PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: One delegate suggested that the wording of paragraph 5 be changed to limit participation to those States engaged in high seas fishing. He added that support for this point can be found in UNCLOS Article 118. Another delegation supported in principle the idea that organizations be open to all interested States, but that the concept should not be used without necessary modifications due to special circumstances and that States with tangible interests in the stocks concerned should avail themselves of the openness of the organization.
NEW MEMBERS: One delegate suggested that paragraph 7 should be deleted, since subparagraph 1(k) in the document on regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements deals with new entrants. Another delegate commented that new members of regional or subregional organizations would accrue benefits in exchange for obligations, with special consideration for coastal States.
In 7(b), language dealing with historical fishing rights as opposed to historical fishing patterns may be preferable. A phrase might also be added to the end of the sentence so that this subparagraph reads "the historical fishing patterns of the non-party which have not undermined regional conservation and management measures."
Subparagraph 7(c) should take into account the traditional dependence of people on fishing for nutrition, food, or for livelihood. Some argued that this subparagraph should be expanded to include mechanisms for regional organizations to provide training for nationals in all aspects of fisheries management, to provide assistance in technology, and to promote general fisheries development.
A delegate mentioned that a new subparagraph 7(a) might be developed to deal with the state of the stocks and fishing efforts employed by existing members of a regional fisheries management organization. Concern was also voiced about possible discrimination in the application of criteria concerning the contribution of non-parties to conservation and management of stocks.
ACCESS TO REGULATED FISHERIES: Some delegates thought that paragraph 8 was harsh and, therefore, might be deleted Another delegate felt that this paragraph might best follow paragraph 5, as 5 deals with open participation of the regional fisheries management organizations and 8 addresses access to the regulated fishery.
ESTABLISHING REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: In paragraph 10, some delegations favored deletion of the words "on the high seas" from the chapeau so that the measures deal with management of stocks in both EEZs and the high seas. Echoing statements made Tuesday, some argued for deletion of the word "arrangements" for reasons of transparency and for consistency with the draft convention on flagging, which uses the term "treaties and international agreements" instead of "arrangements." Emphasis could be placed on cooperation between coastal States and distant water fishing nations, as well as on seeking technical and economic cooperation with developing countries. Others argued that retaining the word "arrangements" had merit, since the term "agreements" was too narrow.
In subparagraph 10(a), it was argued that the phrase "biological characteristics of the stock(s) concerned" should be replaced by the phrase "biological unity of the stock(s) concerned", with regard to conserving and managing these stocks. In 10(b), a delegate asked just what socio-economic factors should be taken into account. This subparagraph also needs to be read in concert with subparagraph (a), which deals with all elements of a given species over its complete geographic range.
It was also suggested that subparagraphs could also be added regarding: the opportunity for States and entities to enter arrangements where port States assist coastal States on monitoring and enforcement; the need to assist developing countries with technical or scientific expertise; and the development by regional organizations of decision-making processes which are time-efficient.
[Return to start of article]