R E P O R T for biennial period, 2006-07 PART I (2006) - Vol ... - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2006-2007 (I)
rebuilding plan. He further noted that the plan needed to be implemented and assessed, reviewed on a regular
basis, and that ICCAT must be prepared to take further measures. He clarified that the plan was meant to be a
dynamic instrument, and that caging in particular required further consideration.
Japan noted their interest in including a capacity cap on bluefin tuna farming, and suggested that the closure
period for longline be modified to be from May 20 to September 20. Several Parties supported the suggested
change in the closure period for long line vessels.
The United States stated it would not be able to join consensus on the proposed recovery plan. They recalled that
there had been two years of additional overharvest since the collection of the data used by SCRS to conduct the
stock assessment, and that the proposed management plan still lacked any closure of the purse seine fishery
during the month of June, the peak of the spawning season when the majority of the catch is taken. Further, it
was noted that quota over-harvests were forgiven in this plan. The U.S. delegate recalled that it was clear from
the SCRS that the EC proposal would not stop over-fishing, and that the stock could be expected to remain in the
“red zone”. The United States noted the discussion had reached a point where there was no agreement on the
management measures in the proposal, and that the concern for the stock under the current proposal remained.
Canada reminded the Parties of the need to follow SCRS advice, to establish management controls with no
leakage, and to reduce capacity. The delegate noted the significant work done, but that they could not join a
consensus because the management plan fell short of what was needed to arrest the decline of the stock. The
delegate offered to work constructively with all parties to ensure that effective measures were implemented to
arrest decline and rebuild the eastern bluefin tuna stock, recognizing the difficulties and sacrifices required. They
expressed their appreciation for the efforts of the proposing parties, in particular the European Community.
Norway fully supports the EC proposal regarding the establishment of a comprehensive control regime. It is,
however, Norway's view that the management measures were insufficient in light of the serious warnings given
by the SCRS and that these measures will not provide for the recovery of the stock to sustainable levels.
No consensus could be reached on the recovery plan for eastern bluefin tuna, despite extensive negotiations.
Parties agreed that a roll call vote should be taken because a decision was necessary for a stock at such great risk
and where there was clearly no consensus. It was noted that 18 of the 19 members of Panel 2 were present. Many
parties expressed regret that ICCAT had to resort to a vote, noting that they could not recall the last time such a
vote was taken at an ICCAT meeting. All parties preferred to take a decision by consensus, and many parties
made this statement before the vote was taken, and reiterated their regret after the vote was taken.
The statements submitted in writing to Panel 2 are attached as Appendices 2 to 7 to ANNEX 9.
The United States joined other parties in expressing their discomfort with having to conduct a vote, however,
restated their serious concerns as regards to the stock, and further noted the possibility that parties will return
next year with harvests ranging from 45,000-50,000 t. They recognized that the European Community had
worked hard on the control measures and this made their decision not to support the proposal difficult. The
delegate noted that all Parties will be paying close attention to the implementation of the EC proposal in 2007.
He stated that if management measures that would lead to rebuilding had been part of the plan, a possible
consensus could have been reached. Finally, the U.S. representative offered to work with Parties in the future to
improve the EC proposal.
Before the proposal was put to vote, Norway made a verbal statement to inform the Panel of its demand for a
quota share recognizing Norway as a coastal State. Norway underlined that any Norwegian quota will be set
aside for conservation purposes until the stock has recovered, and that it considered that the EC proposal denied
Norway the possibility to utilize a quota in the future. As a matter of principle, Norway informed the Panel of its
intention to object to a proposal denying its rights as a coastal state
Iceland noted their discomfort with the recovery plan. They observed that the plan was for 15 years, but specific
measures were proposed only for the next four years. They sought clarification that the control measures could
be renegotiated in four years, in particular closures. The delegate from the European Community clarified that
the plan is subject to continual review, and that such review was consistent with the goal to ensure sustainability
of the fishery and recovery of the stocks. The Panel Chair confirmed that all ICCAT conservation measures can
be reviewed by the Commission.
222