INDO-PACIFIC FISHERY COMMISSION
Excerpts from the report of the Twenty-third Session (Colombo, Sri Lanka, 14-24 May 1990)
REVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IPFC AND ITS SUBSIDIARY BODIES
59.
In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled that at its Sixth Session (Manila, Philippines, 6-9 December 1988) the IPFC Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the South China Sea had decided to entrust an ad hoc Working Group with the task of reviewing the functions, responsibilities and structure of the Committee. This group, in which 'three member countries participated, made several recommendations which were considered by the Executive Committee at its Sixty-fourth Session (Colombo, Sri Lanka, 17-18 May 1990).
60. At its Eighteenth Session (Rome, 10-14 April 1989) the Committee on Fisheries had reviewed the activities of all FAO regional fishery bodies. In regard to IPFC, COFI recommended that an in-depth review of its functions and structures be undertaken with a view to revitalizing it and strengthening its activities in the technical and policy fields.
61. When considering the reports of the South China Sea Committee and of its ad hoc Working Group, the Executive Committee had felt that the proposals made by the latter could not be discussed separately and needed to be dealt with in the broader context suggested by COFI. It recommended to IPFC that the whole matter be referred to an ad hoc Committee composed of a limited number of IPFC member nations which should meet at the seat of the Commission not later than December 1990.
62. Document IPFC/90/8 identifying several areas as possible issues for consideration had been prepared to facilitate the Commission's discussion of this subject.
63. The Commission believed that it was premature to discuss many of these areas before more fundamental issues were dealt with.
64. It was recognized that since the Commission was established 43 years ago the fisheries situation in the region had changed drastically. It was noted in particular that other regional bodies had been created in the Indo-Pacific region viz.: the South Pacific Commission and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency in the South Pacific and the IOFC in the Indian Ocean; thus a need had arisen for avoiding duplication of efforts and overlapping.
It was recalled that when the FAO Council established IOFC it had noted that the creation of this new fishery Commission might lead to a withdrawal of interest in the Indian Ocean by IPFC. It was also noted that none of the South Pacific Island States which became independent after the creation of IPFC had decided to join the Commission. Instead, these countries had preferred to set up their own fishery body. In the North Pacific, regional fishery bodies had also been created by the coastal states.
65. Many members therefore felt that there might be a need for reviewing the area of competence of IPFC but they suggested that such review should also include an in-depth analysis of the situation, taking into account several factors, and in particular: (i) the need to identify which bodies were best placed to carry out certain functions; (ii) the need to try to identify the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.