Statement of Mr Satya N. Nandan, Chairman of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
Statement of Mr Satya N. Nandan,
Chairman of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
To the Resumed Session of the UN Fish Stocks Review Conference
New York, 24 – 28 May 2010
Mr. Chairman,
I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief statement to the Review Conference in my capacity as chairman of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
The WCPFC became operational in 2005, shortly before the first session of this Conference in 2006. Since then, it has rapidly established itself as the newest, and largest, RFMO dealing with the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks. As of now, the membership of WCPFC comprises 25 States as well as 7 territories and possessions. There are also 7 cooperating or participating non-members. Participation in WCPFC therefore includes all coastal States and territories in the Convention Area as well as all States fishing in the region and having a real interest in the fisheries covered by the Convention.
As one of the RFMOs to have been established after the adoption of the 1995 Agreement, the WCFPC Convention incorporates fully the provisions of 1995 Agreement. In many instances, these provisions were incorporated into the Convention text verbatim or by reference. The advantage of this approach was to save considerable time and effort on the part of members of the Commission – most of whom are also parties to the 1995 Agreement - to renegotiate the basic provisions of the 1995 Agreement, including those dealing with compliance and enforcement, boarding and inspection and dispute settlement. This meant that the members of the Commission were able to get to work very quickly to develop the practical arrangements to implement the provisions of the Convention as well as to establish conservation and management measures for the fish stocks under management by the Commission.
Since 2005, the Commission has adopted several Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs). At present there are 24 active measures in place: 12 of these are related directly to monitoring, control and surveillance. Amongst the measures in place are measures to conserve the bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks using a precautionary approach and area-based management principles such as restrictions on fish aggregating devices, closure of some high seas areas, 100 per cent observer coverage on all purse seiners when fishing between 20°S and 20°N, and bycatch mitigation measures for seabirds, turtles and sharks. The Commission also has several management measures in place to limit fleet capacity and fishing effort, namely for Striped Marlin, North Pacific Albacore, Swordfish, Pacific Bluefin Tuna, Bigeye and Yellowfin.
Unlike some of the older-established RFMOs, WCPFC has not yet conducted a review of its performance in meeting its conservation objectives. However, in 2010 the Commission will be looking at an overall performance review, including a special VMS security audit, and audits of the regional observer programme.
The Commission is also very active in the tuna RFMO meetings developed as a result of the “Kobe Process” and will participate in all four of such meetings this year. Further the Commission works closely with IATTC and is negotiating a cross- certification programme for observers of the two Commissions. There are also strong links with other RFMOs such as CCAMLR for sharing information on innovative management practices.
Mr. Chairman,
In terms of compliance and enforcement, the Commission has taken many measures to strengthen and enhance control of fishing vessels. These range from 100 per cent observer coverage of purse seiners to enhanced requirements for posting of a vessel on the record of fishing vessels, especially the non-member carriers and bunkers, and increased monitoring of the VMS register of vessels of which there are 2700 vessels listed. The Commission will shortly begin to address the issue of implementing port State measures in the Convention Area in accordance with the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures.
Of most significance, given the contentious nature of this issue during the UN Fish Stocks Conference, is the fact that the Commission has been able to agree to a scheme of boarding and inspection applying articles 21 and 22 of the 1995 Agreement. In the past twelve months, as many as 28 high seas boardings and inspections have taken place in accordance with this scheme. Moreover all members of the Commission have agreed to comply with the boarding and inspection provisions.
Mr. Chairman,
As you know, I had the honour to chair the conference which adopted the 1995 Implementing Agreement. I also chaired the process leading to the adoption of the WCPFC Convention; the first such Convention to be adopted after the 1995 Agreement and explicitly to incorporate almost all the provisions of the 1995 Agreement.
Allow me therefore to add a few comments in my personal capacity, as someone who has been an observer of the developments in international fisheries management over many years.
Mr. Chairman,
One of the key objectives of this Review Conference is to assess the effectiveness of the 1995 Agreement in securing the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.
