indian ocean tuna commission commission des thons de … cmm... · 2014. 2. 4. · chapter 1 –...

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

Commission des Thons de l’Océan Indien

Implementation of IOTC Conservation and ManagementMeasures

PART B

Implementation of IOTC CMMsentailing reporting obligations

July 2013

of 58

AcknowledgementsThis manual has been prepared with thefinancial support of the European Unionunder the grant “Technical assistance todeveloping countries CPC of the IOTC toimprove implementation of IOTC CMMsand implementation of Port StateMeasures”. This grant is a voluntarycontribution of the European Union to theIOTC special fund for capacity building inorder to ensure compliance with IOTCConservation and Management Measures.The capacity building fund is establishedunder the IOTC Resolution 12/10.The content of the manual has beendeveloped by the IOTC Secretariat withtechnical support from Gilles Hosch.The manual has been printed with thefinancial support of the ACP-Fish IIProgramme.Bibliographic entry:IOTC, 2013. Implementation of IOTC CMMs- Entailing reporting obligations. IOTC,Seychelles. 58 pp.

For further information, contact:

Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionLe Chantier MallPO Box 1011, Victoria, SeychellesTel + 248 422 54 94Fax + 248 422 43 [email protected]© IOTC 2013

of 58

SummaryThe purpose of this Manual is to assist IOTCMembers and Cooperating Non-ContractingParties in achieving a better understandingof the actions that they need to take underthe IOTC, by providing an overview of theConservation and Management Measures(CMM’s) entailing active reportingrequirements.The content is divided into six chapters.The first chapter provides a broad overviewof the IOTC Resolutions and Conservationand Management measures adopted by theIOTC.The second chapter provide a detaileddescription of the requirements from theCPCs arising from the CMMs in relation tothe main roles that CPCs play with regards toCoastal State responsibility.The third Chapter describes requirementsand responsibilities of CPC as Flag State.The fourth chapter describes requirementsand responsibilities of CPCs as Port State.The fifth chapter describes requirements andresponsibilities of CPCs as Market State.The sixth chapter describes the cross cuttingCMMS and duties from the agreement.This manual should be viewed as a livingdocument that can be revised and improvedby all parties as experience is expanded inthe implementation of the IOTCConservation and Management Measures.

Co funded by the European Union

of 58

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction ......................................................................................................................8

Resolutions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................8

Compliance .........................................................................................................................................9

State of play on CMMs - 2012.............................................................................................................9

Matrix of CMMs entailing reporting requirements ..........................................................................10

Event-based and recurrent reporting requirements ........................................................................11

Duties of flag, port, market and coastal States.................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2 – Coastal State CMMs ........................................................................................................13

Requirements under primarily coastal State CMMs.........................................................................13

Res. 12/07: Record of licensed foreign Vessels ............................................................................13

Requirements under primarily flag State CMMs ..............................................................................14

Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks...............................................................................15

Res. 12/05: Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels............................................................15

Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme........................................................................................15

Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels.....................................................................................16

Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks ..............................................................................................16

Requirements under Cross Cutting CMMs .......................................................................................17

Res. 11/03: List of presumed IUU Vessels.....................................................................................17

Res. 10/09: Functions of the Compliance Committee ..................................................................18

Res. 07/01: Compliance by Nationals ...........................................................................................18

IOTC Agreement: Article X ............................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 3 – Flag State CMMs .............................................................................................................20

Requirements under exclusive flag State CMMs ..............................................................................21

Res. 12/12: Large-Scale Driftnets on the High Seas......................................................................21

Res. 12/11: Limitation of Fishing Capacity....................................................................................22

Res. 12/04: Conservation of Marine Turtles .................................................................................23

Res. 10/08: Record of active Vessels ............................................................................................24

Res. 10/06: Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds...................................................................................25

Res. 10/02: Mandatory statistical Requirements .........................................................................25

Res. 06/03: Vessel Monitoring System .........................................................................................26

of 58


Res. 12/13: Management of tropical Tuna ...................................................................................27

Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks...............................................................................28


Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme........................................................................................30


Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks ..............................................................................................32

Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical Document Programme ..................................................................32

Requirements under primarily coastal State CMMs.........................................................................33

Res. 12/07: Record of licensed foreign Vessels ............................................................................33

Requirements under primarily port State CMMs .............................................................................34

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures ..................................................................................................34

Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port...............................................................................34






CHAPTER 4 – Port State CMMs .............................................................................................................38

Requirements under primarily port State CMMs .............................................................................39

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures ..................................................................................................39

Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port...............................................................................40





Requirements under primarily market State CMMs ........................................................................42

Res. 10/10: Market related Measures ..........................................................................................42






CHAPTER 5 – Market State CMMs ........................................................................................................46

of 58

Requirements under primarily market State CMMs ........................................................................46

Res. 10/10: Market related Measures ..........................................................................................46




Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical Document Programme ..................................................................49






CHAPTER 6 – Cross Cutting CMMs & duties from the Agreement .......................................................52





Requirements under the Agreement................................................................................................55

ANNEX I – List of active resolutions with long and short titles.............................................................56

ANNEX II – Implementation sheets.......................................................................................................57

ANNEX III – Reporting templates ..........................................................................................................58

of 58

Acronyms

AFV Authorized fishing vessel

APSM Agreement on Port State Measures (2009)

BET Bigeye Tuna

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CPCs IOTC Contracting Parties (or “Members”) and Cooperating Non-contracting Parties

DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN

FAOCA FAO Compliance Agreement (1993)

FDP Fleet Development Plan (see Res. 12/11)

FMC Fisheries Monitoring Centre

IOSEA MoU Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of MarineTurtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA International Plan of Action

IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing)

LOA Length overall (fishing vessel)

LSTV Large-scale tuna vessel

LSTLV Large-scale tuna longline fishing vessel

MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

NCP Non-contracting Party

NPOA National Plan of Action

SKJ Skipjack Tuna

UN United Nations Organization

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)

UNFSA United Nations Fish Stock Agreement (1995)

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WPEB Working Party on Ecosystems and Biodiversity

YFT Yellowfin Tuna

of 58

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction

Objective of this manual

The purpose of this Manual is to assist IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties(designated together as “CPCs”) in achieving a better understanding of the actions that they need totake under the IOTC, by providing an overview of the Conservation and Management Measures(CMM’s) entailing active reporting requirements.

This manual should not be taken as a substitute to the full gambit of IOTC Resolutions andRecommendations. It does not cover active technical implementation requirements of resolutionswhich do not require recurrent or event-based reporting. For the resolutions covered in this manual,technical requirements are outlined for the purpose of fostering understanding, but the focus is onreporting requirements.

The collection of the full-text of IOTC Resolutions and Recommendations can be downloaded fromthe following IOTC webpage: http://www.iotc.org/English/resolutions.php. The IOTC generallyprovides an updated yearly compendium of the active resolutions and recommendations that CPCsare to observe.

Structure of this document

The requirements from the CPCs arising from the CMMs are presented and discussed in relation tothe main roles that CPCs play:

a. Flag Stateb. Port Statec. Market Stated. Licensing State

The above four categories, with the addition of a ‘Cross cutting’ category, deals with CMM thataffects more than one category of CPCs and correspond to discreet chapters of this manual. In thefirst four chapters, active resolutions are listed which apply either exclusively or primarily to aspecific type of State jurisdiction, or which contain elements for implementation by a particular typeof State jurisdiction. In the fifth chapter, active resolutions are listed which cover all types of Statesin a general manner – and no specific type of State jurisdiction in particular.

Apart from providing an overview of these resolutions, this manual also indicates the availability,from the IOTC Secretariat, of implementation sheets for relevant active resolutions and reportingtemplates which should be used to submit information under specific resolutions to the IOTCSecretariat. The implementation sheets provide a simple summary overview per resolution on whatreporting action has got to be taken by whom and at what point in time. The reporting templatesassist CPCs to provide information in a set format, assisting the Secretariat in pooling information insuch a way that it can then easily be stored, used or analysed to support further work.

Resolutions and Recommendations

There are two different types of CMMs; Resolutions and Recommendations.

of 58

IOTC Resolutions are binding, and generally contain at least one binding “shall” clause instructing aparty to undertake an action, and a reference to Article IX of the IOTC Agreement. Such action mightbe requested of CPCs, the Secretariat, or of a subsidiary body of the Commission. Resolutions can betime-bound and become redundant a year or two after their promulgation. Other resolutions have amore permanent character. Resolutions also sometimes become superseded; i.e. they are updatedand replaced by a new resolution. This manual only deals with currently active resolutions that arebinding upon IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties, and which entail reportingobligations.

IOTC Recommendations are what their title implies. They contain suggested best practice, and aregenerally directed at CPCs. While they are not binding, nor the object of detailed implementationand reporting routines presented in this manual, they are no less important and often reflectinternationally recognized best practice standards, as reflected in the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, for instance.

