural small-scale sector;
• the Panel noted the increase in demands for new aquaculture species frequently available only through introductions from other countries or regions and the risks as well as benefits that many of these introductions present. The Panel urged FAO to address the problem of introductions and in particular if, when and how to assess that the possible risks are deemed to be at an acceptable level. The experience being gained in genetic engineering risk assessment approaches may provide guidance on this matter;
• some new aquatic species will surely be domesticated for aquaculture in the near future but the majority of production is still likely to come from those traditional species;
• in the interests of food security and the best utilization of limited resources, the prevention of post-harvest losses should be pursued as a matter of high priority. Methods and incentives to minimize post-harvest losses need to be devised and implemented, building on work already undertaken by FAO and other organizations;
• the facilitation of value-added processing should be encouraged so as to maximize benefits for producing countries. Processing enables more efficient storage and movement of products locally thereby contributing to food security, and
• regulation of international trade and the certification of fisheries products will become a priority in future fisheries arrangements.

The Panel recommended that FAO:

• review the implication of international trade on the most economically vulnerable groups;
• help expand and promote uniform quality criteria for internationally traded fish and fish products;
• assemble and make known existing standards with regard to environmental regulations for fisheries and aquaculture; and
• monitor new developments in technology and ensure that the precautionary approach is applied to any new situation so as to minimize the environmental and socio-economic negative impacts. (para. 13 of the report).

The Panel recommended that FAO study the constraints to small-scale aquaculture production, particularly in Africa, and suggest how these constraints can be removed. In the African context the Panel noted that stock enhancement in small and larger water bodies may suffer from fewer constraints than farm pond aquaculture production, but its successful application is likely to involve different socio-economic issues. (para. 16 of the report).

The Panel recommended that FAO:

• could also work with national and regional fishery bodies to promote objective self evaluation of governance performance including the development of performance indicators appropriate to governance, and
• address the legal institutions and scientific issues relating to international inland freshwater fisheries. These are often complicated by the fact that, for example, river basins are used for irrigation, hydropower, transport and for fisheries, fisheries being often a minor use. Although such complex multiple uses do not occur in the marine environment, Panel members felt that some lessons in governance may be transferred from international marine fishery governance experience. (para. 24 of the report).

The Panel recommended that:

• FAO should work to encourage and promote more coherent management approaches among RFBs, where possible, and approach with caution the creation of new regional fishery bodies. In this respect, it suggested that FAO could encourage the convening of ad hoc consultations and working parties to address certain emerging issues as a mid-way alternative to the creation of new bodies;
• FAO should continue their systematic analysis of FAO RFBs concerning their institutional and financial arrangements, the strategies used to implement decisions and recommendations and measures taken to address current international fishery issues;
• FAO should convene a Special Meeting of Managers and Secretaries of FAO and non-FAO Bodies, and in the first instance the tuna bodies, to identify and address common problems and constraints, identify and develop strategies and mechanisms to address constraints, share experiences and lessons learned, and improve the effectiveness of the bodies;
• RFBs should explore the possibility through which a number of them could receive scientific advice from an independent arrangement, the membership of which would include a sufficient number of competent, independent scientists who were not directly involved in management, as is presently the case with ICES, and
• RFBs and governments should recognize the collection of reliable data and information, and routine stock assessment based on these, as a primary responsibility. (para. 34 of the report).

The Panel recommended that FAO develop a partnership based funds mobilization strategy to enable the Organization to support and enhance its capacity to deliver its vital fisheries mission. This strategy could involve, but not be restricted to:

• a clear strategy for the establishment of partnerships and related funding which should not compromise FAO’s dissemination policies for information provided by countries;
• serious considerations to developing new partnerships with a wider range of private sector companies and NGOs and that these be promoted as cooperation between FAO and responsible private sector interests relating to important issues of international concern; and
• partnerships with centres of excellence which should be further developed in order to complement FAO’s extensive technical expertise with innovative academic thinking for mutual benefit. Such partnership could involve academic staff working at FAO on sabbatical leave. (para. 44 of the report).