Review Conference on

Fish Stocks Agreement

5^th & 6^th Meetings (AM & PM)

FISH STOCKS REVIEW CONFERENCE CONSIDERS DUTIES OF FLAG STATES

IN ADDRESSING ILLEGAL, UNREGULATED, UNREPORTED FISHING

 

Other Issues Discussed Include Control Exercised

By Port States, Boarding of Vessels for Inspection

Duties of flag States in dealing with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by their vessels, the control port States could exercise over foreign vessels and boarding of fishing vessels for inspection were some of the topics discussed today at the first Review conference of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, as the issues of monitoring, compliance and enforcement were addressed.

Considered to be the most important legally binding global instrument for the conservation and management of fishery resources, since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, the Agreement establishes a comprehensive legal regime for the conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.  It includes provisions related to the strengthening of flag States’ responsibilities, as well as the role of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements.

The Conference, officially known as the Review Conference on the 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, has been convened to assess the effectiveness of the Agreement in securing those goals.  The Conference will also review and assess the adequacy of the Agreement’s provisions and, if necessary, propose means of strengthening them and improving their implementation.

Today, State and non-State participants considered elements of the Agreement relating to monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as compliance with the Agreement’s provisions and enforcement.  Discussion was clustered around implementation of flag State duties; investigation, penalization for violations; use of port State measures; and international cooperation.

Several participants indicated that the fulfilment by flag States of their duties and obligations was fundamental to compliance and enforcement in the management of fish stocks. 

The representative of Brazil said that, if all flag States were fully discharging their obligations, there would be no such thing as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  He said the only way to achieve that goal would be to make the Agreement universal.  The representative of Australia said that flag States did not always take their duties and obligations seriously.  Noting that many States provided open registers for flagging of vessels, as a source of revenue, then failed to exercise control over those vessels.  For that reason, he said, regional fisheries management organizations must be able to respond to suspicions through boarding of ships or other measures.

The representative of Norway said that, in a globalized world, fishing vessels moved from one region to another and, thus, evaded port State control.  The vessels were, therefore, not the sole concern of one regional fisheries management organization.  A global binding instrument involving all port States seemed to be the only way of achieving a comprehensive system, he said.

Iceland’s representative said that elaborate management measures were limited in effect, if they were not properly enforced. A legal instrument should provide a general framework that could be implemented at national and regional levels.

Addressing the symptoms of weak governance and management was not enough, the representative of Canada said.  Non-compliant behaviour must be dealt with at its roots, through a system that ensured that non-compliant behaviour “has nowhere to hide, nowhere to land and nowhere to sell its products”.  The representative of Japan also stressed the importance of consumer information, saying that honest labelling regarding origin and species could give an educated consumer the information to decide what product to choose.

To strengthen international cooperation, the representative of the United States proposed the development of a comprehensive global register of fishing vessels.  In addition, he said all vessels capable of fishing on the high seas should carry a vessel monitoring system by no later than 2008. 

Several participants said that sanctions needed to be made stronger, as penalties for violations often merely became part of the cost of doing business.  The representative of the World Wildlife Fund said clear knowledge of vessel ownership was essential, and there should be criminal, not just civil, penalties for repeat offenders.  Until benefits owners themselves were potentially liable to civil and criminal sanctions, he said, it was unreasonable to expect to get illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing under control. 

Several participants also called for strengthening the capacity of developing countries in monitoring, control and surveillance.  The representative of Guinea said that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing was often a disaster for developing countries.  He highlighted the cooperation of Spain, which had challenged the origin of fishery products that were offloaded in its ports.  That policy might dissuade pirates from fishing in his country’s waters.  

Statements were also made by the representatives of Chile, Mauritius, India, Morocco, Mozambique, Indonesia, Senegal, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), Uruguay, Mexico and Palau.  Representatives from the European Community and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also addressed the Conference.

Representatives of the following organizations also made statements: the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Greenpeace; Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur (CPPS), South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), Fishery Committee For The Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF); Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

The Review Conference will meet again tomorrow, 25 May, at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion.

Background

Participants in the first Review Conference of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, officially known as the Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the 1982 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, today will consider elements of the Agreement relating to monitoring, control and surveillance, and compliance and enforcement.

Discussion will be clustered around implementation of flag State duties; investigation and penalization for violations; use of port State measures; and international cooperation.