There are various types of resolutions, and there is no straightforward way of categorizing them.Some resolutions address the organs of the IOTC internally and instruct them on actions to take.Other resolutions instruct CPCs to take specific management action with regard to the fisheries. Wecall such required actions “technical requirements”. Other resolutions instruct CPCs to submitspecific types of information (data, statistics) to the Secretariat, either on a one-off basis, or on thebasis of specific events (event-based), or at set intervals of time (recurrent). Such “reportingrequirements” are not limited to the submission of data and statistics, but can also relate toinformation on how specific technical requirements have, or are being implemented under givenresolutions.

Compliance

The Compliance Section of the IOTC Secretariat is responsible for gathering the information that theCompliance Committee uses in monitoring the implementation of CMMs by the CPCs. The Terms ofReference of the Compliance Committee were established through IOTC Resolution 10/09, which isalso covered in this manual. The work of the Compliance Committee endeavours to enhance thecompliance of CPCs with IOTC CMMs.

This manual is also intended to foster and to maximise the outcomes of the work of the ComplianceCommittee, as the manual should support and make the work of CPCs to comply with CMMs easier,foremost of which with their reporting requirements.

State of play on CMMs - 2012

In late 2012, there were 21 active CMMs requiring active reporting by CPCs. The implementation ofthe reporting requirements (of which several are reporting requirements monitoring technicalimplementation of CMMs) is actively monitored by the Compliance Committee.

This manual details what these requirements are, and more specifically, when, how, and to whominformation should be submitted.

of 58

Matrix of CMMs entailing reporting requirements

The following table contains the full list of CMMs that entailed reporting requirements by the end of2012. The matrix provides a summary overview of which State-types are addressed by whichresolution. The tick marks in the table indicate which particular types of State jurisdiction areaddressed by any given resolution. The requirements under each resolution are generally not limitedto reporting requirements, and can, in some cases, be limited to technical implementationrequirements. This table is useful to establish “whom the resolutions talk to”.

Following a common approach in RFMO, the majority of resolutions focus primarily on the flag Stateaction, as these States carry the responsibility to control the actions of their fleets. Less regulatorysubstance is focusing directly on port, licensing or market States. But it is often the case that anumber of resolutions address several types of State jurisdictions at the same time. In some casesthe focus is spread more or less equally between several types of States (e.g. Res. 01/06 on BETstatistical document programme), or it has a focus on one particular type, with some others alsocovered, but to a lesser degree (e.g. Res. 05/05 on the conservation of sharks).

Resolution (&previous no.) Resolution title Flag State Port State Market

StateLicensing

State

CoastalState (notcoveredin otherroles)

12/13 (10/01) For the Conservation and Management of tropicalTuna Stocks in the IOTC Area of Competence

12/12 (09/05) To prohibit the use of Large-Scale Driftnets on theHigh Seas in the IOTC Area

12/11 (09/02)(07/05) (06/05)

On the implementation of a limitation of FishingCapacity of Contracting Parties and CooperatingNon-Contracting Parties

12/09 (10/12) On the conservation of Thresher Sharks (FamilyAlopiidae) caught in association with Fisheries inthe IOTC Area of Competence

12/07 (10/07) Concerning a Record of licensed foreign Vesselsfishing for IOTC Species in the IOTC Area ofCompetence and Access Agreement Information

12/05 (11/05) On establishing a Programme for transhipment byLarge-Scale Fishing Vessels

12/04 (09/06)(05/08)

On the Conservation of Marine Turtles

11/04 (10/04) On a Regional Observer Scheme

11/03 (09/03)(06/01)

On establishing a List of Vessels presumed to havecarried out Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing in the IOTC Area of Competence

10/11 On Port State Measures to prevent, deter andeliminate Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing

10/10 Concerning Market Related Measures

10/09 (02/03) Concerning the Functions of the ComplianceCommittee

10/08 (07/04)(05/04) (98/04)

Concerning a Record of active Vessels fishing forTunas and Swordfish in the IOTC Area

10/06 (08/03) On reducing the incidental Bycatch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries

10/02 (08/01) Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTCMembers and Cooperating Non-ContractingParties (CPC’s)

07/02 (01/02part.)

Concerning the establishment of an IOTC Recordof Vessels authorised to operate in the IOTC Area

07/01 To promote Compliance by Nationals ofContracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties with IOTC Conservation and

of 58

Management Measures06/03 (02/02) On establishing a Vessel Monitoring System

Programme05/05 Concerning the Conservation of Sharks caught in

association with Fisheries managed by IOTC05/03 (02/01) Relating to the establishment of an IOTC

Programme of Inspection in Port01/06 Concerning the IOTC Bigeye Tuna Statistical

Document ProgrammeTable 1: Matrix of active IOTC Resolutions requiring reporting, and their focus by type of State jurisdiction.

Throughout the remainder of this document, the short titles for resolutions will be used to facilitatethe reading of the text. The link between long and short titles can be found in Annex I.

Event-based and recurrent reporting requirements

There are two basic different types of reporting requirements, and these are briefly outlined here.

Some of the reporting requirements are cyclical, usually based on an annual or bi-annual reportingcycle. An example would be the requirement to submit an annual report on CMM implementationactions and measures, ahead of the annual meeting of the Commission. This is normally referred toas a “reporting requirement”, and when a distinction needs to be made, as a “recurrent reportingrequirement”. The salient point is that a recurrent reporting requirement does invariably need to behonoured and does not depend on an event to occur first.

The other type of reporting requirement is sometimes referred to as an “event-based reportingrequirement”, in order to distinguish it from a recurrent requirement. The event-based reportingrequirement – while generally also binding – is based on the premise that a specific event has got tooccur first, in order to trigger the reporting. If the event does not occur, then the reportingobligation does not arise. If the event does occur, then the CPC must report it. A fitting examplewould be for port States, which are required to inform the IOTC Secretariat of their decision to denyentry to port to a fishing vessel – suspected of IUU fishing – under Resolution 10/11 on Port StateMeasures. If such an event occurs, then the information must be submitted to the Secretariat. Aslong as no such event occurs, the obligation is not triggered and no report is submitted.

Duties of flag, port, market and coastal States

This manual has been segmented into chapters which talk directly to specific types of Statejurisdictions and present these State types with their duties under resolutions which engenderreporting obligations for them.

It is important to bear in mind, that States are rarely just the one type of State. For States borderingthe Indian Ocean, States are often coastal, flag, port and market State – all in one. For the Statesbordering the Indian Ocean, they are all coastal States by definition.

In some cases, one or two of the dimensions of State jurisdiction are missing. It is possible for acoastal State, for instance, not to operate any ports, or not to import, export and/or process anytuna – in which case it is not a market State. Some coastal States do not flag tuna fishing fleets, inwhich case they are not a flag State – while they might still be a coastal, a port and a market State. Invery rare cases, a State is a coastal State only. And in other cases, as for DWFNs, States can be flag,port and market States, but not a coastal State.

of 58

This manual allows the user to ask the question: What would be my duties if I were a coastal State ora port State only? Or what are my duties as a flag State? CMMs engendering reporting requirementsare looked at from that perspective. This perspective is useful to understand how the different formsof State jurisdiction under the IOTC framework are being addressed and solicited and how they aresummoned to honour their conservation and management responsibilities under international law.

Table 1 helps the user to grasp which resolutions apply to which State jurisdictions. It is useful forthe user to start with the question: How many different types of State jurisdiction does my countrycover?

of 58

CHAPTER 2 – Coastal State CMMs

There is no IOTC resolution that is exclusively targeting the coastal State, and there is only one activeresolution that focuses primarily on the coastal State. This serves to underline that to date, thepreferred approach to addressing tuna resource management at the regional level, is not throughcoastal State mechanisms alone, but primarily through a mix of approaches. This owes to the factthat the resource is shared between stakeholders; between custodians of individual EEZs, and usersof resources in the high seas.

As a coastal State party, opportunities for contributing to the management of the resource to datehave been used to a limited degree only. This, however, does not imply that possible avenues forcoastal States to contribute to tuna resource conservation and management have been fullyexploited in the IOTC regulatory substance in force today.

Coastal States have obligations under nine – or roughly half – of the resolutions. These resolutions,and the obligations they contain, are outlined in this chapter.

Under the resolution which primarily addresses the coastal State:

Res. 12/07: Record of licensed foreign Vessels

This resolution is presented in full under this chapter.

Under resolutions, which primarily address flag States, the following five resolutions contain specificrequirements for coastal States:

Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks Res. 12/05: Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks

Under resolutions, which are cross-cutting, the following three resolutions plus the IOTC Agreementapply:

Res. 11/03: List of presumed IUU Vessels Res. 10/09: Functions of the Compliance Committee Res. 07/01: Compliance by Nationals IOTC Agreement: Article X

Coastal State reporting requirements under these resolutions are presented and discussed in thefollowing sections.

Requirements under primarily coastal State CMMs


This resolution was adopted by the Commission in 2012.It supersedes Resolution 10/07 Concerning a record of

Resolution Navigator

Reporting templates: 2 Excel and 1 Word file

Implementation sheet: yes

Full presentation of resolution: here

Other related passages: page 33

of 58

licensed vessels fishing for tunas and swordfish in the IOTC Area. Its primary objective is to ensure arecurrent and transparent picture – through the creation of an IOTC Record – of tuna and tuna-likefishing vessels licensed to operate in the EEZs of Indian Ocean CPCs. It also aims to create moretransparency at the level of fisheries agreements under which such access is granted. One of theoverall outcomes sought is the strengthening of data collection, and the achievement of morecomplete statistics on fleets active in the IOTC area of competence.

