E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2012-2013 (I)
6.2 Traceability system for all bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna products
Taking into account the outcomes of the Kobe process, Japan presented a document entitled “Draft
Recommendation by ICCAT on a Catch Certification Scheme for Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bigeye [Albacore]
Tuna [and Swordfish]” (see Appendix 3 to ANNEX 4.1). Japan noted that the current bigeye statistical document
program only covered a portion of total bigeye catches and lacked a catch certification process and further
explained the proposal was intended to address both of these issues without being as comprehensive as the bluefin
catch documentation scheme. Japan also considered that it would be most convenient for every CPC if the
Japanese proposal was based on the EU IUU regulation which many CPCs have already implemented. Most of the
participants noted the benefit of establishing a broader ICCAT scheme. They also noted that duplication should be
avoided with the existing documentation schemes.
The Working Group discussed the scope of the proposed scheme; some CPCs suggested that it should cover
albacore and swordfish in addition to bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna.
The Working Group also discussed the costs of these programs for developing states, importers and exporters, and
the ICCAT Secretariat. With that in mind, the Chair requested that Japan and the EU, as co-sponsors of the
proposal, consult with the ICCAT Secretariat to develop a cost estimate for the program. The Chair also asked all
ICCAT CPCs to review the appendices in the document and provide comments to Japan and the EU before the
next ICCAT Annual Meeting.
The United States and Turkey expressed general reservations to this proposal.
The views of certain CPCs on this proposal are attached in Appendix 7 to ANNEX 4.1.
6.3 Port State measures, including port inspection scheme
The EU introduced document entitled “Draft Recommendation by ICCAT for an ICCAT Scheme for Minimum
Standards for Inspection in Port” designed to strengthen ICCAT’s existing port inspection scheme [Rec. 97-10].
Several CPCs noted that, pending progress in the ongoing discussions of a full ICCAT Port State Measures
scheme, there was a need to strengthen and update ICCAT’s port inspection requirements. The Working Group
discussed and amended the draft proposal, and the revised draft is appended as Appendix 4 to ANNEX 4.1.
Several issues remain in brackets. The Working Group noted the link between this measure and the provisions of
ICCAT’s IUU vessel list.
6.4 At sea boarding and inspection scheme
Canada noted the importance of this issue and recalled that its proposal from 2008 was still on the table but that
they did not intend to press for a detailed discussion of it at this meeting. Some Parties noted the need to make
progress on this issue as it represents an important Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) tool and
considered that further discussion should be undertaken at the 2012 ICCAT Annual Meeting in a fishery by fishery
context.
6.5 Vessel Monitoring Systems
The United States introduced the proposal entitled “Draft Recommendation Amending the Recommendation by
ICCAT Concerning Minimum Standards for the Establishment of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for the
ICCAT Convention Area that would modify paragraph three of the Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning
Minimum Standards for the Establishment of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for the ICCAT Convention Area
[Rec. 03-14]. Specifically, vessels subject to Rec. 03-14 would need to increase the frequency that their VMS units
provide geographic position data from at least every six hours to at least every two hours in line with scientific
advice. Vessels would continue to provide summary data on at least a daily basis consistent with the existing
measure. Discussions ensued on potential costs associated with increased VMS transmission rates, the rationale
for selecting this frequency, regions and species that should be affected by this measure, and transmission rates in
other RFMOs. Most Parties supported the proposed modification; however, two Parties noted support for the status
quo. A 4-hour polling rate was discussed as an alternative, but some had concerns that this was still not frequent
enough to ensure effective monitoring and control. Another alternative put forward was that increased polling
frequency should only apply to bluefin tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea but this limited scope could not be
agreed. The Working Group agreed that this was a very important issue and that it should be further considered at
the 2012 Commission meeting. The proposal is attached as Appendix 5 to ANNEX 4.1 to facilitate Commission
66