REPORT for biennial period, 2010-11 PART I (2010) - Vol. 4 ... - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2010-2011 (I)processing of the data difficult, but it complicates the follow-up of the versions. Besides, some ContractingParties use a variety of sequences for the unique identification number that is not included in theRecommendation. Here below are some examples of identification numbers received:CPC Example of BCD identification number usedCanada CA09-0159Croatia HRV-08-3-2; HRV-10-133-017EU-FranceEU-GreeceEU-ItalyEU-Malta56/08GR 09745055002IT-08-/116 WM/2; IT/SA/45606(2);IT48914/08; 02/08 ME/ITMT-10-000037-2 aMexico MEX-0811-0000Morocco 202/05; 5-066/2008; 03/08/08; 08/003/08;5-001/2008; MA-09-003-009; 05-034-2009Tunisia TU-10-74-0003; 10/08USA 0927201001Another situation that has occurred frequently is the receipt of BCDs whose year of catch differs from the year ofthe unique identification number. For example, the BCD identification number is from 2009 while the catch isfrom 2010. These inconsistent data hamper the correct estimation of the catches by year and by CPC. In fact,these BCDs are not processed until the CPC revised either the identification number or the year of catch.Another frequent case is the receipt of two BCDs with the same identification number but related to a vessel or atrap, while the Recommendation stipulates that the identification number should be unique. In fact, the databasedoes not accept two BCDs with the same identification number, so there are BCDs that are not registered.As was pointed out in 2009, the Secretariat still receives BCDs with distinct identification numbers reporting thesame total catches and with the same date of catch, which could lead to registering double catches. This alsooccurs with the Re-Export Certificates, i.e., different re-export numbers indicating identical imports of catches(total in kgs).To complete the information or to obtain legible information, the Secretariat dedicates considerable time inperiodically requesting clarifications from the Contracting Parties. Therefore, the Secretariat cannot presentcorrect or complete catch figures. Consequently, it should be emphasized that the Secretariat can only considerthe catch data that can be extracted from the BCDs and Re-Export Certificates as provisional. Table 16 indicatesthe total number of BCDs that could not be processed for various reasons (illegible, date inconsistencies, lackingICCAT vessel number, duplicate identification number).In view of the problems caused by the illegibility of an important number of the BCDs received, the Secretariat,on the basis of the Recommendation on an Electronic Statistical Document Pilot Program [Rec. 06-16], wouldlike propose an electronic BCD system. The Secretariat intends to present its draft during a PWG session.Requests from the Secretariat:With the objective to improve the introduction of data in the database, the Secretariat would appreciate:- receiving the BCDs without delay so that the Secretariat can process them as soon as possible and thusavoid any complaints from the Contracting Parties that the information is not available on the database;- receiving the BCDs in pdf (more legible) and not in picture format (jpg);- that the BCD include the ICCAT vessel or trap registry number, since at times only the name is included,often illegible, and as a result the information cannot be entered;- receiving the first page of the BCD where the data on catches are shown, when the Contracting Partiestransmit versions of the BCD. This is emphasized since various Contracting Parties do not usually send thefirst page of the BCD.200