For more background information on the Agreement, see Press Release SEA/1852 of 18 May.

The chairman of the drafting committee, Fernando Curcio ( Spain), updated the Conference on the work in progress.

L. RIDGEWAY ( Canada) called for action-oriented documents.

David Balton ( United States), President of the Review Conference, said that, if everybody implemented the strong measures of the Agreement, the world would be a very different place.  Despite all the actions taken thus far, illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing continued to occur in all fisheries and in all regions.

Statements

A. COUVE ( Chile) said that the rights and duties concerning the exploitation of marine resources in exclusive economic zones belonged to the coastal State concerned.  On the high seas, conservation management was the responsibility of the relevant regional fisheries management organization.  The FAO Compliance Agreement established the duties of flag States for national activities on the high seas.  All States should sign that Agreement immediately.  There was a vacuum in the area of the high seas where no regional fisheries management organizations existed.  All States had the right to fish on high seas, however, that right was conditioned on compliance with conservation measures.  The absence of such cooperation was of great concern.  In the seas adjacent to exclusive economic zones, many fishing activities focused on the same resources as those caught in the exclusive economic zones.

He said article 11 of the Agreement established that the port State had full sovereignty over maritime terminals, which meant full discretion, including restrictions on use when fishing activities were incompatible with national measures.  If fishing activities resulted in the capture of resources that were regulated under exclusive economic zones, those engaged in such activities must cooperate with the port State, and apply the same measures that the State applied to resources within its national area.  One way to deter unregulated activities on the high seas was to not provide fishing activities by means of the country’s ports.  Chile’s port policy regarding access to ports was based on international regulations, and fully compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Fish Stocks Agreement.

K. EGGE ( Norway) said illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing was one of the major threats to sustainable fisheries management.  It was a huge, organized business, where the profits depend on the possibility of gaining access to legal markets through landings in ports.  The failure of flag States to effectively control the fishing operations of vessels flying their flags was the core problem, but reliance on the implementation of flag State duties had been insufficient.  Enhanced port State control was crucial for combating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  Port States had a duty to take measures to promote the effectiveness of subregional, regional and global conservation and management measures.

He said many port States already exercised port State control over foreign fishing vessels.  However, the efforts appeared to be somewhat arbitrary and uncoordinated.  The Review Conference should encourage all parties to fully implement the relevant article of the Agreement (article 23) and adopt appropriate port State measures.  Parties to a regional fisheries management organization might facilitate port State control as part of the organization’s conservation measures.  In a globalized world, however, fishing vessels were not the sole concern of one regional fisheries management organization, as they moved from one region to another and, thus, evaded port State control.  A global binding instrument involving all port States seemed, therefore, to be the only way of achieving a comprehensive system.

Port States should agree on harmonized and mandatory obligations related to port State control of foreign vessels involved in fishing operations, including processing and transhipment vessels, he said.  In principle, port State control should be related to all areas where marine capture fisheries existed, and for all stocks.  A global binding instrument should be based on the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee on Fisheries’ Model Scheme on port State control.  That Scheme set out basic minimum port State measures.

MUNESH MUNBODH ( Mauritius) said his country had signed agreements to implement provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the FAO Convention related to fishing vessels on the high seas.  It was a member of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the South-West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission and the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Resources.  Finally, it was actively involved in the establishment of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, to cover areas not yet included in other agreements.

In addition to those regional mechanisms to manage fisheries, he said national legislation had been instituted to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  Those measures included the monitoring of fishing activities of all licensed fishing vessels and of all vessels in port, for criteria such as fishing methods and catch by species.  All vessels applying for a licence or transhipment were checked against regional commissions’ illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing lists.  New legislation was continually introduced to meet international obligations, as capacity was increased through projects such as a current one funded by the European Union.

A. BHATTACHARYA ( India) said the flag States’ duties under article 18 of the Agreement were being fully implemented by his country, and he described national legislation in that regard.  Efforts were being made to control fishing in India’s exclusive economic zone, and licensing of vessels was carried out according to national law.  Although catch verification was required by legislation, implementation was not being carried out fully.  A vessel monitoring system was in the early stages of implementation, and the permits issued to vessels for fishing in India’s exclusive economic zone contained clauses for penalization of violations, which included permit revocation.