Technical requirements

There are no specific technical requirements to be followed under this resolution. The scope of theresolution resides entirely on the provision of access agreement and licensing information of thirdcountry vessel information to the IOTC Secretariat and the Commission.

Reporting requirements

The resolution primarily addresses coastal States, which may be granting access to foreign (or thirdcountry) fleets to their waters, where these may obtain licenses to target tuna and tuna-like species.The resolution is essentially split into two parts. The first part covers private access agreements(paragraphs 1 and 2), while the second part covers government to government access agreements(paragraphs 3, 4 and 5).

Under private access agreements, coastal State CPCs are required to submit a record of foreignvessels licensed in the previous year to fish tuna and tuna-like species in their waters. Thisinformation should be submitted by the 15th February of every year. The list of items to report pervessel (9 in total) is specified in the resolution.

Under government-to-government agreements (e.g. Madagascar with the European Union), theresolution proposes that coastal and flag States – signatories to such agreements – make a jointnotification of information to the Commission prior to the commencement of fishing activities. Thelist of items to report covers the same information as under paragraph 2 for private accessagreements, plus an additional list of 7 items related primarily to the clauses of the agreement itself.The additional information relates to the period of validity of the agreement, possible limits oncatches, MCS arrangements, and the like. Information, as specified, relating to these agreementsalready in force in 2012, at the time of the promulgation of this resolution, should still be madeavailable to the Commission, 60 days prior to its meeting in 2013 (i.e. as part of the annual reportunder Article X). Likewise, any modifications to such agreements should give rise to a promptnotification of the Commission.

Although the responsibility is shared under the second part of the resolution, the coastal State bearsthe overall responsibility for informing the various organs of the IOTC – as specified.

Requirements under primarily flag State CMMs

The full presentation of the content and objective of the following resolutions under this section ismade under the same resolution headings, within the flag State chapter of this manual.

of 58

Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks

Technical and reporting requirements

The resolution, which targets the conservation andmanagement of thresher sharks, encourages States,amongst which coastal States, to implementresearch on these species, and to identify potentialnursery areas. Reporting requirements relate to flagStates only, and are nil for coastal States.

Res. 12/05: Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels


The resolution, which aims to bring transhipment of large-scale vessels under a regime of monitoringand control, foresees specific requirements for coastal States. These relate specifically to the role ofthe coastal State, when transhipments are being made in its waters (paragraph 10). Suchtranshipments require prior formal authorization by the coastal State. The coastal State is conferredthe duty to authorize or deny the transhipment of products by LSTLVs in its EEZ under resolution12/05 (paragraph 10).


Paragraph 20 lays down that CPCs shall report annually before the 15th September to the IOTCExecutive Secretary the quantities of species transhipped during the previous year, as well as theLSTLVs having transhipped. It does not specify whether costal, port and/or flag States are addressedby this paragraph. However, from an operational point of view, it is clear that coastal, port and flagStates are expected to record this information. In the case of flag States, this is applicable to flagStates whose vessels are participating in the ROP.

The quantities of species and volumes transhipped should be known to the coastal State through theimplementation of the prior approval mechanism, and information that vessels applying fortranshipment must submit to the coastal State.

Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme

This resolution, which targets the implementation ofa regional observer scheme, is presented in fullunder the same heading in the chapter on flag StateCMMs. The requirements for coastal States (in theirrole as flag States for their artisanal fleets) arelimited to the putting in place of a sampling scheme,covering landings of artisanal tuna fleet catches – where an observer scheme is clearly impracticable.

Most artisanal landings do not take place in designated ports and the statistics collected under thesampling scheme feed the fisheries management function of the coastal State, which is why the


Reporting templates: none

Implementation sheet: none

Full presentation of resolution: page 15

Other related passages: none




Full presentation of resolution: Page 30


of 58

sampling scheme part of the resolution is placed under coastal State requirements in this manual,rather than port State requirements.


Coastal states should gradually increase the percentage of sampled landings to 5% of total vesselactivity. On the basis of this sampling programme, the production of an annual report is required.This report should detail the number of vessels monitored and the coverage achieved. Templates forreporting – for samplers, but supposedly also for the annual CPC reports – shall be developed by theScientific Committee in the future (paragraph 15), leaving the exact outline of the annual observerreport to the discretion of each CPC. The deadline for reporting is not defined, and it is thereforeassumed that this information should be made available with the annual reporting under Article X ofthe Agreement.

Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels

This resolution, which lays the foundation to identifythe vessels authorized by their flag States to operatein the IOTC area of competence, is presented in fullunder the same heading in the chapter on flag StateCMMs.


Under this resolution, the coastal State CPC is given the specific responsibility to prohibit thetranshipment of products from vessels not listed on the record (paragraph 7.a).

A reporting requirement arises if and when a suspected infringement to this resolution is detected –namely when the suspicion arises that specific vessels not on the list of AFVs have engaged in fishingoperations (including transhipment) in the IOTC area of competence. In such a case, the coastalState – as a CPC – shall submit to the IOTC Secretary all factual information that substantiates suchsuspicion (paragraph 8). This should result in the filing of a proposal for inclusion of the offendingvessels in the IUU List.

Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks

Much like Resolution 09/12 on Thresher Sharks, thisresolution aims to strengthen conservation ofsharks through specific management measures(including research) and an improved datacollection system.


Much of the resolution establishes flag State requirements on how to handle sharks, and how tocollect and submit statistics. The resolution encourages States, amongst which coastal States, to


Reporting templates: 1 Excel file



Other related passages: pages 42 and 48






of 58

conduct research and to identify potential nursery areas. Although coastal States are addressed bythe Resolution, reporting requirements for the coastal State are nil.

Requirements under Cross Cutting CMMs

The full presentation of the content and objective of the following resolutions is made under thesame resolution headings, within the Cross Cutting CMMs chapter of this manual.

Res. 11/03: List of presumed IUU Vessels

This complex resolution, which aims at providing amechanism to report, list and bring sanctions againstIUU fishing vessels, entails a number of technical andreporting requirements which also address thecoastal State.


For the coastal State, technical requirements relate primarily to the collection of evidence and thesubmission of evidence to the IOTC Secretariat. This applies to coastal States, as it does to all States.There is one further technical requirement targeting the coastal State (also) in the list of measuresCPCs must undertake with respect to listed IUU fishing vessels. Paragraph 16.e) stipulates that CPCsshall prohibit transhipments from vessels included in the IUU vessel list. Under Resolution 12/05 onTranshipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels, the coastal State is one of the parties providing suchauthorizations.


Reporting requirements present several layers of possible obligations, depending on the specificprocess underway.

For vessels detected by coastal States as having infringed binding IOTC CMMs (in their EEZ, orotherwise) coastal States are required to submit a list of such vessels to the IOTC Secretary – at least70 days ahead of the annual meeting of the Commission (paragraphs 2 and 3). The format in whichthis information should be submitted is prescribed in Annex I of the resolution. This formatprescribes that the list should be submitted alongside relevant evidence substantiating the claimsmade against vessels included on the list.

All States, including coastal States, may submit additional evidence or information to the IOTCSecretariat at any time to contribute to the functioning of the IUU vessel list. However, this option,as well as all others under the resolution, is non-binding (paragraphs 8 and 14).

All States, including coastal States, are firmly encouraged to notify the Secretary – in form of a vote –on whether to keep specific vessels on the list, within 30 days of the Secretary submitting a proposaland supporting evidence to remove specific vessels from, or to keep them (depending on thecircumstances) on the list (paragraphs 14 and 22).


Reporting templates: 1 Word file



Other related passages: pages 35, 43 and 50

of 58

Res. 10/09: Functions of the ComplianceCommittee

This resolution, which primarily defines theobjectives, mandate and terms of reference of theCompliance Committee, provides a monitoringframework for the implementation of IOTCmanagement measures by CPCs.


The resolution contains no technical requirements. It establishes a mechanism whereby the IOTCSecretariat dispatches a questionnaire on compliance to all CPCs, and CPCs are required to returnthat questionnaire filled. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the Chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.

Res. 07/01: Compliance by Nationals

This resolution, which addresses a critical IPOA-IUUtenet on taking measures to discourage nationalssubject to a State’s jurisdiction from supporting orengaging in IUU fishing activities, addresses allStates.


The resolution exhorts States to investigate and sanction convicted offenders, and to cooperate withother parties in the investigation of alleged offences. CPCs are required to submit reports on actionsand measures undertaken. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.

IOTC Agreement: Article X

All States are to submit an annual report underArticle X of the Agreement, and that requirement,which naturally applies to coastal States also, isdescribed under the same heading in the chapter onCross Cutting CMMs.

