ENB:07:43 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]


The EU wanted to ensure that the long-term conservation and management and sustainable use of SFS and HMFS should be "throughout the entire range of their distribution". Canada and Poland preferred that references to "long-term conservation" in paragraph one and "improved cooperation" in paragraph three to be merged. The Chair suggested the text in paragraph three could be amended so that States Parties to the Agreement "resolved" to improve cooperation between States.

Peru and the EU said that few principles were contained in paragraph two, but Japan contended that the word "principle" was used because not all States have ratified UNCLOS.

Bangladesh, supported by Canada, said the phrase "assure conservation and management" should be replaced by "ensure conservation and management".

The EU and China sought deletion of reference to Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Programme Area C in paragraph five. Peru, Argentina, Australia and Papua New Guinea objected to this proposal. Argentina, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand said that in paragraph seven, the word "utilization" should be preceded by "sustainable".

Malta and Papua New Guinea considered it unnecessary to refer to the FAO Code of Conduct, but said that reference to the Compliance Agreement would be pertinent. India especially welcomed the strengthening of paragraph seven in favor of the needs of developing States.