Ms. ELHADDAD ( Morocco) said that, although her country was not yet party to the Agreement, it was in full agreement with its provisions, and planned to ratify it soon.  Morocco was actively involved in conservation measures through various regional fisheries management organizations, and was also cooperating with many African States.  Fisheries were governed by a 1973 law, which had been amended to allow traceability of almost all fishery and agricultural products, and to set up surveillance.  The level of control and surveillance was below expectations, due to a lack of resources.

She said Morocco was also protecting fish resources by prohibiting certain types of nets, establishing periods of biological rest, and setting up temporal and spatial control of fisheries.  Likewise, Morocco had set up an investment programme in 1992.  To assume the responsibilities of a flag State, Morocco was applying a rigorous policy in granting flags.  Any fishing vessels bearing the Moroccan flag must have a license to fish on the high seas.  A shipboard log was also required, and transhipment was also controlled.  Allocation of fishing rights should not be based on historical rights, but on other equitable and fair criteria, which should be established under the auspices of the United Nations or other competent organizations.

IVONE LICHUCHA ( Mozambique) said her country had begun the process of implementing the fish stocks Agreement.  Its approval by the Council of Ministers would be an important step forward, since the country’s stock of tuna was mainly fished by foreign fleets.  The implementation of provisions in the Agreement and other regional mechanisms was being carried out, through such means as the technical support of FAO.  Joint surveillance activities had been undertaken with South Africa and the United Republic of Tanzania.  Recently, the support of Norway had allowed for the drawing up of a national plan of action against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and developing and guaranteeing the sustainability of monitoring, control and surveillance.

N. PRASMADJI ( Indonesia) said his Government had adopted a plan of action to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in 2003.  To reduce excessive fishing, efforts had begun to develop the management of fishing capacity.  A new fisheries law had been introduced, which included penalties for violations, and a monitoring system for vessels operating in Indonesia was also being set up.

Indonesian vessels operating in the high seas needed licensing from the Government, he said.  In the context of new policies for reducing foreign fishing in Indonesia, the current foreign fishing scheme would not be extended beyond 2007.  Joint management of some shared fish stocks was being undertaken bilaterally with Australia.  His country would support any initiative to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

JAMES LARSEN ( Australia) said that the fulfilment by flag States of their duties and obligations was fundamental to compliance and enforcement in the management of fish stocks.  Unfortunately, those obligations were not always taken seriously.  Many States provided open registers as a source of revenue, then failed to exercise control over vessels flying their flags.   Many regional fisheries management organizations were struggling with fishing by non-members who were unresponsive to efforts to control their vessels.  The Conference must call on flag States to exercise control over vessels flying their flags.

Transhipment vessels and refuelling fleets under open registers had the potential to support illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  Regional fisheries management organizations should regulate such support vessels within their areas of competence.  Improved port-based measures, such as port inspections, should be thorough.  States must also regulate their nationals’ activities, as well as those of companies under their jurisdiction.  States whose vessels fished in regional fisheries management organizations’ areas must join the regional organization or implement its measures.  Otherwise, they should refrain from fishing in that area.

The integrity of such regimes was dependent on the regional management organization’s ability to respond to suspicions, through boarding of ships or other measures.  Flag State jurisdiction was not compromised by such a scheme, which required that evidence be turned over to the flag State, so that it could exercise enforcement measures.  If the flag State was unwilling to do so, the inspecting State should be able to act.   International cooperation in monitoring, control and surveillance was important, given the expense of doing so in the vast and remote areas of the high seas.  Cooperative action was necessary.  The Conference should call on States to work with and assist developing nations to establish and strengthen their monitoring, control and surveillance activities. 

F. MAGASSOUBA ( Guinea) said that, as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing was often a disaster for developing countries, regulation by flag States was an important matter.  Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing not only took place on the high seas, but also in areas where fish reproduced.  Guinea supported the position of FAO on illegal fishing, which was often carried out by well equipped ships from countries with a long fishing tradition.  Such fishing was disloyal competition, as there were often fishing agreements with the States where those ships originated.  Flag States should contribute to the control of those vessels, together with port States.  Without their participation, it would be difficult to combat such practices.  The Review Conference should make a strong recommendation to flag States in that regard.