In addition to this, two resolutions addressing coastal States define reporting requirements whichare to be honoured under the same deadline which applies to the submission of the annual reportunder Article X. These reporting requirements have all been highlighted under the relevantresolutions in this chapter. They are merely repeated here in order to provide a recapitulatingoverview of these requirements;

Res. 12/07 on Record of licensed Foreign Vessels (for the 2013 annual meeting of theCommission only – thereafter on an event-related real time basis): report on Government-to-Government fisheries agreements and licenses issued;
















of 58

Res. 11/04 on Regional Observer Scheme: report on vessels monitored and coverageachieved.

of 58

CHAPTER 3 – Flag State CMMs

CMMs addressing primarily the flag State form the bulk of the binding IOTC conservation andmanagement measures, as can be gathered from the matrix presented in table 1. The reason for thisresides primarily in the fact that jurisdiction and control over fishing activities on the high seas maybe exercised most effectively through flag State jurisdiction over fishing vessels targeting resourcesin waters that lie partly or primarily beyond the boundaries of national jurisdictions.

Hence, as a flag State party, mechanisms for contributing to the management of Indian Ocean tunaresources have been developed to a large degree. Of the 21 active resolutions involving reportingobligations, 7 resolutions are pure flag State resolutions (i.e. they do not address any other Stateparty), 7 are primarily flag State resolutions, 3 also address flag States as a secondary party, and 3cover flag States as cross-cutting CMMs. Therefore, all of the 21 resolutions do cover flag Statejurisdiction to some degree.

The obligations of the flag Sates are contained in the resolutions as follows:

Under resolutions which address the flag State alone:

Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels Res. 10/08: Record of active Vessels Res. 12/11: Limitation of Fishing Capacity Res. 10/02: Mandatory statistical Requirements Res. 12/13: Management of tropical Tuna Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme Res. 06/03: Vessel Monitoring System

These resolutions and their requirements are presented in full in this chapter.

Under resolutions, which primarily address flag States, but also others:

Depending on the gear that your vessels are using the following resolutions might apply:

Res. 12/12: Large-Scale Driftnets on the High Seas Res. 12/04: Conservation of Marine Turtles Res. 10/06: Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks Res. 12/05: Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical Document Programme

These resolutions and their requirements are also presented in full under this chapter.

Under a resolution which primarily addresses coastal States, but also covers the flag State:


This resolution has been presented in full in the coastal State CMMs chapter. In this chapter, onlythe requirements for flag States are presented.

of 58

Under resolutions which primarily address port States, but also cover flag States:

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port

These resolutions are presented in full in the port State CMMs chapter of this manual. In thischapter, only the requirements for flag States will be presented.

Under resolutions, which are cross-cutting, the following three resolutions plus the IOTC Agreementapply:


Flag State reporting requirements under these resolutions are presented and discussed in thefollowing sections.

Requirements under exclusive flag State CMMs

Res. 12/12: Large-Scale Driftnets on the HighSeas

Resolution 12/12 supersedes Resolution 09/05 ofthe same title. It implements the United NationsGeneral Assembly Resolution 46/215 which calls fora global moratorium on large-scale high seas driftnetfishing. Large-scale driftnets are defined as beingmore than 2.5km in length. The resolution only addresses the high seas. The ban of high seas large-scale driftnet fishing addresses concerns that such fishing may seriously undermine otherconservation and management efforts – notably through bycatch of species under IOTCmanagement, or ghost fishing of lost sections of netting. Use of the same gear within EEZs is notprohibited.


The resolution prohibits the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas within the IOTC area ofcompetence, and calls on flag States to ensure that their vessels do not engage in large-scale highseas driftnet fishing – by extending the same prohibition under flag State jurisdiction to vessels flyingtheir flags (paragraph 2).


Flag States are to report – within the framework of the annual statements to the Commission,foreseen under Article X of the Agreement – on MCS actions directly related to the banning and






of 58

policing of high seas large-scale driftnet fishing. The details on that reporting are provided under therelevant sections further below.

While this resolution clearly addresses flag State jurisdiction, implementation and enforcement, acoastal State running or participating in multi-party high seas patrols, or a port State detecting apossible infringement of rules during a port inspection of a vessel, would also be required to reporton the detection or non-detection of large-scale high seas drift net fishing.

Res. 12/11: Limitation of Fishing Capacity

The limitation of fishing capacity is a central issue,which IOTC has addressed for many years; aiming todevelop and implement a framework whicheffectively does limit fishing capacity throughout theIOTC area of competence. Efforts in this domainrespond directly to the tenets of the IPOA-Capacitywhich the FAO published in 1999. The first resolution on the subject matter – setting specificcapacity limits – was Resolution 03/01. Resolution 12/11, which supersedes Resolution 09/05 of thesame title, builds on Resolutions 07/05 and 06/05 (both superseded by Resolution 09/05), which setout to limit the tonnage of active vessels fishing for albacore and swordfish on one hand, andtropical tunas on the other, to the levels of fleets active in 2007 and 2006, respectively. Vesselsunder construction, and existing Fleet Development Plans (FDPs) were accommodated, andcountries with less than 10 active vessels targeting albacore were allowed in 2007 to develop andsubmit an FDP.

What is missing from the current resolution, though, is the explicit reference to the limitation offishing capacity according to the established 2006 and 2007 reference capacity, and the additionalcapacity under FDPs, for which provision is made. This limitation of capacity did exist in Resolutions07/05 and 06/05 (and also in Resolution 03/01 – albeit in another form), but reference to theselimits has been “lost”.


The technical requirements in this resolution have to be read in conjunction with the previousversions of this resolution, in order to grasp their full meaning and intent. Under the current version,which is up for revision in 2014, the technical requirements largely focus on three specific elements.

The first one is for those CPCs that have not yet confirmed the fleets active in 2006 and 2007, toevaluate which vessels were in fact actively fishing for tropical tunas on one hand (2006), and foralbacore and swordfish on the other (2007).

The second is for CPCs that still have plans to develop their fleets, to develop and finalise their FDPs.

The third one regards CPCs having submitted FDPs. They are required to implement them accordingto the programming contained in the plans.







of 58

Resolution 12/11 is inspired by the text of the 09/05 resolution to a large degree. In doing so, it alsomaintained several of the reporting deadlines of the earlier resolution. For this reason many peoplewill find it somewhat odd that the 2012 resolution calls for several pieces of information to besubmitted to the IOTC Secretariat by 31st December, 2009. The reason for this is that several CPCshave not abided with this original deadline and that the resolution implicitly extends the deadline –while maintaining the original date in the text.

The first reporting requirement relates to the list of vessels (over 24m LOA, and under 24m LOA iffishing beyond the EEZ) which were actively fishing for tuna and tuna-like species in 2006 and 2007respectively, in order to establish the reference capacity for each CPC for tropical tuna and foralbacore and swordfish (paragraphs 1 and 2). This requirement obviously relates only to those Statesthat have still not positively responded to this requirement, and the deadline is the 31st December,2009.

The second reporting requirement relates to those CPCs not having notified their FDP to the IOTCSecretariat as yet. The deadline is also 31st December, 2009. Information to be submitted includesinformation on type, size, gear and origin of vessels to integrate the fleet and the programming fortheir phasing in (paragraph 6).

Although the Compliance Committee and the Commission set out to give annual consideration toproblems related to individual FDP implementation (paragraphs 7 and 8), there is no requirement forCPCs to report on FDP implementation.

Res. 12/04: Conservation of Marine Turtles

This resolution strengthens the foregoingResolutions 09/06 and 05/08, which were pursuingthe same goal of protecting marine turtles. Theresolution takes into account, and gives continuanceto the intent of other Conventions, Agreements andOrganisations in the domain of conserving seaturtles; such as CITES, the IOSEA MoU, or the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality inFishing Operations.


The resolution calls on CPCs to implement the FAO guidelines – as appropriate. The resolution laysdown a number of technical requirements by type of fishery in terms of mitigation measures. Theseinclude the following; CPCs must ensure that their fishermen are aware of proper sea turtle handlingtechniques, including de-hooking, resuscitation and safe transfer back to the sea. All types of vessels(gillnetters, longliners and purse seiners are listed in the resolution) should record all incidents of seaturtle interactions in their logbooks and through observer programs. Line-cutters and de-hookersshould be carried by longliners and purse seiners should carry dip nets and avoid the encirclement ofmarine turtles. FADs should be designed in such a way as to avoid entanglement. All CPCs, asappropriate, should undertake research on mitigation techniques across the range of fisheries theyoperate.






of 58


With respect to logbook and observer records on sea turtle interactions, CPCs should submit to theIOTC Secretariat – in line with the reporting deadlines of Resolution 10/02 on statistics (see relevantsection further below) – their data. These data should include the level of coverage and anestimation of total sea turtle mortality (paragraph 3).

CPCs should also – in line with the annual reporting under Article X (see relevant section furtherbelow) – formally report to the Commission on their progress in implementing the FAO Guidelinesand the resolution in general.

For those CPCs undertaking formal research into sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures, CPCs arerequested to report those results to the Scientific Committee 30 days in advance of its annualmeeting.

Res. 10/08: Record of active Vessels

This resolution may readily be described as themirror image of resolution 12/07 (Record of licensedforeign Vessels). Its aim is to establish – on a yearlybasis – the vessels that are actively fishing in theIOTC area of competence. Under this resolution,however, the information is not primarily suppliedby the coastal State, but exclusively by the flag State.

