E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)
– The relative importance of trade restrictive measures with respect to other tools for combating illegal fishing.
Participants noted that, consistent with FAO's International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, trade restrictive measures should be used in a manner that
recognizes the rights of states to trade fish and fish products. Several participants advocated the notion that, for
CPCs, trade restrictive measures should be used as a last resort after other tools (e.g., reductions in quota
allocations) have proved to be unsuccessful (see paragraph 6.bis). There was significant debate as to the
appropriateness of including this idea, which some viewed as a substantive policy issue rather than one of
procedure. It was suggested that such a notion simply defined more clearly the notion of “effective measures” as
set out in paragraph 5 of the UU Catches Resolution. At least one party noted that this concept was of such
importance that it would have to be incorporated, if not into the current document, into ICCAT´s trade regime in
some way - otherwise the present document would not be acceptable.
– Specificity. Several participants stated their view that trade restrictive measures should not be limited to
particular fisheries such as large-scale tuna longline vessels (LSTLVs) targeting a particular species (see
paragraph A). However, the ICCAT practice to-date has been to develop specific instruments to deal with
specific conservation issues; as cases of illegal fishing by large-scale longline vessels and illegal fishing of
bluefin tuna and swordfish have been well documented, the existing Action Plans were developed to fight these
cases.
– Treatment of Parties. Some delegations expressed the view that different criteria should be applied when
evaluating the fishing activities of CPCs and NCPs. Others felt it was more appropriate to have one set of criteria
for the purposes of the current exercise. The two alternatives for paragraph B.2 reflect these differing views.
– The process of Identification. Several participants stated their view that the Identification process in the UU
Catches Resolution could be confusing. In this respect, the draft document refers to specific paragraphs in the
UU Catches Resolution (e.g., paragraphs B.3 and B.4 refer to paragraph 2 in the UU Catches Resolution).
However, one delegation questioned whether the text should refer to a different paragraph (paragraph 4 of the
UU Catches Resolution, instead of paragraph 2).
– Recurring illegal fishing activities. Several participants stated that once trade restrictive measures are lifted for
a given party, then the entire process would need to be re-initiated from the beginning in case of a repeat offense.
In other words, to be consistent with international law, the lifting of sanctions should be unconditional. Other
participants argued that if the type of repeat illegal fishing activities was the same, then the process should be
initiated at the stage of Identification pursuant to paragraph 2 of the UU Catches Resolution (see paragraph 9).
They highlighted the difficulty in obtaining data and assessing flag state control when a country is under
sanction and the lengthy time needed to recommend sanctions if the process returns to the beginning.
– The behavior of vessels and the behavior of States. Some delegations argued that the criteria being discussed
under paragraph B.2 referred to the behavior of vessels, and that it would be more appropriate to develop criteria
to reproach States for not controlling their vessels. Other participants noted that existing instruments use criteria
at the vessel level to help evaluate the how a flag state is carrying out its duties and therefore this draft proposal
should aim to clarify those vessel-level criteria.
– Scope of proposal. Several participants expressed concern that the intent of paragraph C was not clear. The
Chair explained that the intent of the paragraph was not to supplant the BFT and SWO Action Plans, but rather
to ensure that when these Action Plans are being implemented, the provisions under paragraph B of the current
proposal be taken into account. It was noted that gaps in the coverage provided by the various Action Plans
existed because not all fisheries and all species were contemplated (the SWO and BFT Action Plans cover these
two species for all gears, and the UU Catches Resolution covers all species for LSTLVs only). The delegate of
Japan stated that if the UU Catches Resolution were amended to cover other types of large-scale vessels, then
paragraphs A and C would not be necessary.
– Binding nature of the instruments. The Working Group noted that non-binding Resolutions have provided a
foundation upon which binding trade action has been taken. Some parties stated their preference for developing
binding Recommendations for this purpose. Several participants stated that the CPCs issues in paragraph 6.bis
would be best addressed through a Recommendation such as the compliance instruments for bluefin tuna and
swordfish [Ref. 96-14 and Ref. 97-08], appropriately amended.
110