He highlighted the cooperation of Spain, a country that had helped greatly in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as it challenged the origin of fishery products that were offloaded in its ports.  That policy might dissuade pirates from fishing in his country’s waters.   International cooperation had an important role to play in the fight against piracy.  He also highlighted the role of Luxembourg, which had helped to finance surveillance activities.  Locally, his country was taking measures such as registration of fishing vessels working in the subregion, which had helped in controlling pirate ships.

L. RIDGEWAY ( Canada) said the Agreement had established the monitoring and control mechanisms, as well as the enforcement mechanisms, concerning fish stocks, through a regime that relied on international cooperation, as well as flag State control.  Those mechanisms would not work, however, if only the symptoms of weak governance and management were addressed.  Non-compliant behaviour must be dealt with at its roots, through a coherent management regime that included the strengthening of the regime in developing countries through technical assistance.  The aim of the system was to ensure that non-compliant behaviour, especially illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing on high seas, “has nowhere to hide, nowhere to land and nowhere to sell its products”.

She said the system relied on flag State, coastal State and port State responsibility, as well as that of the market, with international cooperation in all those areas.  Reviewing progress made in areas such as data collection and information sharing, she said penalties for illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing must be made more than just a cost of doing business.  A framework and guidelines should be developed for sanctions and penalties within regional organizations’ areas of coverage.  Port State inspections were critical, including the custody of evidence in case of suspected infractions.  Also, “large markets must be responsible markets”.  States should review laws and regulations regarding access of illegally caught fish in their markets.  Ports of convenience must be eliminated through adoption of minimum standards.

Finally, she said, boarding and inspection provisions were a central part of making the Agreement the most important global fisheries instrument, since the Law of the Sea Convention.  Safeguards against abuse by inspecting States at a great distance from flag State controls had been carefully negotiated and included.

SERGE BESLIER, the European Community, said too many vessels did not respect the recommendations adopted by regional management organizations.  The Conference should invite all States to reflect about the need to define such recommendations more strictly.  There were too many cases where management measures were not subject to appropriate sanctions.  States must adopt laws that allowed for sanctions that were a sufficient deterrent.

International cooperation should be enforced at all levels, he said.  Legal cooperation could also be on bilateral basis.  A port was a place where the cost-efficiency ratio was the best way to control fishing activities.  The challenge of ports of convenience must be faced, and binding laws at the international level were needed to define the obligations of the port States.  There was no question that coastal States had sovereign rights to control their ports.  It was not sufficient to have rights, however; one must also have obligations.

He said it was necessary to develop international cooperation in defining procedures for implementing the Agreement.  Transhipments on the high seas should be prohibited in the absence of effective physical control by States, but the Agreement should be implemented in a flexible way.  In some areas, such as where no exclusive economic zones existed, implementation would be difficult.  “We should create methods of mutual monitoring and think of other methods”, he concluded.

J. MORISHITA ( Japan) said there were two approaches to tackle the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and overfishing, a global, centralized approach, and one targeted on specific issues.  Both approaches were complementary.  Because most monitoring, control and surveillance measures were dependent on actions by flag States, it was important to know what flag States were doing.  Despite global efforts, there were still many areas of insufficient achievement.  Information collection and sharing was very important.  However, the issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing was more specific than global, and success had been had with specific approaches, such as those regarding toothfish and southern bluefin tuna. For each illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing issue, there were key areas to concentrate.  Sharing information on those key areas was very important. 

Regarding implementation of Japan’s flag States duties, he said his country had a limited entry licensing system for all high-seas vessels and a detailed database for those vessels.  There was close monitoring of the landing of high-seas catch by a dedicated agency, and he supported the FAO Model Scheme regarding port States control.  Although he was sympathetic to the Norwegian proposal for a legally binding agreement, he said that such a global approach was often difficult to achieve and would often end up with the lowest common denominator.

He said that, although information collection and gathering mainly addressed fishing activities, the consumer side of information was also important.  Honest labelling regarding origin and species could give an educated consumer the information to decide what product to choose.  That could play an important role to deter marketing of products that had been taken in violation of conservation and management measures of regional fisheries management organizations.

M.D. TALLA ( Senegal) said her country complied with rules governing fisheries and commercial fleets.  A national vessel registry had been created, and anyone wishing to fish in Senegalese waters needed to obtain a license.  Regulations covered all ships in Senegalese waters, and on all points, regulations provided for sanctions, but those were clearly not dissuasive.  Therefore, Senegal planned to revise the fisheries code to make sanctions more dissuasive.

