E - Iccat

PWG REPORT
The Delegate of the EC extended his appreciation to Japan for its contribution in the creation of the list, but
questioned the use of the footnotes at the end of the list. Specifically, he stated his concern regarding
transparency and consistency within the vessel listing process. The Delegate from Brazil echoed the EC
comments, reporting that the lack of definite evidence when creating this list also caused problems with domestic
implementation. The Observer from Belize again requested that there be substantiated evidence against a flag
State before any adverse action was taken against it. The Delegate from the United States agreed that the
footnotes were somewhat problematic if the purpose of the document was intended to fulfill the requirements of
the Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a List of Vessels Presumed to have Carried Out Illegal, Unreported
and Unregulated Fishing Activities in the ICCAT Convention Area [Ref. 02-23]. She further noted that this
approach made full implementation of the list difficult.
The Delegate of Brazil also requested a clarification of whether all vessels of a sanctioned non-Contracting
Party, Entity or Fishing Entity were therefore also considered IUU. The Delegate of Japan replied that non-
Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities have no quota, so any large-scale tuna longline
vessels operating in the Convention area were IUU vessels by definition. The Observer from Belize reiterated
that substantiated evidence needed to be presented to the alleged flag State prior to any adverse action by the
Commission.
The Delegate from Canada strongly cautioned that expanding the scope of the IUU vessel list from action against
vessels to actions against States was a significant change from the original recommendation. The Chair noted
that the Commission has not previously taken action against a flag State based solely on the activities of some of
its vessels.
Observers from both Belize and St. Vincent and the Grenadines noted that evidence demonstrating their noncompliance
has yet to be shown to them and that if supporting evidence were provided, their respective
Governments would take the appropriate action. The Observer from Belize reported that none of the three
vessels listed in this document was fishing in the Convention area, that none of the three vessels are targeting
tuna, and that its fleet was properly monitored and controlled. The Delegates of Canada and Brazil both agreed
that ICCAT only has competency in the Convention area. The Delegate of the EC suggested that the
Commission be shown evidence of vessel monitoring before arguing whether certain vessels were in the
Convention area or not. The EC Delegate stated that it was an obligation to both the Commission and the
accused State to have a clear process for making these determinations.
The Delegate of Japan noted that this process was painful and frustrating, but ultimately useful. He commented
that several other RFMOs were going through the same process. The Delegate noted that Japan had circulated
additional information with regard to the vessels on the draft list and called for the adoption of the list. This
suggestion was seconded by the Delegate from China. The Delegate of the EC requested that available vessel
data be included in the informative letters from the Commission.
Under the circumstances, the Delegate from Canada questioned whether this list could be considered the one
referred to in the Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a List of Vessels Presumed to have Carried Out
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Activities in the ICCAT Convention Area, which calls for the
application of strict penalties. The Delegate of Trinidad and Tobago stated that the list had clear legal
ramifications and that the one under consideration could not be the fulfillment of the so called Negative List
contemplated in Recommendation 02-23. In particular, those countries with vessels on the list should be given
the opportunity to explain their situations before the list goes into effect.
After several iterations, the list was endorsed by the Working Group. The Chair clarified that the list would be
considered provisional and noted that it was not being adopted pursuant to Recommendation 02-23. Given the
concerns raised, the Chair asked the Parties to work together in the coming year to improve the process for
developing the IUU list pursuant to the terms of Recommendation 02-23. Under advice from the Secretariat, the
Working Group agreed that the “List of Large-scale Longline Vessels Believed to be Engaged in Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Activities in the Convention Area and Other Areas” not be published on the
web, but simply be attached for informational purposes to the PWG Report as Appendix 3 to Annex 10.
Information concerning efforts by Japan (Appendix 2 to ANNEX 11) and Chinese Taipei (Appendix 3 to
ANNEX 11) to eliminate IUU activities was presented at the Joint Meeting of the Compliance Committee and
PWG.
237