E - Iccat
E - Iccat
E - Iccat
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