She said her country was experiencing difficulties, due to limited resources.  To comply with the duties of port States, Senegal had worked with other countries in the region.  It had signed bilateral agreements regarding marine pursuit and coordination of surveillance operations.  The subregional commission was experiencing some difficulties in functioning, now that Luxembourg no longer supported it.  She appealed, on behalf of African States, whose resources were limited, for support in their implementation of the regulations.

N. FYFE (New Zealand) said the High Seas Task Force had proposed a preliminary set of guidelines to tackle the problem of flag States failing to live up to their international responsibilities.  Those guidelines could be used by States and regional fisheries management organizations to evaluate the performance of flag States, but further details were required on guidelines on flag States’ performance for high-seas fishing vessels.  Those guidelines could be based on the FAO International Plan of Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.  Flag States’ performance should be audited, and an assessment should be done of the legislation of Member States, to determine whether they had provisions requiring their flag vessels not to operate in areas governed by regional fisheries management organizations, of which the States were not members.

He said that, consistent with the recent report of the High Seas Task Force, his country encouraged the Review Conference to, among other things, promote the FAO Model Port Scheme as an international minimum standard for regional port State controls; encourage States to review domestic port State measures; and encourage States to strengthen domestic legislation controlling the import of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing products, as a means of dealing with landings and transhipment of fish caught in ways that undermined international conservation and management measures.

He further proposed that the existing voluntary international monitoring, control and surveillance network, which was an effective, but limited, tool against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, be strengthened, by providing resources to improve its effectiveness and give it the capacity to provide training and technical support to fisheries enforcement agencies in developing countries.  An enhanced monitoring network would significantly improve the information available to enforcement organizations for exposing illegal operations, and would strengthen national and regional capacities to improve enforcement.

Mr. HETTIARACHCHI ( Sri Lanka) said it had only been a few years since his country’s vessels had commenced high-seas fishing.  A new official law, aimed at enforcing control on vessels fishing the high seas, was currently being formulated.  Regarding port State controls, Sri Lanka did allow foreign fishing vessels to land for processing and re-export.

In issuing permits, Sri Lanka took adequate controls to prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  It only issued permits after ascertaining the vessel was properly licensed.  Finally, he added that market States could play a significant role against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY ( United States) said it was fundamental that flag States ensured that all fishing operations by vessels under their jurisdiction were conducted in accordance with international norms and standards.  For example, United States vessels that sought to fish on the high seas must obtain a permit, issued in accordance with domestic legislation.  As a condition of receiving those permits, all fishing must conform to all international standards that were recognized as applicable to United States vessels.  It was a violation of United States law for persons subject to his country’s jurisdiction to engage in fishing operations in violation of other countries’ laws.

The failure of some flag States to carry out their responsibilities had undermined the effectiveness of regional fisheries management organizations.  Expeditious investigation of suspected violations and subsequent follow-up activities were often lacking.  Moreover, penalties for such violations were often insufficient and merely became part of the cost of doing business.  Implementation of operational aspects, such as the use of vessel monitoring systems, observer programmes, port State measures, and catch reporting and verification, varied widely.

To strengthen international cooperation, he proposed the development of a comprehensive global register of fishing vessels.  All vessels capable of fishing on the high seas must carry vessel monitoring systems, by no later than 2008.  Audits should be conducted of individual flag State performance, as well as State control of nationals who owned or operated vessels registered in other nations.  The FAO recommendations on open registries must be implemented.  More consistent sanctions were needed for non-compliance and identification of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing vessels.  Enhanced international cooperation was also needed regarding transhipment, along with more stringent rules.  FAO should study current practices of transhipment, and produce a set of guidelines for use by States and regional fisheries management organizations.

C. DUARTE ( Brazil) said it was important that all activities of monitoring, control and surveillance were carried out in compliance with international law.  If all flag States were fully discharging their obligations, there would be no illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  Regional fisheries management organizations had an important role to play in ensuring that their members carried out their duties.  He welcomed, in that regard, progress achieved by several regional organizations, including on catch documentation and trade monitoring schemes.

He said the principle challenge was to find ways to enforce conservation and management on the high seas, without harming the rights and freedoms ensured by international law.  The only way to achieve that was to make the Agreement universal.  As for vessel monitoring systems, he said Brazil was in the final stages of establishing a satellite system for monitoring fishing vessels.

