Annual Report 2008

   

    
 

  Contents  Introduction  EECM  Tripartite Meeting  |  RPCM  16th Annual Meeting BASIS Symposium  |  People & Events  |  Appendices 
 

     

 
 
  North Pacific IUU Tripartite Meeting
 
 
1. Time and Place of the Meeting
2. Opening Remarks and     Introductions
3. Overview
4. Monitoring, Control and     Surveillance Activities
5. Future Cooperation
 
3. Overview (Parties/Agencies, Charter/Mandate, Enforcement Committee, etc.)
    
LT P. Barelli provided a presentation on the NPAFC Convention Article V: Authority and Jurisdiction which detailed the NPAFCs enforcement objectives and scope.  He went on to explain the implications of the issue within the tripartite meeting context, citing commonalities (geography, membership and species) and shared challenges (participation, economic limitations, limited assets and differing National priorities).

R. Martinolich provided an overview of the NPCGF that outlined the relevant activities and mandate of the organization.  He explained the relevance in relation to the other groups.  CAPT G. Sundgaard detailed the work of the NPCGFs Combined Operations Working Group and shared his views on the advantages of collaboration between organizations, notably how the strengths of the various organizations should be exploited.

Wendell Sanford outlined the mandate, evolution, special characteristics and operations of the newly formed WCPFC.

 

4. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Activities (Authorities, Boarding Provisions, VMS, Law Enforcement Activities/Case Study, etc.)
    
A. Richards of the WCPFC Secretariat provided and overview of the WCPFC Convention (Authorities and Responsibilities).  He elaborated on the following elements:
  • The WCPFC Convention has applied the principles of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to the WCPO Region;
  • MCS tools, some of which are in place and others being developed, that will form the regulatory framework for the Commission;
  • MCS Tools:
    • Development of a Regional Observer Program, implementation of which is based on the use of existing regional, sub-regional and national observer programs;
    • Commission VMS (projected implementation, February 2009), will be co-located with FFA VMS at Sydney, Australia;
    • High Seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (broad framework is in place);
    • WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels is posted on the WCPFC website and WCPFC IUU Vessel List will soon be posted on the same website;
    • Transhipment Verification and port State measures are also being developed; and
    • Significant amount of work remains to fully operationalize the Commissions MCS Scheme.

Russia requested clarification on the following three issues:

a)  What measures were being taken within member State EEZs?
 
  A. Richards indicated that some issues, e.g. determining the total allowable catch for highly migratory fish stocks within the Convention Area, apply to the entire Convention Area, including the EEZs of member States within the Convention Area, while others, e.g. boarding and inspection, apply only to the high seas in the Convention Area.
 
b) Who is involved in the inspection/enforcement process?
 
  A. Richards explained that each member with registered enforcement platforms will be able to board and inspect vessels from member States.  He added that there have been no boardings to date.
 
c) Is the VMS satellite based?
 
  A. Richards responded that the current system is satellite based and works off of units fitted for the existing domestic systems.
 

The United States requested information on the follow subjects:

a)  In relation to VMS confidentiality agreements, where these with Coastal Nations or vessel owners? And what did they consist of?
 
  A. Richards indicated that although the Commission has adopted a Confidentiality Agreement, separate rules and procedures for the protection of, access to and dissemination of non-public domain data for the purpose of compliance and enforcement activities on the high seas were in draft form and still being debated.
 
b) Was the WCPFC boarding and inspection regime ready to be implemented?
 
  A. Richards responded that it is ready to be implemented as the corresponding Conservation and Management Measure is now in force.
 

Canada inquired as to whether the observer program would be managed centrally or individually by the member States and how it was envisaged that the deployment of observers would work?

A Richards clarified that the exact details of the Regional Observer Programme (ROP) were still being worked on but offered that the program would be based on aspects of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) model and those of sub-regional observer programs operating in the WCPO, together comprising the WCPFC Hybrid Model.  Under this model, sharing of observer resources between the observer programs of member States and the ROP is a basic principle.
 

Japan questioned what members, if any, had registered enforcement assets.

A. Richards explained that, to date, three countries (French Polynesia, New Zealand and Canada) had enforcement vessels registered with the Commission.



 

  Top of page