E - Iccat

COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE
Dominica is the only non-Contracting Party without cooperating status that reported catches of tuna and tunalike
species for 2011. The Committee welcomed the submission of this information and decided that no further
action was necessary.
8. Review of requests for cooperating status
According to its new mandate adopted in 2011, the Committee reviewed and made recommendations to the
Commission regarding requests for cooperating status. Based on this review, the Committee decided to renew
the cooperation status of the following NCPs:
• Chinese Taipei
• Curaçao
• Suriname
The cooperation status of Colombia was also reviewed and renewed, although it was decided to maintain the
letter of identification issued to Colombia by the Commission in 2011, due to the lack of submission of the
information related to ICCAT fishing activities in 2012. Colombia committed to complete all relevant
information and submit it within the deadline and informed the Committee that they are considering the
possibility to become an ICCAT member in the future.
The Committee decided not to renew the cooperating status of Guyana, due to the lack of submission of
appropriate information and reports to the Secretariat in 2012. The Secretariat will contact Guyana to check
whether they would be interested to again become a Cooperating non-Contracting Party in the future.
El Salvador applied for the status of Cooperating non-Contracting Party in 2011. However, its letter arrived after
the deadline and the request was deferred to 2012. El Salvador has again submitted an application request in
2012. The Committee reviewed the information presented and decided to afford El Salvador the status of
Cooperating non-Contracting Party.
Finally, Bolivia submitted a letter requesting cooperating status, but it was received after the deadline. The
Committee decided to defer the request until next year.
9. Recommendations to the Commission to improve compliance
The Chairman noted that several existing requirements are not clear in how they are to be implemented and that
revisions to the text could facilitate compliance by the CPCs as well as evaluation by the Committee. However,
the Committee was not authorized to make these changes and the requests should be referred to the panels or the
plenary session.
The requirement of the Recommendation by ICCAT on a Multi-annual Conservation and Management Program
for Bigeye and Yellowfin Tunas [Rec. 11-01] for CPCs to submit logbook information for use by SCRS does not
specify if actual logbook entries are required or a summary of the information recorded. The Secretariat noted
that available resources would not allow the collection and processing of individual logbook entries. If the
Compliance Committee is to evaluate the adequacy of summary data, the measure must specify the format for
the report. This matter was referred to Panel 1.
It was noted that there is an overarching measure addressing shark management and several measures adopted
and proposed that pertain to individual species of sharks. These various measures refer to collection and
reporting of data on by-catch and discards as well as reporting of Task I and Task II data. The overlap and
duplication of these requirements makes it difficult to determine compliance and consolidation of these
requirements along with evaluation criteria would facilitate review by the Committee. This matter was referred
to Panel 4.
The Chairman recalled that measures originating in Panels 1, 2, and 4 require submission of lists of vessels
actively fishing for or authorized to land certain species. The various formats, criteria for including vessels and
deadlines lead to misinterpretation by some CPCs as to whether the list is complete or has been submitted on
time for the particular requirement. Consolidation of the data formats, criteria for including vessels and deadlines
for reporting would facilitate compliance.
273