Port State measures also provided a key tool to eliminate illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, he said, welcoming, in that regard, the FAO Model Scheme, which gave valuable guidance.  Standards for port States measures agreed on by regional fisheries management organizations might be an important step forward in combating unregulated fishing.  There was also need for international cooperation under article 7 of the Agreement, in particular relating to strengthening the capacity of developing countries in monitoring, control and surveillance.

R. AISI ( Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, said monitoring, control and surveillance provided a challenge to Forum members, given the vast expanse of water to be monitored from a base of small island developing States.  One of the most important components of the Forum’s monitoring arrangements was the regional vessel monitoring system, to be operated independently by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.  All members of that regional Commission provided satellite location reports.  Another cost-effective solution was the establishment of dual-function observer schemes, whereby independent observers could collect scientific information and play a compliance role at the same time.  He called on the Review Conference to endorse the use of dual-function observer schemes by regional fisheries management organizations.

He said other regional tools included the prohibition on transhipment at sea, as well as regional records of authorized fishing vessels, and regional minimum terms and conditions for vessels to be considered for licensing.  In that regard, he called on flag States to implement the necessary domestic measures to ensure that they could exercise full control over their vessels fishing outside of their exclusive economic zones.  He said the Forum strongly supported the principle of high-seas boarding and inspection as a key tool in fighting illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.

Implementation of a high-seas boarding and inspection regime in the region was a priority, he said.  Another priority for the Forum’s participation in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission was the development of a regional catch documentation scheme that would record all catch at the point of capture.  He also supported the need for strengthened port States measures.  The Forum would continue to discuss port States measures, including the FAO Model Scheme.  Port States measures were a vital adjunct to flag States and other market measures.  Regional ministers of fisheries had agreed to develop a regional compliance strategy.

J. LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay) said that fishing fleets often included legal and illegal vessels in a coordinated way.  That created problems in eradicating illegal activities, and it was difficult to control the activities of a fleet, without adequate laws.  It was essential that, in all forms of monitoring, there was concrete evidence that allowed one to act with due legal security.  One could not start with suspicions, which sometimes had harmful results for acting States.  Flag States had a priority in preventing and sanctioning illegal acts and generally had greater capacity to ensure sanctions.

M. AGUILAR ( Mexico) said important work on monitoring, control and surveillance had been done by individual countries.  While there was more to be done to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as well as to strengthen international cooperation to tackle the problem, progress had also been made by regional fisheries management organizations.  Examples of measures by regional organizations in which Mexico was participating, including the Inter-American Tuna Commission, related to protecting dolphins, turtles and other by-catch.  Vessels were also obliged to carry satellite location systems, and member countries had the obligation to share information from those systems with the regional fisheries management organization.

He said there was also agreement on actions to avoid the marketing of illegally obtained fish products.  One regional fisheries management organization had observers on every vessel, who collected data that was analyzed by an international panel of environmentalists, producers, and Government representatives.  Possible violations and sanctions were reported to countries.  Inspection and boarding in the high seas involved the possibility of conflicts or unjustified boarding.  Alternative mechanisms for boarding could be highly effective and should be considered by the Review Conference. Monitoring, control and surveillance by third States should be reviewed, and alternative mechanisms should be considered.  Inspection and boarding visits should be used exclusively by, or with the consent of, the flag States.

Regarding port States measures, he said that not only compliance with measures on the production side should be considered, but marketing issues should also be taken into account.

T.H. HEIDAR ( Iceland) said elaborate management measures were limited in effect, if they were not properly enforced.  Iceland was profoundly feeling the effects of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, which had been going on for several years.  Among the outcomes of the Conference should be a call for all flag States to honour their duties regarding fishing vessels.  Only States that fulfilled such obligations should be considered flag States.

Other tools were needed to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  Protection and State control were crucial, and a legal instrument should provide a general framework that could be implemented at national and regional levels.

PETER PROWS ( Palau) said the problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing was of utmost concern for his region, much of which lacked governing regional fishery management organizations.  Without robust monitoring at regional and international levels, the challenge of such fishing could not be overcome.  Where no regional fisheries management organizations existed, interim measures should be encouraged.  There were significant opportunities at the national level to deal with problems of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  All shared the responsibility, when flagging and re-flagging vessels, to respect and perpetuate the principles of the Agreement.

