BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches2006200720082009201020112012Media contact informationMedia updateMinisters releasesPublications
New Zealand will comment today on the cluster of elements relating to mechanisms for international cooperation and on non-members of relevant RFMOs.
The extent to which RFMOs established prior to the Agreement have modernised their procedures and practices in accordance with the Agreement. The extent to which all RFMOs are fulfilling functions set forth in article 10, determining the participatory rights of new members in accordance with article 11 and operating in accordance with the transparency provisions of article 12.
The UN Fish Stocks Agreement designates RFMOs as the primary vehicle through which states shall cooperate to bring about the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks. Several new RFMOs have been established since the Agreement was adopted, bring the total number of RFMOs to nineteen. Work is proceeding on the development of new regional arrangements in the South Pacific and the Northeast and Northwest Pacific.
And yet international cooperation in regional fisheries management remain incomplete. We see five areas where more can be done
The effectiveness of RFMOs varies widely. The mandates of many RFMOs established prior to the entry into force of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement still do not adequately reflect the minimum requirements and principles set out in that Agreement (in particular articles 10, 11, and 12).
There is no effective means for cross-learning among RFMOs about best practices, and very little harmonisation of measures even though there are overlaps between some RFMOs with respect to geographical coverage and with respect to management measures of target and non-target species.
In our view, it is a critical weakness in RFMOs that they do not have built-in mechanisms for systematic review of their activities and achievements using the yardstick of the requirements of the UNFSA.
New Zealand encourages the Review Conference to develop recommendations aimed at increasing the accountability of RFMOs.
New Zealand highlights the recommendation of the High Seas Task Force that guidance should be provided for assessing the performance of RFMOs. As the Task Force report describes it, the guidance should reflect best practices in the implementation of international fishery instruments. In accordance with that recommendation, New Zealand will, for its part, encourage the RFMOs of which we are a member to conclude initial self assessments no later than July 2007.
The High Seas Task Force also decided to commission an independent high-level panel to develop a model RFMO based on a comprehensive assessment of best practices worldwide. We recall the side-event hosted by Canada yesterday at which the process to develop the model RFMO project was presented.
Some delegations may be concerned about the supposed intrusiveness of this suggestion. We think we need to be very clear that we do not suggest that through this Review Conference we should seek to impose an additional obligation on RFMOs or their members. Against the background that there has been growing recognition of the need for RFMOs to perform better, our objective is to encourage RFMOs and their members to ask themselves how best to review their performance and their achievement in implementing provisions of the UNFSA. Clearly it is our hope that RFMOs will find that the answer to that question is that a robust, audited process conducted in accordance with international best practice will best deliver confidence both to members of the RFMOs and to the international community at large.
Although we are getting ahead of the work programme, it seems to us that it would be appropriate for a future review conference to be mandated to receive and assess such performance reviews, in order to ensure maximum transparency.
The extent to which RFMOs have agreed, as appropriate, on participatory rights, such as allocations of allowable catch or levels of fishing.
By participatory rights, we are referring to allocations of allowable catch or fishing effort. We note that Article 10 (b) of the Agreement requires States, through RFMOs, to agree on such rights, but provides no guidance as to how those rights should be allocated between parties, nor which criteria should be used in determining such rights. By contrast, article 11 of the Agreement, which deals with new members or participants, sets out detailed criteria for determining such participatory rights.
The lack of defined and agreed criteria for allocations of allowable catch or fishing effort is an issue that many RFMOs are grappling with. Clearly there is much work to be done to find solutions that will balance conservation interests with the economic and social interests of States.
We are open to where such work should be done, including in the FAO or as mandated work for future review conferences of this Agreement, including their preparatory processes.