It is also useful to distinguish this active record from the other basic record of vessels authorised tooperate in the IOTC area of competence, established under Resolution 07/02 (see further below),which does list vessels that flag States authorise to operate in the Indian Ocean, but which falls shortof providing any indications on whether individually listed vessels are also active in the area at anygiven point in time.


There are no technical requirements as such under this resolution, save the requirement for CPCs tobe able to put together the information on their active vessels targeting tuna and swordfish in theIOTC area over the period of any given year. All vessels over 24m fall within the remit of thisresolution, as well as vessels under 24m operating beyond the EEZ of the flag State.


As for Resolution 12/07, reporting is once a year – on the 15th February – to the Secretary of theIOTC. Included in the report should be a list of vessels that were active in the previous year, which isinterpreted to mean the previous full calendar year. For every vessel, a list of twelve informationitems is required, covering items such as vessel name, vessel type and target species.






of 58

Res. 10/06: Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds

This resolution is firmly grounded within FAO’s IPOAfor Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries, and follows up on the 2007 and2009 recommendations of the IOTC Working Partyon Ecosystems and Bycatch. Its main objective is thereduction of incidental seabird mortality in longlinefisheries.


The resolution obliges CPCs to seek reductions in bird mortality associated to “all fisheries” throughthe use of effective mitigation measures. In particular, the resolution requires of the CPCs to ensurethat fishing operations be conducted in such a way as to ensure the fastest possible sinking ofhooklines following their putting in the water. The resolution provides a table with two columns ofmitigation measures, and for all longline fisheries conducted south of 25°S, at least two of themeasures must be implemented (one from each column of the table), with all measures conformingto minimum technical standards and design specifications – as provided in the annexes to theresolution.


In comparison to Resolution 12/04 on the conservation of marine turtles, reporting requirementsunder this resolution are described in very summary form only (paragraph 7).

CPCs are required to submit information on interactions with seabirds, including bycatch. Thisinformation is to be provided by flag States, or States authorising vessels to fish. It is unclear – fromthe formulation of the resolution – if, therefore, coastal States authorizing fishing operations in theirwaters should also collect and supply the same information for catches made within their EEZ. It isclear, however, that flag States ought to supply the information.

The channels through which to gather the information (logbooks, observer programs, researchprograms), or the more specific types of data to communicate (area coverage, fleet coverage, etc.) isnot specified.

The information should be submitted with the annual report – falling under Article X of theAgreement (see further below) – to the Commission.

Res. 10/02: Mandatory statisticalRequirements

The objective of this resolution of vital importanceto collect timely and as complete as possible data oncatches of tuna and tuna-like species falling underthe management competence of the IOTC. Here,data collection is based on catches, fishing effort andthe distribution of sizes of the fish in the catch; all essential information to determine the status of







Reporting templates: several Excel files




of 58

the resources. The requirements under this resolution are primarily channelled through the flagState.

The resolution specifies that some of the required data are for the exclusive use of IOTC scientistsand that the IOTC data confidentiality policy and procedures (provided for under Resolution 12/02)do apply.


The resolution requires of CPCs to submit nominal catch data (total annual catch by species), catchand effort data, size data, and data on FADs and supply vessel operations, to the Secretariat. Theresolution explains in detail how the data under the different categories must be organised. It is foreach CPC to ensure that it complies with the specified data collection/supply protocols.


The reporting requirements relate to the submission of the different data records to the IOTCSecretariat. The timelines for reporting are specified in paragraph 6 of the resolution.

For longline fleets operating on the high seas – i.e. implying fleets operating there at least part of thetime – flag States shall submit provisional and final datasets by, the 30th June of the following year, inthe first case, and final datasets by the 30th December of the following year in the latter case. For allother fleets, all final annual catch data should be submitted by the 30th June of the following year.

The resolution also makes provision for late reporting, and the revision of historical data. Reportingtemplates are hosted on IOTC’s website under www.iotc.org/English/data/typesofstatistics.php.

It is noted that the reporting of marine turtle bycatch, falling under resolution 12/04 (see above),should be made as a part of these data submissions.

Res. 06/03: Vessel Monitoring System

This resolution supersedes Resolution 02/02 relatingto the establishment of a VMS Pilot Programme.Building on it, its objective is to complete thephasing in of a VMS for Indian Ocean tuna and tuna-like fisheries. The phasing in should have beencompleted by the 1st July, 2007, and targeted allfishing vessels greater than 15m LOA, listed on the IOTC record of authorized vessels and operatingon the high seas (i.e. beyond the jurisdiction of any coastal State).


Under the resolution, the deadline of 1st July, 2007 is provided for all vessels mentioned above andprovides for specific minimum technical requirements of the systems to have been (or to be)installed (e.g. accuracy of positions, number of daily data transmissions, etc.). CPCs must ensure thatFMCs are setup to automatically process all electronic information and that transponders on vesselsare installed in a tamper-resistant manner.






of 58

CPCs that find it difficult to implement the requirements and to comply with this resolution arerequired to inform the Secretariat on their current vessel monitoring infrastructure/systems in place,the challenges they face and their needs, to comply with the resolution.

It is essential to add that Resolution 12/13 (see below) establishes that fishing vessels not complyingwith this resolution (i.e. 06/03) are not allowed to operate in the IOTC area of competence(paragraph 5).


The resolution establishes that CPCs must provide to the IOTC Secretariat, by the 30th June of everyyear, a report on the implementation of its VMS programme (paragraph 10). Besides the annualreport, CPCs are required to inform the IOTC Secretary on vessels whose systems have failed onmultiple occasions and which are required to report their positions manually, as an interim measure.


Res. 12/13: Management of tropical Tuna

This resolution is grounded in the fact that some ofthe tropical tuna resources are nearing fullexploitation and that sturdier management measuresare needed to avoid overfishing. The resolutioncontains a combination of management initiatives.


The technical requirements under this resolution are highly varied and cover the following; a) aclosed area (0°-10°N and 40°-60°E) is established, in which fishing by longline and purse seine vesselsis prohibited for one month every year (paragraphs 1, 2 3, 6 and 7); b) operating vessels withoutVMS is prohibited and compliance must be actively monitored through VMS; c) landing, transhippingor selling/buying of products contravening the tenets of this resolution is prohibited; d) theimplementation of a port sampling programme aiming to enhance artisanal fisheries catch statistics;and e) the establishment of action plans to be develop; i) a quota allocation system or alternativemanagement measures for the IOTC area of competence to be developed, and ii) to developappropriate data collection systems for artisanal tuna fisheries.


Two specific reporting requirements derive from this resolution, and both pertain to the flag State.

The first one establishes that all flag States are to provide a summary of their VMS records coveringthe operation of their fleets in the previous year. The resolution does not specify when thisinformation ought to be supplied, nor in which format. For practical purposes, it is assumed that theinformation should be supplied as a part of the annual reporting obligations under the IOTCAgreement.






of 58

The second requirement relates to informing the IOTC Secretary, 45 days before the entry into forceof the area closure, on what administrative steps have been taken by flag States to ensure that theirfleets respect the area closure described above.

Res. 12/09: Conservation of Thresher Sharks

This resolution, which supersedes Resolution 10/12of the same title, gives full consideration to theendangered and vulnerable status of sharks, fromthe family of thresher sharks (Alopiidae) in general. Itprovides a limited number of technicalrequirements, as well as reporting requirements,most of which are directed at the flag State.


In essence, the resolution introduces a mandatory discards regime for thresher sharks, as none maybe retained on board any vessel (paragraph 2). Transhipment, landing and commercial transactionsof this family of species are equally prohibited. The same applies to recreational fisheries, where allspecimens caught should be released alive. Sampling by scientific observers aboard vessels ispermitted and is to be formally directed by the WPEB.


Flag States are required to submit catch data under mandatory IOTC data reporting procedures, asprovided for under Resolution 10/02 (Mandatory Statistical Requirements). Especially, vesselstargeting sharks would have to submit their data for sharks to IOTC under those reportingobligations. However, it is implied that this does not exonerate vessels not targeting sharks fromrecording and supplying the same information as well.

For vessels not targeting sharks, reporting requirements are worded less stringently. CPCs in generalare encouraged to have their vessels report by-catches and live releases, and to submit these toIOTC (paragraph 4). Reporting deadlines are not specified.


This resolution supersedes Resolution 11/05 of thesame title. It addresses IUU fishing and thelaundering of illegal tuna into market streams byestablishing a mandatory framework for monitoredtranshipments, based on notifications,authorizations and data transmissions. At-seatranshipment operations are a recognised channelfor laundering of illegal catches. The resolution isone of the most complex IOTC resolutions, and is segmented into several functional layers.








Reporting templates: 2 Excel files and 1 Word file




of 58

The following is a general summary of the technical requirements. This summary does not coverevery single detailed requirement, but endeavours to provide a general picture of the centralelements, so that reporting requirements may be properly understood.