H. COHEN, International Union for conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), expressed concern at the ease with which vessels could re-flag.  He called on flag States to fulfil their duties and implement the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.  Regional fisheries management organizations could do more, for instance by establishing mechanisms to inform flag States of, and seek their comments on violations.  He recommended consideration of initiatives by the High Seas Task Force, regarding strengthening the voluntary Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network, guidelines on flag States’ performance, and greater use of port States measures and of the FAO Model Scheme.

As for international cooperation, he said there was a lack of access to transparent and accurate information about the history of ownership and control of vessels.  Without such information, it was difficult to take effective action against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  While several regional fisheries management organizations published information on irresponsible fishing, such data remained scattered. It would be helpful if there existed a single global database in that regard.  The IUCN Global Marine Programme had incorporated data from several publicly available sources into one prototype Global List of Irresponsible Vessels.

He called on States to request the General Assembly to endorse a system of periodic and regular review conferences, and called on States to endorse the continuation of the informal consultations on the Agreement.  Alternatively, he called on parties to the Agreement to consider convening formal meetings of parties on a regular basis, also open to non-parties and observers, to provide for regular consultation in support of the full implementation of the Agreement.

A. GRAHAM, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said it was important to get States to meet their obligation of establishing a link between a State and vessels carrying that State’s flags.  Clear knowledge of vessel ownership was essential.  Governments must eliminate flags of convenience, if there was to be any hope of sustainable fishing.  Penalties should not just be proportionate, but also act as an effective deterrent.  There should be criminal, not just civil, penalties for repeat offenders, including for benefiting owners.  Every other sanction was regarded merely as a risk of doing business.  Until benefiting owners themselves were potentially liable to civil and criminal sanctions, it was unreasonable to expect to get illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing under control.

He said he strongly supported a binding agreement, but there was no need to wait to set standards.  States had already said they had all the powers they needed to take action, and they should not hold back.  The time had come for all importing States to demand verifiable documentation to prove that imported fish came from legal sources.  Governments could benefit by reaching out to the non-governmental organization community, which could “do things Governments cannot and should not be doing”.  Regarding data collection, there should be an audit system, so that when data was not provided, members could help those States having trouble providing necessary data.  If States failed to provide data, their rights to participate in organizations and fisheries should be moot.

K. SACK, Greenpeace, said a year-long “defending our oceans” effort was being carried out by her organization and the Environmental Justice Foundation.  In that context, joint enforcement operations had been undertaken with the Government of Guinea, a developing country, whose waters were subject to very high levels of piracy.  The result had been the arrest of one pirate fishing vessel, and preliminary observations suggested that as many as half of the 104 vessels observed in Guinean waters were engaged in illegal fishing activities or linked to them, including through transhipment of catches.  In the case of the arrested pirate vessel, involving 200 tons of fish, the illegal transhipment had taken place in Guinean water onto a vessel flagged to Panama, which was followed to the Canary Islands, where it had been regularly offloading fish, before the arrest was made by Spain.

She said that example served to illustrate the problems involved in pirate fishing, port and flag State enforcement problems, and those developing countries faced in effectively regulating their waters.  States must carry out their duties, and developing countries must be given assistance to meet their international obligations.  One key step forward would be a centralized monitoring, control and surveillance agency, a “one-stop shop”, with a single list of vessels, authorized to fish on the high seas, by meeting minimum international requirements, and a blacklist of vessels that had disregarded laws or conservation measures, with steps taken to prevent re-flagging.  That would greatly simplify the process of identifying and stopping illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing vessels in port or on the ocean.

Finally, she said the report of the present meeting should require States to enact legislation against transhipment at sea.  They must also enact strong legislation with significant deterrent power to control their own nationals, vessels and beneficial owners of vessels.  Not carrying out flag State duties must be penalized, in terms of participation in regional organizations and fisheries allocations.  Norway’s proposal for a globally binding port States instrument should be adopted.  Also, the draft being finalized by the drafting committee was weak and showed a remarkable lack of vision.  There was enough time to strengthen the outcome document.

G. PEREIRA , Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur (CPPS), said members of the organization, including Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, were concerned by illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing that took place in the high seas in the East and South Pacific.  In October 2005, CPPS had organized a workshop on measures for port States to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and had developed a model.  The workshop had concluded that such measures were needed to conduct monitoring, control and surveillance. 

