E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)
In discussions of 1.v. on recording and reporting requirements, the Working Group noted that ICCAT has
requirements in place, although not as many as in the outline. The Secretariat reported that the SCRS has already
initiated a process to revamp the Field Manual to include all current ICCAT requirements, but the process could
take a couple of years to complete. The delegations also discussed the pros and cons of moving to more high
tech electronic means of compiling and reporting data. In discussions of the costliness of data collection, the
European Community mentioned a program through the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
(GFCM) to finance data collection for Mediterranean countries in order to mirror what it is undertaken internally
within the Community.
In discussions of 1.vi concerning vessel monitoring systems (VMS), the Working Group agreed that the vessel
monitoring pilot project needs to be evaluated, but in a technical setting. The ICCAT Chair, Mr. Miyahara, stated
that this should be done both in the fall Data Workshop, and also at the 2003 annual meeting. As the Secretariat
reports, one problem is that very few Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or
Fishing Entities (CPCs) have submitted reports on their VMS programs. Others suggested that while VMS is
good for some purposes, such as monitoring closed areas, it is not well suited for determining what a vessel is
doing. The delegations discussed size requirements for vessels requiring VMS, as well as the level of resolution
required and whether VMS should be required on vessels operating within EEZs as well as the high seas. While
some CPCs have now or will soon have 100% VMS coverage, others will need assistance to put programs in
place. Several delegations mentioned the importance of confidentiality of data. The Working Group agreed that
future discussions over the subject of VMS should include definition of terms.
The delegations discussed 1.vii on follow-up on violations, emphasizing this should fall under flag state duties.
They indicated that prompt follow-up to violations is the key to compliance and deterrence. The importance of
transparency was stressed as was the fact that if some countries do not report their violations then it makes those
who do, look bad. Some emphasized the importance of taking into account national laws and due process since
information cannot be divulged while an investigation is pending.
5.2 Obligations of Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities
The Working Group mentioned that these provisions already exist in ICCAT’s existing Recommendations and
Resolutions. Data reporting will be addressed at the Data Workshop to be held after the SCRS meeting. It was
agreed that data collection is extremely important and ICCAT must improve reporting compliance. Although the
possibility of inter-sessional PWG or Compliance Committee meetings was mentioned at the 2002 annual
meeting, this idea was not agreed upon as it was too difficult for many CPCs to attend. The Working Group
stressed the need for productive and efficient work of the Compliance Committee during the 2003 annual
meeting and recommended adoption of more specific rules and procedures this fall to help facilitate the work of
that body.
5.3 Compliance and enforcement
The Delegate of Japan introduced a document Comments by the Japanese delegation on the EC proposal for
ICCAT Control and Enforcement Scheme (attached as Appendix 4.2 to ANNEX 4.1). This document presented
two types of boarding and inspection: (1) routine boarding and inspection on an at-random basis, and (2)
boarding and inspection based on suspected serious violations. In discussions of this document, the parties
exchanged views on a number of issues, including reciprocity, equity, differences in national laws regarding
third Party boarding and special needs of developing countries. Some delegations suggested that other types of
monitoring, such as VMS, port inspection or observer programs could be more effective than third party
boarding and inspection, given the size of the ICCAT Convention area and the nature of the majority of
ICCAT’s conservation and management measures. They questioned the actual need for a boarding and
inspection program. Others suggested the importance of boarding and inspection as a fundamental part of a
monitoring program to demonstrate ICCAT’s commitment to respect for conservation measures. Some
suggested the importance of moving forward on this issue in a stepwise manner. Some parties questioned the
idea of splitting up boarding activities in the manner suggested by Japan. In particular, it was noted that routine,
random boarding was important as a deterrent. It was also noted that determining what constitutes adequate
suspicion of a serious violation to support boarding would be difficult.
Discussions also touched on the 1995 Agreement For The Implementation of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management
of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement) and its sections on
boarding and inspection. Some wanted to be sure that ICCAT did not fall short of standards in the U.N.
76