As a general rule, transhipments are confined to ports (paragraph 1). Only large-scale tuna longlinefishing vessels (LSTLVs, interpreted to be those vessels of LOA 24m or above) may, under prescribedconditions, continue to tranship at sea – onto carrier vessels that also fall under a monitored regime.A formal IOTC record of carrier vessels authorised to receive transhipments at sea is created(paragraphs 5 and 6), and these vessels must carry VMS (paragraph 9). It is up to flag States todecide whether they authorise their LSTLVs to tranship at sea or not (paragraph 4). An observerprogramme provides for the mandatory placement of an IOTC observer aboard every duly recordedcarrier vessel (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Transhipments in port must be monitored by port authorities and a system of prior notification ofport authorities applies (paragraph 2) also to carrier vessels (paragraph 16). Transhipments madewithin the EEZ of a coastal State, requires the prior authorization of that coastal State (paragraph10).

For every transhipment at sea, an LSTLV must obtain prior authorization from its flag State(paragraph 11) following the submission of detailed information on what products are to betranshipped (paragraph 12); the same rule does not apply for transhipments in port (ANNEX I;paragraphs 1 and 2). As a notification obligation, a carrier vessel submits a copy of the transhipmentdeclaration directly to both the IOTC Secretariat and the flag State of the LSTLV within 24 hours ofthe transhipment (paragraph 15), while the LSTLV submits the same information to its flag Stateauthorities only within 15 days (paragraph 13).


Flag States must notify the Secretary of the authorised carrier vessels that they have authorised andthat should be integrated into the record of vessels authorised to tranship at sea and should keepthis record updated (paragraphs 6 and 7).

Annually, by the 15th September, flag State CPCs must submit a report to the IOTC Secretary, whichcontains the following three elements: a) the quantities by species transhipped during the previousyear, b) the list of authorized LSTLVs that have transhipped at sea, and c) a summary flag Statereport on observer findings concerning the activities of its LSTLVs (paragraph 20).

In addition to reporting requirements by CPCs to the IOTC, there are a host of notificationobligations by masters of both LSTLVs and carrier vessels to flag, port and coastal States within thescheme – depending on the circumstances – which must be fulfilled. In summary, these obligationshave to do with prior notifications for transhipments and the submission of transhipmentdeclarations.

of 58

Res. 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme

The regional observer scheme focuses on the needto increase scientific information. Its objective is tocollect verified catch data by species, as well asother relevant scientific data. Observers (andsamplers) under the scheme have no enforcementmandate or qualities. The programme targets bothat sea observations and sampling in the small-scale fisheries (samplers).

The observer scheme endeavours to cover 5% of all operations (segmented by gear type) for thefleet of each CPC, covering vessels of over 24m LOA, or under 24m if fishing outside their EEZ. Thetarget date to achieve this coverage is January 2013. The sampling scheme in the artisanal tunafisheries targets 5% coverage of total vessel activity.


Under the resolution, the CPCs have a number of obligations, which include the following: a) theybear the primary responsibility to develop their schemes and deploy their observers, so as to achievethe envisaged coverage; b) they have to ensure observers alternate between vessels; and c) theyhave to fund their observer schemes. With respect to the sampling scheme – as opposed to theobserver scheme – a part of the costs shall be covered from financial resources available to theCommission.


There are two specific reporting requirements going with this resolution. The first one refers to theproduction of an annual report flowing from each observer scheme. This report should detail thenumber of vessels monitored and the coverage achieved. Templates for reporting – for observers,but supposedly also for the annual CPC reports – shall be developed by the Scientific Committee inthe future (paragraph 15), leaving the exact outline of the annual observer report to the discretionof each CPC. The deadline is not defined, and it is therefore assumed that this information should bemade available with the annual reporting under Article X of the Agreement.

With respect to observers placed on longline vessels, observer reports submitted to flag CPCs of thelongline vessels should be forwarded in raw format to the IOTC Secretary within 150 days of theirsubmission. The ideal geo-referenced reporting format for information contained in these reportsshould be in 1°x1° format.


This resolution partially supersedes Resolution01/02. It is an important resolution which lays thefoundation to identify the vessels authorized bytheir flag States to operate in the IOTC area ofcompetence. The resolution embodies the directtranslation of the IPOA-IUU principle that RFMOs











of 58

should develop records of fishing vessels authorized to fish in their areas of competence.

The record targets all vessels over 24m in length, and below 24m in length if they are operatingoutside of their EEZ and authorized to fish tuna and tuna-like resources in the IOTC area. Authorizedfishing vessels are referred to as AFVs.


The resolution requires of flag States to exercise their responsibilities with respect to vessels theyformally authorise to operate in the area and to take the necessary measures to ensure complianceby those vessels with applicable IOTC CMMs. Vessels to be allowed onto the record must have noIUU fishing history (unless relevant ownership changes have occurred) and flag States should ensurethat ownership of vessels is held by citizens or legal entities of the flag States – so that relevantjurisdiction may be exerted. CPCs must outlaw fishing for tuna and tuna-like species by vessels notauthorized and listed in the record.

With regard to the statistical documents programme, only documents of AFVs on the record may bevalidated and during importation of products, controls should be carried out to ensure that vesselson validated documents appear on the record (this being a market State requirement).

CPCs have an obligation to inform the IOTC Secretary of any factual information giving rise tosuspicions about fishing vessels not on the record operating in the IOTC area of competence.


Reporting requirements are primarily related to the establishment and maintenance of the list. FlagStates have to submit their list of authorized vessels to the IOTC Secretary, following a setinformation format provided in paragraph 2. The list has been created in 2003 and, therefore, allinitial deadlines, as referred in the resolutions have passed. Updates to the list should be undertakenin real time. No vessel must be allowed to operate in the area, unless the Secretariat has beeninformed of the addition of such vessel to the list.

A second reporting requirement relates to internal actions or measures flag States have taken withrespect to their fleets, in light of the technical requirements accruing to them under this resolution.After 2003 – year in which the first such report was demanded – this report should be submitted ona yearly basis; presumably as part of the annual report under Article X of the Agreement.

A final event-based reporting requirement relates to the notification of factual information to theIOTC Secretary, which establishes reasonable grounds for suspecting that specific fishing vessels noton the record are or have been engaged in fishing operations within the IOTC area of competence –so that appropriate action may be taken by the Commission (paragraph 8). It is presumed that thisreporting should be done in real time, on a case by case basis.

of 58

Res. 05/05: Conservation of Sharks

This resolution, which supersedes Resolution 02/02,pursues the objective of protecting and conservingsharks which are caught as bycatch in fisheriesunder IOTC management and, which are often theobject of ad hoc, or more targeted shark finningoperations.


The resolution lays a short, but concise number of technical requirements, which – if implemented –will contribute substantially in reducing shark mortality related to finning and discarding of mutilatedindividuals.

In essence, the resolution establishes that sharks retained on-board must be fully utilised. Shark finson-board any vessel may not constitute more than 5% by weight of all shark produce on-board – atthe point of first landing (paragraphs 3 and 4). Retaining on board, transhipping or landing of sharkfins harvested in contravention of the resolution is prohibited (paragraph 6).

Nonbinding clauses suggest CPCs to encourage the live release of sharks and to conduct researchinto sharks.


There is a single reporting requirement under this resolution, which concerns the submission ofannual shark data, in accordance with IOTC data reporting procedures, to the IOTC. The submissionof available historical data is also mandated (paragraph 1).

No information or feedback is sought on the implementation of the measure.

Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical DocumentProgramme

Bigeye tuna is the only species under the IOTCmanagement mandate that currently falls under theremit of a statistical document programme. Thisprogramme has been in place for over a decade.Recognizing the value of the stock and the pressureexerted on it, its stated aims are to reduce uncertainty about Bigeye tuna catches through thecollection of market data and to reduce the opportunities for IUU fishing operations to put illegallyharvested catches on the market.

Purse seine and pole and line vessel catches destined to canneries in the region are exempted fromthis resolution.








Reporting templates: 1 Excel file and 2 Word files




of 58

An IOTC Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document and an IOTC Bigeye Tuna Re-Export Certificate arecreated. These documents must be validated by a government official of the flag State (for fishingvessels and catches), or of the re-exporting State (in the case of re-exportation) (paragraph 2). In thecase of importation of Bigeye tuna into their territory, CPC market States must demand a copy of thevalidated statistical document or re-export certificate – and the provision of supplying suchcertificates is made to apply to exporting non-CPCs into CPC territories also (paragraph 1).

CPCs exporting and/or importing Bigeye tuna have to compile all data arising under this programme.Following reception of third States import data from the IOTC Secretary, compiled from previousperiods, exporting CPCs must examine/cross-check their export data in light of the compiled andshared import data.


Bigeye tuna can be exported in three principal ways: directly through transhipment at sea, bylanding directly in a foreign port, or by landing in a national port and dispatching products by freight.In all three cases, the validating authority of the originating product is of the flag State (albeit that inthe third case, and permitting for processing to occur, it also becomes the remit of the marketState). CPC flag States, as exporters of Bigeye tuna, are required to inform the Commission of theoutcomes of their data cross-checking efforts (compiled third State import data received from theIOTC Secretary vs. national export data) mentioned under the previous paragraph; on an annualbasis (paragraph 6). No date is specified, and it is assumed that such reporting would coincide withreporting falling under Article X of the Agreement.

