E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)
remarked that several vessels from St. Vincent and the Grenadines are no longer in Brazil, and that some
formerly Belize -flagged vessels are now under investigation by Brazilian authorities.
Several Delegates also noted that several other Contracting Parties had submitted no information for the ICCAT
list, yet had requested quota from the Commission. The Delegate of Trinidad and Tobago suggested that
Contracting Parties that do not have any fishing vessels over 24 m could simply be footnoted to that effect to
remove potential confusion. The Delegate from the EC observed that there were no vessels on the list from
several Contracting Parties, and that without vessels on this list, such Parties would not be able to land their
product in EC ports. Several Parties commented that not all Contracting Parties had vessels over 24 m fishing for
ICCAT managed species.
The Chair noted that the consensus among the Parties appeared to be that: (1) except for those with Cooperating
Status, non-Contracting Party, Entity or Fishing Entity vessels would not be included on the list; (2) vessels
under 24 m should not be included on the list, although these vessels could be retained on a separate table for
information; and (3) Parties should not submit vessels with third party flags for inclusion on the list and
clarifications should be made to the current record to exclude vessels of third party flags. The Delegate of Japan
expressed his concern that some of the third-party vessels on the list were from flag states which were currently
under sanction, and requested that Contracting Parties inform the Commission in 2004 of the measures which
had been taken to rectify this situation. Finally, it was agreed that certain alterations to the presentation format of
the list should be made by the Secretariat.
The Delegate of Japan noted that paragraph 6 of the Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Establishment
of and ICCAT Record of Vessels Over 24 meters Authorized to Operate in the Convention Area [Ref. 02-22]
requires Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties to submit a report to the Commission
relating to their internal actions and measures taken in order to ensure that their vessels fulfill the requirements
and responsibilities under the Convention and its conservation and management measures, but that no such
reports had been submitted. He urged that these reports be submitted for discussion at the 2004 meeting and
requested the Secretariat to develop a standard reporting format for such reports, and he indicated that Japan
would be willing to assist in this task.
The Delegate of Japan introduced a supplemental recommendation concerning the establishment of an ICCAT
record of vessels. This measure was intended to close the gap between ICCAT´s IUU list and its authorized
vessel list. Despite efforts to work out language by a drafting group, no consensus text could be formulated and
the proposal was withdrawn.
The Chair thanked the Secretariat for its efforts, especially in light of the time constraints at this meeting, and
expressed the hope that the list would continue to evolve in a productive fashion.
5.2 List of LSTLVs believed to be engaged in IUU fishing
The Secretariat introduced the 2003 IUU List (Appendix 3 to ANNEX 10; see also ANNEX 10, Agenda item
5.1.2) and an initial discussion of the list ensued. Given the nature of the discussion, the Parties agreed to refer
development of the IUU list to the PWG.
5.3 Related issues
The Delegate of Japan provided an overview on the status of Japan’s progress in the measures to eliminate IUU
activities during the past year (see Appendix 2 to ANNEX 11). The Delegate commented that while such efforts
have been relatively successful in the Atlantic, there were still over 100 IUU vessels operating worldwide.
The report by Chinese Taipei on the elimination of IUU vessels is attached as Appendix 3 to ANNEX 11.
6.Consideration of Report of the Ad Hoc Data Workshop and other measures to improve fisheries
statistics requested by ICCAT
The Chair of the SCRS reviewed the report of this meeting (see ANNEX 4.3). He touched upon the specific
points concerning the lack of timely data submission and whether data reporting standards now in effect are even
possible for some Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities. He
also commented that the SCRS sought the guidance of the Commission regarding the submission of data deemed
294