E - Iccat

PWG REPORT
IUU list, but also informing of the revocation of the swordfish identification status since there was no recent
information of fishing activities relative to this species (attached as Appendix 5.2 to ANNEX 10).
Cambodia
The Working Group believed that no change in the current sanction under the UU Catches Resolution [Ref. 98-
18] for bigeye tuna was warranted at this time. Cambodia responded to ICCAT´s special letter sent after the 2002
Commission meeting but the response was not sufficient to demonstrate that Cambodia has rectified the fishing
activities of its vessels. Moreover, several vessels remain on the ICCAT IUU vessel list. The Delegate from
Canada noted that Cambodia’s response letter 1 asserted a right to fish on the high seas. Believing that a firm
response by the Commission was called for, and recalling that the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO) had responded to a similar assertion in the past, Canada offered to assist in drafting a letter that clearly
stated the rights and responsibilities of fishing the high seas (attached as Appendix 5.3 to ANNEX 10).
Costa Rica
The Working Group was reminded that swordfish from Costa Rica had been imported by the EC in 2002. Such
imports have been occurring since 1999. To date, Costa Rica has not reported any Atlantic swordfish catch data
to ICCAT and has not taken the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s special letters. In view of these
circumstances, and after considerable discussion, it was decided to identify Costa Rica in accordance with the
terms of the Swordfish Action Plan [Ref. 95-13]. The letter to Costa Rica is attached as Appendix 5.4 to
ANNEX 10.
Cuba
Several Delegations remarked on the high catches of West Atlantic bluefin tuna reported by Cuba, especially for
self-described by-catch and in consideration of the proximity to Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds. It was
questioned whether these fish were exported (and if so, to which market). The Delegate of the United States
noted that the reported catch exceeded that of most Contracting Parties and that this was particularly troubling
given the over-exploited nature of the fishery. It was also commented that such harvests had not been reported by
Cuba for many years and were not taken into consideration relative to the stock assessment. Given these
circumstances, the Delegate of Canada proposed that Cuba be identified under the Bluefin Tuna Action Plan
Resolution [Ref. 94-03]. There was general agreement with this proposal.
Several Delegates questioned whether formal identifications would still stand under the new Resolution by
ICCAT Concerning Trade Measures (ANNEX 6 [Ref. 03-15]), as is the case for sanctions. The Delegate from
Canada suggested that these measures allow for expedited action, so the issue was not critical to these
deliberations. The Delegate from Japan commented that the identification letter would need to be carefully
written since being formally identified also delays the request by Cuba to become a Cooperating Party to ICCAT
(attached as Appendix 5.5 to ANNEX 10).
Georgia
The Working Group discussed letters sent by Georgia to the Commission 1 , noting that Georgian authorities
denied having on its registry two of the four vessels contained in the 2002 IUU vessel list. However, the
Delegate from Canada and many other Delegates noted the increasing level of Atlantic bigeye tuna harvests
although Georgia has no quota, the continuing presence of Georgian-registered vessels on the IUU list, and the
generally unsatisfactory nature of Georgia’s responses to ICCAT special letters. The PWG agreed to impose
sanctions in accordance with the UU Catches Resolution [Ref. 98-18] for bigeye tuna and to seek additional
information regarding vessel owners (ANNEX 5 [Ref. 03-18]). The letter to Georgia is attached as Appendix
5.7 to ANNEX 10.
Grenada
Several Delegates took note of the positive steps taken by Grenada to control its swordfish fishing fleet,
especially concerning its artisanal nature. The Parties agreed that no action was warranted, but that the
Commission should continue to monitor Grenada’s fisheries, especially in reference to North Atlantic albacore.
239