He said the organization hoped to have a coordinated system for control of the ports along the 2000 kilometres long coasts of the members.  Proposed measures included prohibition for a vessel to use members’ ports if it had practiced illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  The model also took into account a series of measures on exchange of information between countries.  On the basis of the workshop’s recommendations, member countries were developing plans of action.

H. HAMUKUAYA, South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), said the Organization had adopted a convention that was consistent with the provisions of the Agreement regarding flag State duties and port State responsibilities, but implementation was still at an early stage.  A conservation measure had been adopted in 2005 based on the FAO Scheme of port State control.  Among other things, it called for increased monitoring activities, including by developing a mandatory satellite based vessel monitoring system for all authorized fishing vessels, and requiring scientific observers to be present on those vessels.  Also, port authorities were required to report the results of inspections to the SEAFO secretariat under certain conditions, such as when vessels flew the flag of a contracting party other than the port State, or a non contracting party entered the port. 

In addition, she said, SEAFO was broadening its cooperative efforts with organizations like the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, to facilitate implementation of the vessel monitoring system.  Information links were being set up in areas such as collection of environmental data and exchanges on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities.

A. JALLOW, Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic, said that, with the help of Sweden, his organization had set up a management committee for six African nations.  Dwindling fish stocks faced continuing threats from the increasing presence of better equipped vessels on the high seas, many of which were there illegally.  At least three member countries had installed vessel monitoring systems.

He said his organization had assisted 21 coastal States last year.  Countries were increasingly becoming aware of their efforts in addressing illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in the region.  He called for more international cooperation on information exchange, flag State responsibilities, and assistance in addressing increasing violations in the region.  Without the support of the international community, the objectives of the Millennium Goals one and seven might elude the group’s members, with devastating consequences on the millions that depended on fishery resources in the region. 

G. BONNE, speaking on behalf of the Indian Ocean Commission, said the Commission was not a regional fisheries management organization, but rather a regional intergovernmental organization, composed of Comoros, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles and the French Reunion Island.  The environment and natural resources were very important.

She said fisheries provided important economic benefit for most of the island States and foreign fishing vessels were not new to the region.  Countries in the area had been issuing licenses for foreign vessels, and fishing agreements had been signed with various nations.  Since 1998, however, the Commission’s member States had become increasing concerned over the status of fisheries stocks and the issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, since regional and national capacities for controlling fishing activities were limited.

In 2005, a regional strategy had been developed, she said, and, with financial assistance from the European Community, two projects had been undertaken, one on tuna tagging and another related to monitoring, control and surveillance.  More concrete actions to improve sustainability had been inserted into the regional strategy, at a recent meeting in Madagascar.  The points highlighted were port State control, data sharing and inspection of vessels.

G. LEADE, Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), said that, although he was encouraged by interventions on the need to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, more needed to be done, including a commitment to specific actions.  Until flag States implemented their responsibilities, enforcement on the high seas was necessary.  He welcomed the fact that the tuna commissions would start to combine lists.  Those lists should be transparent and understandable for all.

He called on the Review Conference to adopt a specific action plan, including information on flag and port States measures and on development of lists on vessels.  His organization supported the proposal of Norway, but, until that proposal was implemented, interim measures were needed.  He also called new funding to help countries that did not have the capacity to implement the provisions of the Agreement.

D. DOULMAN of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said he wished to highlight a new initiative to create a model port scheme.  It reflected the Organization’s efforts to assist countries in developing national plans of action on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.  The scheme sought to strengthen measures affecting port States and multilateral markets.  It was necessary to ensure that those who engaged in illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing were not in a position to gain financially from it.

A. WRIGHT, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), said his group’s members were making progress on an integrated regulatory framework, which included satellite based vessel monitoring systems, a regional observer programme, transhipment regulations, and the sharing of compliance data.  That was notable, because it involved partnerships with other nations with interests in the region, as well as a commitment not to license vessels that were not flagged by Commission members.

He said the Commission’s impact on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing was uncertain, as estimates concerning such activity varied between 5 and 15 per cent of the total catch in the region.  The Commission was in the process of developing memorandums of understanding with other regional fisheries management organizations.

Mr. AGUILAR ( Mexico) asked for more information regarding a boarding incident that the representative of Uruguay had mentioned.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record