There is no requirement for exporters to submit consolidated export information to the IOTC, whilethere is such a requirement for imports, addressing market States (see section under the sameheading under the chapter on Market State CMMs).

Requirements under primarily coastal State CMMs


This resolution, which aims at creating a record offoreign flagged fishing vessels licensed to fish in theEEZs of coastal CPCs, is presented in full under thesame heading in the chapter on Coastal State CMMs.

Technical and Reporting requirements

There are no technical requirements under this resolution and key reporting requirements primarilyrelate to the coastal State. However, in cases where government-to government fisheriesagreements exist between CPC coastal States and flag States, both States are required to submit ajoint notification to the Commission before the commencement of fishing activities. The list of itemsto report covers fishing vessel details (paragraph 2), plus an additional list of 7 items relatedprimarily to the clauses of the agreement itself. The additional information relates to the period ofvalidity of the agreement, possible limits on catches, MCS arrangements, etc. Information, as






of 58

specified, relating to these agreements already in force in 2012, at the time of the promulgation ofthis resolution, should still be made available to the Commission 60 days prior to its meeting in 2013(i.e. information should be submitted as part of the annual reporting). Likewise, any modifications tosuch agreements should give rise to a prompt notification of the Commission.

Requirements under primarily port State CMMs

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures

This resolution, which introduces a full-fledged PSMregime throughout the IOTC area of competenceand CPC port States receiving catches from thisarea, is described in full under the same heading inthe chapter on Port State CMMs.


In implementing this resolution, CPCs are called upon to apply the tenets to vessels not flying theirflag (paragraph 3.1) – therefore, making it a resolution largely directed at port State action.However, part 5 of the resolution directly talks to flag States. In this part, flag State CPCs are askedto cooperate with port State inspections and to encourage its vessels to use designated ports for itsoperations. In case of proven infringements, flag States should take immediate and full investigationand enforcement action – as necessary – and guarantee equally effective penalties to be levelledagainst its own IUU operators, as would be levelled against foreign operators.


A single event-based reporting requirement is provided for flag States. In the event of a port Statedetection of IUU fishing by one of its vessels, the flag State is required to inform other CPCs, otherrelevant States, relevant RFMOs and the FAO, on actions it has taken in respect of such vessel. Noparticular deadlines are attached to this reporting requirement and the IOTC Secretariat or theCommission is not specifically mentioned. However, it is implied here, that the first relevant RFMOto inform of actions relating to infringements detected in CPC ports would be the IOTC.

This requirement is also reflected in similar terms in paragraph 5 of Resolution 05/03.

Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port

This resolution, which focuses on the centralfunction of the port as a place for inspections andfor relevant controls to be exerted over fisheriesoperations, is described in full under the sameheading in the chapter on Port State CMMs.


There are no technical requirements accruing to the flag State under this resolution. There is merelyan event-based reporting requirement; in cases where a vessel flying a State’s flag is detected in athird party port to have infringed IOTC CMMs and the flag State has received full documentation and











of 58

inspection reports on the matter from the port State, the flag State is required to transmit to theCommission the details of the actions it has taken with respect to the matter. In this provision, theport State that detected the offence is not required to be informed by the flag State of actions taken.




This complex resolution, which aims at providing amechanism to report, list and bring sanctions againstIUU fishing vessels, entails a number of technicaland reporting requirements which address the flagState – and some key requirements which addressthe flag State of listed IUU vessels in particular.


For the flag State, technical requirements relate primarily to the prosecution and sanctioning of IUUvessels flying its flag. In terms of implementing sanctions against listed vessels of third parties, theflag State is to prohibit transhipments which involve listed IUU vessels; it is to prohibit the charteringof such vessels; and it is to deny its flag to such listed vessels, unless it obtains sufficient evidencethat beneficiary ownership of the vessel has changed and/or other evidence that this vessel will notindulge in IUU fishing operations anymore (paragraphs 16.a, c, and d).


Reporting requirements present several layers of possible obligations, depending on the specificprocess underway;

For third party vessels detected by flag States to having infringed binding IOTC CMMs (by theirvessels at sea, or otherwise), flag States should submit a list of such vessels to the IOTC Secretary –at least 70 days ahead of the annual meeting of the Commission (paragraphs 2 and 3). The format inwhich this information should be submitted is prescribed in Annex I of the resolution. This formatprescribes that the list should be submitted alongside relevant evidence substantiating the claimsmade against vessels included on the list.

In relation to its own IUU-listed vessels, the flag State must submit information on its remedialactions to IOTC, in order to achieve removal of its vessel(s) from the list. This applies to CPCs, asmuch as it applies to NCPs. In order for vessels to be removed from the provisional IUU list, the flagState must submit information that proves that the vessel did not operate illegally, or that effectivepunitive measures of adequate severity have been implemented against the vessel and its operators(paragraph 10). For the deletion of a vessel from the definitive IUU vessel list, the flag state mustsubmit information and supporting evidence, showing that: a) adopted measures will make the






of 58

vessel conform to CMMs; b) it will implement adequate MCS measures with respect to that vessel; c)sanctions of adequate severity have been imposed; and d) and the vessel has changed ownership.

All States, including flag States, may submit additional evidence or information to the IOTCSecretariat at any time to contribute to the functioning of the IUU vessel list. However, this option,as well as all others under the resolution, is not binding (paragraphs 8 and 14).

All States, including flag States, are firmly encouraged to notify the Secretary – in form of a vote – onwhether to keep specific vessels on the list, within 30 days of the Secretary submitting a proposaland supporting evidence to remove, or to keep (depending on the circumstances) specific vesselsfrom/on the list (paragraphs 14 and 22).




The resolution contains no technical requirements. It establishes a mechanism whereby the IOTCSecretariat dispatches a questionnaire on compliance to all CPCs, and CPCs are required to returnthat questionnaire filled. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.




The resolution exhorts States to investigate and sanction convicted offenders and to cooperate withother parties in the investigation of alleged offences. CPCs are required to submit reports on actionsand measures undertaken. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the Chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.











of 58


All States are to submit an annual report underArticle X of the agreement, and that requirement,which naturally applies to flag States also, isdescribed under the same heading in the chapter onCross Cutting CMMs.

In addition to this, a number of resolutionsaddressing flag States define reporting requirements which are to be honoured under the samedeadline which applies to the submission of the annual report under Article X. These reportingrequirements have all been highlighted under the relevant resolutions in this chapter. They aremerely repeated here in order to provide a recapitulating overview of these requirements;

Res. 12/12 on large-scale high seas drift net fishing: report on MCS actions; Res. 12/07 on Record of licensed Foreign Vessels: report on Government-to-Government

fisheries agreements and licenses issued; Res. 12/04 on marine turtles: report on implementation of the FAO guidelines and the

resolution; Res. 11/04 on Regional Observer Scheme: report on vessels monitored and achieved

coverage; Res. 10/06 on Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds: report on interaction and bycatch data; Res. 12/13 on Management of Tropical Tuna: provide fleet VMS summary; Res. 07/02 on Record of authorized Vessels: report on internal actions or measures taken

with respect to their fleets; Res. 01/06 on Bigeye Statistical Programme: report on data cross-checking (imports vs

exports).






of 58

CHAPTER 4 – Port State CMMs

For resolutions engendering reporting requirements, there is one active resolution exclusivelytargeting the port State and there is one active resolution focusing primarily on the port State. Otherport State aspects fall under resolutions primarily targeting other State types. With the port Statebeing primarily recognized as a tool for the collection of statistics, inspection and law enforcement,this serves to underline that to date, the approach to addressing MCS requirements through portState action has been tapped into to a modest extent only.

However, for those port State CMMs that are in place today – especially Resolution 10/11 on PortState Measures (PSM) – it is clear that their full implementation would contribute massively to thecombating of IUU fishing throughout the IOTC area of competence, and beyond.

Port States have obligations under nine of the resolutions containing reporting requirements. Noneof these address the port State exclusively. These resolutions, and the obligations they contain, areoutlined in this chapter.

Under resolutions which primarily addresses the port State:

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port

Under resolutions, which primarily address flag States, the following three resolutions containspecific requirements for port States:

Res. 12/13: Management of tropical Tuna Res. 12/05: Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels

These three resolutions are presented in full in the flag State CMMs chapter. In this chapter, only therequirements for port States are presented.

Under the resolution, which primarily addresses the Market State, the following resolution applies:

Res. 10/10: Market related Measures

Under resolutions which are cross-cutting, the following three resolutions plus the IOTC Agreementapply:


These three resolutions are presented in full in chapter 6. In this chapter, only the requirements forport States are presented.

of 58

Requirements under primarily port State CMMs

Res. 10/11: Port State Measures

The 2010 resolution on Port State Measures is one ofthe longest and most complex resolutions in the line-up of IOTC’s CMMs. In essence, it transcribes thesubstance of the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port StateMeasures, and makes it mandatory for the IOTC areaof competence and its Members. In doing so, itintroduces a much more comprehensive port State control scheme, than the one provided for underResolution 05/03 (Programme of Inspection in Port).

It is a challenge to provide a summary of this resolution here, and readers are encouraged to look atthe original text alongside this set of following paragraphs, in order to ensure a full understanding ofthis important resolution.


