E - Iccat

PWG REPORT
Specifically, what would occur if a coastal State applicant had no catch history? The Delegate of the EC replied
that the only time that this provision would apply would be if the applicant did have such a catch history. The
Delegate of China also voiced his concern with the proposal being in the form of a recommendation, rather than
a resolution, to which the EC responded that it believed that the measure needed to be binding.
The Delegate from Canada approvingly noted that this would ensure a more transparent process. However, she
noted that the wording in the text regarding the past behavior of the applicant was ambiguous and suggested a
compromise that a specific time period, perhaps of ten years, might be used instead.
The Delegate of the United States also supported the general idea of this proposal, but shared the concerns of
Canada regarding the vagueness of some of the language. She questioned whether operative paragraph 5
concerned the behavior of the applicant or of the actions by other RFMOs toward the applicant, which may be
based on unsubstantiated allegations. The Delegate of the EC clarified that the provision in question concerned
the behavior of the applicant, not other RFMOs. The Delegate from Japan helpfully suggested that good faith
actions by the applicant in other RFMOs would be a positive factor in the Cooperating Party determination but
that ICCAT should not be limited in considering only those actions taken by other RFMOs.
The Observer of Chinese Taipei reported that Chinese Taipei cooperated with all other applicable RFMOs, with
the exception of the IOTC, noting that this organization has never acted upon their repeated applications for
Cooperating Party Status. He noted Chinese Taipei’s reservation on the idea of taking into consideration actions
and information from other oceans or relative to non-ICCAT species when considering the Cooperating Status
question.
The Observer from Belize noted that it invites such comparison with its behavior in other RFMOs and
emphatically agreed with the Delegates of Canada and the United States that there needed to be a statute of
limitations on the question of past actions. He commented that activities in the Atlantic, however, should take
priority in ICCAT´s deliberations. He stated that there should not be multiple standards within ICCAT, but that
the same data provision and other requirements should apply equally for new applicants, continuing applicants,
and current Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities.
The Delegate from Morocco commented that some of these provisions appeared discriminatory towards new
applicants with either no catch history or no documented historical catch. The Delegate of the EC replied again
that this requirement did not apply to applicants without a catch history, noting that despite these requirements,
the case of each applicant is unique and that the Commission would still need to weigh these various
considerations. He stressed that the lack of an historical fishery would not preclude a party from receiving
Cooperating Status. The Delegate of Canada added that the IATTC addresses this catch data issue as a request,
rather than as a strict requirement for Cooperating non-Contracting Party, Entity or Fishing Entity status.
The Working Group also discussed whether the provisions contained in this proposal should apply to the current
applicants for Cooperating Party status. The Delegate of the EC expressed the belief that ICCAT should suspend
action on Cooperating Status issues this year so that applicants can be assured of having a clear understanding of
their new responsibilities and the Commission can get all the necessary information to make an informed
decision. There was no agreement on this point among the Parties.
After a few revisions, the Recommendation by ICCAT on Criteria for Attaining the Status of Cooperating non-
Contracting Party, Entity or Fishing Entity in ICCAT (see ANNEX 5 [Ref. 03-20]) was approved by the PWG
and forwarded to the Commission for final adoption.
5.2.2 Requests for consideration
A representative from the Secretariat introduced the document “Update on Cooperating Party Requests”
(Appendix 9 to ANNEX 10), which informed the Working Group on current Cooperating non-Contracting
Parties, Entities and Fishing Entities and responses to letters sent to those Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities
believed to be fishing in the ICCAT Convention area. Applications in 2003 were received from Belize, Cuba,
Egypt, Guatemala, Guyana and Netherlands Antilles.
With minimal debate, the PWG agreed that Cooperating Status for Chinese Taipei and the Philippines should be
renewed. A statement by Chinese Taipei appears in Appendix 10 to ANNEX 10. The PWG also proposed to
grant this status to Guyana. In making this decision, the PWG noted that Guyana chose to work with the
Commission and seek Cooperating Status before considering development of fisheries for heavily exploited tuna
243