13.11.2014 Views

E - Iccat

E - Iccat

E - Iccat

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)<br />

The Delegate of the United States requested the deletion of paragraphs 6 and 7 from the draft recommendation in<br />

respect to limits on the retention of bigeye tuna weighing less than 3.2 kg. He noted the United States preferred<br />

to maintain the clause in recommendation [Ref. 79-01] for one more year and recalled that this measure also<br />

applies to yellowfin tuna. Other Panel memb ers agreed to this deletion.<br />

The Delegate of Mexico concurred with the U.S.A.’s comment about consideration of closed areas and urged<br />

caution about replacing a non-workable measure [Ref. 79-01] with another that could be equally non-workable.<br />

He noted that the draft measure appeared to substitute quotas for management measures.<br />

The Delegate of Ghana expressed the view that the draft document did not offer Ghana any concessions and that<br />

Ghana only had its home waters in which to fish. The Delegate agreed to continue working with other ICCAT<br />

members to develop more realistic measures, especially in relation to limits on the capture of juvenile bigeye and<br />

yellowfin tunas as well as to respect the Gulf of Guinea moratorium.<br />

The Delegate of Canada voiced dis appointment that the Panel could only agree to a one-year rollover of existing<br />

measures. He supported the U.S.A.’s request in respect to deletion of operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft<br />

recommendation and noted that changes to these measures could be premature considering that these will be<br />

reviewed in greater detail in 2004.<br />

The Delegate of Canada also noted that whereas bigeye were fished at a level in excess of MSY in the mid-<br />

1990s, hard work to reduce capacity and eliminate IUU fishing in recent years has had a positive effect. Canada<br />

thanked the People’s Republic of China for its work in this regard. However, they noted that if all Parties base<br />

their quota needs on catches of other Parties, then there are clearly not enough bigeye tuna available to satisfy<br />

all.<br />

The Delegate of the European Community requested a review of fishing levels and stated that IUU catches are<br />

still too high. He acknowledged Ghana’s commitment to respect the moratorium.<br />

The Delegate of Côte d’Ivoire requested a fair and equitable quota for bigeye tuna (Appendix 2 to ANNEX 8).<br />

The Observer of Chinese Taipei referenced their information paper on bigeye conservation measures (Appendix<br />

3 to ANNEX 8). He stated that operative paragraph 2(b) of the draft recommendation could cause problems for<br />

Chinese Taipei.<br />

The Observer of Chinese Taipei also noted that all but 13 of the 159 former IUU vessels have been eliminated.<br />

He referenced recommendation [Ref. 01-23] in which ICCAT acknowledged that Chinese Taipei was in<br />

compliance and that they requested an additional quota of 2,000 t for 2003 in exchange for their support of the<br />

draft recommendation (Appendix 3 to ANNEX 8).<br />

The Delegate of Japan stated that ex-IUU vessels must not be rewarded through the granting of quota. In respect<br />

to the draft proposal by Chinese Taipei (Appendix 3 to ANNEX 8), Japan indicated that the quota transfer<br />

should be for 2003 only.<br />

The Observer of Chinese Taipei further indicated that though their original intention was to ask for additional<br />

catch quota, with the current situation, they would leave the matter for consideration in the next Commission<br />

meeting.<br />

The Delegate of the United States suggested that the Commission consider the appropriate process for<br />

authorizing temporary quota adjustments. In the view of the United States, this is properly authorized through a<br />

Recommendation, not through a letter from a Contracting Party to the Commission. The Delegate of the<br />

European Community questioned whether catch limits could be transferred in the same way as quota. The<br />

Delegate of Japan suggested that there already have been precedents and that the words “catch limit” should be<br />

substituted for “quota.”<br />

The Delegate of the European Community indicated the EC could support the proposal by Chinese Taipei<br />

(Appendix 3 to ANNEX 8) provided there will be further discussion on the issue of underage, overage, and<br />

catch limit transfers.<br />

180

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!