E - Iccat

PANEL 4 REPORT
the 1999 rebuilding plan for North Atlantic swordfish, it was important for all Parties to carefully examine this
proposal.
The Delegate of the European Community asked the Chairman of the SCRS to explain why the SCRS
recommended a postponement for the Commission-recommended swordfish stock assessment schedule. The
SCRS Chairman gave the following reasons:
– The meeting on swordfish stock structure planned for late 2004 or early 2005, which was requested by the
Commission to investigate the boundary between North and South Atlantic swordfish, should be held
prior to the next stock assessment.
– The postponement of the assessment will yield more complete data from different fishing gears, such that
in 2006 the SCRS will have data available up to and including 2004.
– The stock assessments for blue marlin and white marlin and East Atlantic bluefin are scheduled for 2005.
It would be difficult to assess both marlin populations and swordfish, so considering the optimistic indicators
currently available for North Atlantic swordfish, the SCRS suggested postponing this stock assessment.
The Delegate of Canada indicated general support for following the advice of the SCRS. He then raised the issue
of the timing of the South Atlantic swordfish stock assessment, which would also need to be included in a
recommendation.
The Delegates of the European Community and Japan, while supporting the intent of recommendation,
suggested amending the draft recommendation to delete the paragraph that required the SCRS to evaluate CPUE
and reported landings data in 2004 and 2005 and prepare a report in 2005. The Delegate of the European
Community reiterated a concern that the Commission is operating on a multi-year assessment basis while the
SCRS unnecessarily analyzes the CPUE and reported landings data annually. The Delegate of the United States
agreed to delete the paragraph requiring a report in 2005.
The Chair noted that there was consensus to recommend adoption of the recommendation, as proposed by the
United States and Canada, which postpones both the North Atlantic and South Atlantic swordfis h stock
assessments to 2006. Hence, the Recommendation by ICCAT to Amend the Rebuilding Program for North
Atlantic Swordfish and South Atlantic Swordfish was forwarded to the Plenary for final adoption (see ANNEX 5
[Ref. 03-03]).
6.2 South Atlantic swordfish
The Delegate of Japan referred to the proposal by the United States in response to the Japanese request for a
temporary quota adjustment. In light of some concerns over catch statistics and import data, Japan requested
deferral of the discussion of this proposal to the Plenary. The Delegate of the United States clarified the U.S.
position, which is that a letter was not the proper mechanism for such an adjustment in quota. The United States
did not propose the draft resolution as a substantive show of support, but only as a procedural matter. The Panel
agreed to defer further discussion to the Plenary and the Resolution by ICCAT to Authorize a Temporary Catch
Limit Adjustment in the South Atlantic Swordfish Fishery was forwarded to the Plenary for final adoption (see
ANNEX 5 [Ref. 03-05]).
In response to the request of the Delegate of Japan, the Observer of Chinese Taipei stated their intention to
immediately instruct their fishing industry to contact the fishing industry of Japan to address the matter of gear
conflicts between the two sides.
The Delegate of Uruguay intervened regarding Uruguay’s quota allocation from last year, when they were absent
from the meeting due to domestic economic difficulties. They expressed dissatisfaction in receiving an allocation
for 2003 that was less than their 1,000 t allocation for 2001. They requested 1,000 t for 2004, with annual
increases of allocation to 1,400 t in 2006. The Delegate emphasized the economic importance of this fishery to
Uruguay and explained their efforts to improve the monitoring of their fishery through satellite systems and
government observers. The Statement by the Uruguayan Delegate is attached as Appendix 14 to ANNEX 8.
193