33. The Commission discussed this agenda item on the basis of documents APFIC/04/5, APFIC/04/4 and APFIC/04/Inf.3.
34. The Commission recalled the conclusions it reached during its previous sessions as well as the recommendations made by its Executive Committee at its 69th Session in December 2003, and reaffirmed that, while continuing its work in capacity building and collaborative research, APFIC should adapt its working methodology to better respond to the needs of its Members and forge partnerships with other relevant organizations and arrangements.
35. The Commission unanimously agreed that APFIC should function as a Regional Consultative Forum (RCF) to provide a framework for Members to discuss fisheries issues which affect groups of States across the wider Asia-Pacific region and to formulate recommendations for action. In this context, APFIC could act as a platform to discuss emerging issues relating to fisheries, trade and sustainable management facing its Members.
36. It underscored that APFIC would undertake a range of activities, including the provision of information via a website, publications, direct advice to members, consultative workshops and working groups leading to a "flagship" biennial RCF meeting. The Regional Consultative Forum Meetings would constitute a regular activity of APFIC and would provide visibility of fisheries problems and issues in the Asia-Pacific region that could also be communicated at the global level.
37. The Commission noted that APFIC would take steps to include FAO Members, non-member nations, other RFBs and arrangements, and other relevant international initiatives in environmental and coastal management as well as regional and international experts to participate. In this way APFIC would seek to avoid duplication of effort in the region and promote its role as a fishery integrative and consultative body.
38. The Commission stressed that the RCF should not entail any additional financial burden for its Members whose contributions should remain voluntary.
39. The Commission concurred with the recommendations of the Fourth Session of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR) held in 2002 and the Twenty-fifth Session of COFI (2003) that problems associated with small-scale fisheries and aquaculture development both in inland and marine waters needed to be properly addressed, considering this sub-sector's contribution to national social and economic development. Therefore the Commission agreed that the theme for the 2006 RCF meeting should be small-scale fisheries (both marine and inland capture fisheries) and rural aquaculture.
40. Several Delegations indicated that a clear definition for small-scale fisheries was required in order to clarify the scope of the work. The Commission noted that currently different classifications are used by different countries for separating fishery sectors. The Secretariat noted that a harmonized, universally acceptable definition may be difficult to reach and circulated for information a characterization developed by experts during the Second Session of the Working Party on Small-Scale Fisheries of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research in November 2003 (see Appendix E).
41. The Commission stressed the need for full-time staff in the APFIC Secretariat, in addition to the current part-time involvement of the Senior Fishery Officer and Aquaculture Officers at RAP. Several options were discussed, taking into account the current budget constraints, including the use of Associate Professional Officers (APO's), either funded by their own government or seconded national staff, under a capacity building arrangement, sponsored by a another country that allows sponsoring of foreign nationals under their APO scheme. The Secretariat was requested to look into these possibilities.
42. In view of the diversity of RFBs and other relevant international organizations and arrangements in the region, the Commission agreed that APFIC was best suited to take on a regional coordinating role and to promote cooperation amongst these organisations and arrangements. It was suggested that APFIC could also serve as a clearing house for information related to these organisations and arrangements, including statistics.
43. Some Delegations mentioned the importance of management interventions based on good quality data and information on the state of the resource and resource use, but regretted that such data and information were either poor or non-existent. It was suggested this was an area where APFIC could develop guidelines for the generation of good quality fisheries information. Effective linkages with Regional Fishery Bodies and arrangements need to be developed to address this issue.
44. Several organizations indicated their willingness to cost-share proposed activities and others offered their own meetings as a venue to present status and progress of the RCF work.