In so doing, we should be encouraged by the fact that it is evident that the Agreement is now widely accepted by States from all regions. Moreover, as we have heard from the statements made yesterday, the principles of conservation and management set out in the Agreement, including the precautionary approach are generally accepted, even among those States that have not yet become party to the Agreement. Furthermore, other fundamental principles found in the Agreement, such as the principle of compatibility in conservation measures on the high seas and in areas under national jurisdiction, are accepted. It is encouraging to see that the logic for these provisions is better understood, and there is a recognition that it they can be applied in such a way that the rights and duties of States under the 1982 Convention are not compromised.
It is also apparent that a great deal of effort has been expended to ensure that RFMOs are equipped with the tools necessary to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities under the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Agreement. Most of the recommendations stemming from the last session of the Conference were aimed at improving the efficiency of RFMOs and ensuring that they establish appropriate measures to conserve and manage the fish stocks under their jurisdiction. Considerable progress has also been made in elaborating best practices for RFMOs – including, for example, the model developed by Chatham House in 2007 – and in reviewing the performance of RFMOs against emerging standards.
Regrettably, however, it is equally evident that we have not made as much progress as we should have made in conserving fish stocks, which continue to decline in the face of over-fishing.
It seems to me that this is due to two factors.
The first problem is the reluctance of many RFMOs, including WCPFC, to follow clear and unambiguous scientific advice to reduce catches, notwithstanding that such scientific advice is provided through the mechanisms established by the RFMO itself. Both the 1982 Convention and the 1995 Agreement emphasize the need to make conservation and management decisions on the basis of the best available scientific advice, and it is simply unacceptable for RFMOs to continue to disregard the advice that is given to them for reasons of political expediency or to accommodate new entrants into the fishery. To ignore the best available scientific advice, or to distort it in such a way that difficult decisions can be avoided, simply undermines the credibility of the RFMO and, ultimately, the Agreement itself.
The main problem, however, is that the obligations to comply with the management measures adopted by the RFMOs rests not on the RFMO – which is nothing more than a forum for States to agree on measures – but on the States members themselves. Ultimately, it is these States that are required to implement regional measures in domestic legislation or otherwise, and to enforce it against their vessels and nationals.
If we look at all the RFMOs dealing with straddling and highly migratory fish stocks today, we can see there is one striking common factor between them. A small number of fishing countries – Japan, the EU, the United States, Korea, the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei and, increasingly, China – are members of all RFMOs. This is hardly surprising, since these countries have the strongest fishing presence in all oceans and control the largest fishing fleets and the largest markets for fish. In some cases, nationals of these countries also fish using vessels flying other flags, including flags of non-members of RFMOs.
Ultimately therefore, it is these States that must bear the primary responsibility for the failure of RFMOs to achieve conservation objectives. The RFMO is only the vehicle by which its members reach collective decisions
The primary responsibility for applying and enforcing those decisions rests with the member States. It is also important to note that in taking such enforcement action, States are not only responsible for vessels flying their flags, but also can not ignore the actions of their nationals, whatever flag they are using. Unfortunately, it is all too readily apparent that in many cases, the nationals of major fishing States use vessels flagged to other States to avoid their responsibilities. Furthermore, the States of which these individuals are nationals, take little or no action to constrain their activities.
Mr. Chairman,
In conclusion, let me say that there appears to be no need to modify or adapt the terms of the 1995 Agreement, or even the rules of the various RFMOs. There is, however, a pressing need for RFMOs to follow the scientific advice that is provided to them through their scientific committees and for all members of RFMOs to comply with and enforce the collective decisions of the RFMO with respect to their nationals and vessels.
If States are not able to live up to these obligations, then the consequences are clear: not only will there be further decline in fish stocks, but also there will be increased pressure to deal with the problems of over-fishing in other forums, such as CITES and the General Assembly, thus undermining the role of RFMOs as set out in the 1995 Agreement. If we do not address these issues, then such consequences will be unavoidable.