COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RFMOS. Work Program Item 4.3 requested the SBWG to develop a strategy for the Agreement and Parties to engage and assist Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and other relevant bodies to assess and minimise bycatch of albatrosses and petrels. There was considerable work on this item intersessionally, which culminated in the paper SBWG-2 Doc 14 / AC4 Doc 56. This paper summarises the current status of RFMOs overlapping spatially with ACAP-listed species, in terms of RFMO actions that relate to the conservation of these species. The paper is intended to facilitate ACAP Working Group and Advisory Committee discussions on developing strategic engagement with RFMOs and other fishery management bodies. RFMOs are inter-governmental organisations which work to manage fish stocks. As part of that management, RFMOs consider ecosystem impacts of fishing, including seabird bycatch. Because of the capacity for RFMOs to establish management measures relating to seabird conservation in ‘their’ fisheries, ACAP may progress its own objective through engaging with these bodies. SBWG-2 Doc 14 proposes goals and processes for such engagement, and suggests areas of work in each RFMO to which attention could be devoted for the benefit of albatross and petrel conservation. The SBWG considered the document outlined a useful approach to Party engagement with each other on RFMO issues and engaging with RFMOs, and was supportive of the suggestion of nominating an RFMO Coordinator for each RFMO meeting. The importance of good coordination between agencies within Parties was noted, e.g. the agency responsible for seabird conservation and that managing fisheries. It was considered essential that discussions on seabird bycatch are closely linked to those of fishery management, to ensure ownership of seabird bycatch issues by fishery managers, and the joint progression of both target catch and seabird bycatch issues. The Working Group recognised that RFMO Coordinators would succeed best when able to act as stand-alone ACAP representatives, rather than also being part of national delegations. This was particularly relevant with respect to attendance and participation at meetings. The Working Group noted that where ACAP representation was undertaken by a Coordinator also serving on a national delegation, that representative could be constrained in terms of the time they were able to contribute to ACAP, versus national, duties. Further, the Working Group noted that the Coordinator m...
COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RFMOS i. Supported the implementation of the prioritised key areas for engagement with RFMOs, as identified in ANNEX 5 of AC9 Doc 10 Rev 1, and the provision of resources necessary to achieve this.
