E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)
Even in case where catch limits/quotas are in effect, landing inspection at ports is much more effective than
boarding inspection at sea particularly for small fishing vessels producing fresh tunas and frequently returning to
ports. Boarding inspection should also be avoided for those vessels.
Boarding inspection at high seas by the third party other than flag CPCs should be focused upon the fishing
vessels whose flag CPCs are not capable of conducting it. Boarding by foreign inspectors is not an easy job and
burdensome for fishing vessels. Language barriers pose a further difficulty and burden. It is highly desirable that
flag CPCs conduct boarding inspection. At present, Japan is the only distant fishing nation that dispatches and
operates patrol vessels actively for fishery surveillance in the Convention area.
Boarding inspection, if necessary, should be conducted at the same level of frequency and coverage over the
fishing vessels of all CPCs. Otherwise, it is not equitable or sufficient for successful implementation of
conservation and management measures agreed in the Commission. While Japan may also ask, if necessary, the
third party to conduct boarding inspection where and when the Japanese patrol vessels are not available, a clear
priority of the third party boarding and inspection must be given to the fishing vessels of other parties who
cannot conduct it.
ii) Boarding inspection scheme should be implemented after preparatory arrangements are made among the
participating parties
As already mentioned in the above, high sea boarding, particularly that by the third party is a dangerous action.
To ensure safety of the vessels and human right of crew, every effort should be exhausted to make the side of
fishing vessels well prepared physically and mentally for such boarding. Appropriate gears such as a safe ladder
and guiding ropes are necessary to be equipped with. More importantly, mutual trust should be garnered between
inspectors and the inspected before actual implementation of the boarding. For this purpose, the flag CPCs
should talk with the inspecting CPCs and give in advance sufficient instructions and guidance to the fishermen
involved. Therefore, prior preparatory arrangements have to be made among the participating parties.
However, this requirement should not be used as an excuse to avoid high sea boarding and inspection. The flag
CPCs that have no sufficient capacity for inspection must have arrangements with those who have such capacity.
Even if a flag CPC operates its patrol vessel in the Convention area, it should also have an arrangement to cover
the area and period without the patrol vessel.
iii) Pre-arrangement is not necessary for boarding inspections in case of serious violations.
This requirement, however, should not hinder investigation in cases of serious violations significantly
undermining the Commission conservation and management measures and requiring immediate inspection. The
boarding inspection by the third party, or other prompt equivalent actions by the flag CPC should be mandatory
whether or not the pre-arrangement exists. (See concept paper on the next page.)
iv)Use of force should never be allowed during high sea boarding and inspection activities including
stopping, slowing or boarding a fishing vessel
Even in case of serious violation requiring boarding for collection of evidences, the boarding should be
accomplished not by force.
It is unnecessary to create a paragraph about the use of force, because the Scheme of Joint International
Inspection and Surveillance of NAFO clearly stipulates that the use of arm in relation to the inspections is
prohibited, and, in particular, the inspectors shall not carry firearms.
In case where the master of the fishing vessel refuses the boarding inspection for possible serious violations, the
vessel shall be stopped through the order of the flag CPC, not by force.
102