With the exception of part 5 of the resolution, provisions of this resolution primarily address theport State. In doing so, the resolution establishes a comprehensive mechanism to bring about a portState control framework applicable to CPCs. This framework calls on port States to: a) designateports authorized to receive foreign fishing vessels; b) request advance port entry notice and issueentry authorizations or denials, depending of compliance profile of vessels requesting entry; c)inspect at least 5% of all landings or transhipments each year – applying minimum inspectionstandards to its work; causing minimum interference, and, d) to train its port inspectors in line withguidelines provided in the resolution.

Part 5 of the resolution addresses flag States, requesting them: a) to ensure their vessels cooperatewith port State authorities; b) to ask port State authorities to inspect their vessels if there is reasonto believe infringements have occurred; c) to use ports acting in line with this resolution; d) and toduly investigate and sanction its vessels on the basis of information received through port Stateinspections.


The major reporting obligation under the resolution is to communicate to the IOTC Secretariat thelist of designated ports as a one-off communication. The deadline for this communication was the31st December, 2010, and has lapsed. It is assumed, however, that those CPCs that have missed thedeadline, and are still in the process of designating their ports, are to submit their list of designatedports as soon as it is available.

In terms of recurrent reporting, port States are required to transmit electronically all individualinspection reports to the flag State and the IOTC Secretariat within three working days of thecompletion of the inspection, and to other States as appropriate.

With respect to the detection of infringements, port States should immediately notify the flag State,the IOTC Secretariat, other RFMOs and the State of which the master is a national.






of 58

Res. 05/03: Programme of Inspection in Port

This resolution, which supersedes Resolution 02/01of the same title, engenders (almost) exclusiveduties for the port State. Its focus is on the centralfunction of the port as a place for inspections andfor relevant controls to be exerted over fisheriesoperations. Large swathes of this resolution areduplicated in more detailed form by Resolution 10/11 on Port State Measures, without, however,being superseded.


The resolution provides that port States may inspect fishing vessels that are voluntarily in their ports(paragraph 3), staying shy of instructing CPCs to actually organise such inspections on a mandatorybasis. However, port States are required to adopt national regulations to prohibit landings andtranshipments from IOTC non-contracting parties where it can be established that catches havebeen taken in a manner which undermines the effectiveness of IOTC conservation and managementefforts (paragraph 5). On the other hand, in the case of detected infringements by CPCs, theresolution does not mentions punitive actions the port State might or should undertake. It is merelyindicated that the flag State is required to inform the Commission (but not the port State where theinfraction was detected) on actions taken with respect to its vessel and the detected infringement(s)(paragraph 5).


There is a single recurrent reporting requirement attached to this resolution. On 1st July, annually,port States are required to submit to the IOTC Secretary the list of foreign vessels that have landedtuna and tuna-like species in their ports. This particular requirement is not duplicated in Resolution10/11 on Port State Measures.

An event-based reporting requirement is mandated in cases where a third party CPC vessel in port isdetected to have infringed IOTC CMMs. Port States are then required to notify such occurrences tothe flag State and the Commission, providing full documentary evidence, including records ofinspection (paragraph 5). This reporting should occur in real time and on a case-by-case basis.






of 58



This resolution, which introduces a series of management toolsdirected at tropical tunas, has been presented in full under thesame heading in the chapter on flag State CMMs.


As a CPC, port States are to deny the landing or the transhipment related to products that have beenfished in contravention with this resolution.

In terms of reporting requirements, as specifically relating to the area closure, port State CPCs shallinform the IOTC Secretary, 45 days before the entry into force of the closure, on what administrativesteps have been taken to ensure that no landings or transhipments takes place from vessels nothaving respected the area closure.


This resolution, which aims to bring transhipment oflarge-scale vessels under a regime of monitoringand control, is presented in full under the sameheading in the chapter on flag State CMMs. Itestablishes – with an exception for LSTLVs – that alltranshipments of tuna and tuna-like species musttake place in port.


Technical requirements for the port State relate specifically to transhipments and landings oftranshipped catches to be made in its ports (Annex I). Such transhipments and landings do notrequire prior formal authorization by the port State (addressed in Resolution 10/11), but theyrequire the port State to verify the accuracy of information received pertaining to landings.


Paragraph 20 lays down that CPCs shall report annually before the 15th September to the IOTCExecutive Secretary the quantities of species transhipped during the previous year, as well as theLSTLVs having transhipped.

The quantities of species and volumes transhipped should be known to the port State through theimplementation of the notification obligations (Annex I to the resolution), and information thatvessels informing of upcoming transhipments and /or landings must submit to the port State.











of 58


This resolution, which lays the foundation toidentify the vessels authorized by their flag Statesto operate in the IOTC area of competence, ispresented in full under the same heading in thechapter on flag State CMMs.


Under this resolution, the port State CPC is given specific responsibilities to prohibit the landingand/or transhipment of products from vessels not listed on the record (paragraph 7.a).

One event-based reporting requirement arises if and when a suspected infringement to thisresolution is detected – namely when the suspicion arises that specific vessels not on the list of AFVshave engaged in fishing operations (including transhipment) in the IOTC area of competence. In sucha case, the port State – as a CPC – shall submit to the IOTC Secretary all factual information thatsubstantiates such suspicion.

Requirements under primarily market State CMMs


This resolution represents an effort to translate thenon-binding Recommendation 03/05 concerningTrade related Measures into a binding resolution. Itis presented in full under the chapter on MarketState CMMs.


Technical requirements are few. Paragraph 1 establishes that port States “should, as much aspossible” collect and examine relevant data on landings and transhipments. The collection of someof these data is mandatory under Resolution 12/05 on Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels(paragraph 20).


The resolution encourages port States to submit the information on landings and transhipments tothe Commission, annually, 60 days before it meeting. This submission thus falls under the remit ofArticle X of the Agreement.

The resolution also encourages CPCs to notify the Commission of the measures taken nationally forthe enforcement of market related measures levelled against another CPC or NCP. No deadline forsubmission is provided.











of 58

Finally, for CPCs being identified as non-compliant by the Commission, they are given the option torespond in writing to the Commission 30 days before its meeting, providing elements in support ofannulling the identification. Such elements could be in the form of evidence refuting allegations, orplans of actions for improvement, and possible steps already undertaken.




This complex resolution, which aims at providing amechanism to report, list and bring sanctions againstIUU fishing vessels, entails a number of technicalmeasures and reporting requirements, which alsoaddress the port State.


For the port State, technical requirements relate primarily to the collection of evidence and thesubmission of evidence to the IOTC Secretariat. This applies to port States, as it does to all States.There is one further technical requirement targeting the port State (also) in the list of measures CPCsmust undertake with respect to listed IUU fishing vessels. Paragraph 16.b) and 16.e) stipulates thatthe port State shall prohibit landings, transhipments, refuelling, bunkering or any other commercialtransaction for IUU-listed vessels that have entered one of its ports voluntarily. Under Resolution12/05 on Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels, the port State is one of the parties providingauthorisations for transhipments in port, and these shall also be denied if an IUU listed vessel isinvolved.



For vessels detected by port States as having infringed binding IOTC CMMs (during port inspection,or otherwise) port States are required to submit a list of such vessels to the IOTC Secretary – at least70 days ahead of the annual meeting of the Commission (paragraphs 2 and 3). The format in whichthis information should be submitted is prescribed in Annex I of the resolution. This formatprescribes that the list should be submitted alongside relevant evidence substantiating the claimsmade against vessels included on the list.

All States, including port States, may submit additional evidence or information to the IOTCSecretariat at any time to contribute to the functioning of the IUU vessel list. However, this option,as well as all others under the resolution, is non-binding (paragraphs 8 and 14).






of 58

All States, including port States, are required to notify the Secretary – in form of a vote – on whetherto keep specific vessels on the list, within 30 days of the Secretary submitting a proposal andsupporting evidence to remove specific vessels from, or to keep them (depending on thecircumstances) on the list (paragraphs 14 and 22).






This resolution, which addresses a critical IPOA-IUUtenet on taking measures to discourage nationalssubject to a State’s jurisdiction from supporting orengaging in IUU fishing activities, addresses all States.


The resolution exhorts States to investigate and sanction convicted offenders and to cooperate withother parties in the investigation of alleged offences. CPCs are required to submit reports on actionsand measures undertaken. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the Chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.


All States are to submit an annual report underArticle X of the Agreement and that requirement,which naturally applies to port States also, isdescribed under the same heading in the chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.

In addition to this, one resolution addressing the coastal State defines a specific reportingrequirement which is to be honoured under the same deadline, which applies to the submission ofthe annual report under Article X. This reporting requirement has been highlighted under the
















of 58

relevant resolution in this chapter. It is merely repeated here in order to provide a recapitulatingoverview of the requirement;

Res. 10/10 on Market related Measures: submit information on landings and transhipments.

of 58

CHAPTER 5 – Market State CMMs

There are few CMMs in existence that provide for specific market State mechanisms. Market Statemechanisms often hinge around certification schemes implemented upstream in the chain ofcustody and made to bear in the marketing circuit. Market related measures generally aim to denyIUU products a market, therefore, destroying the value of the product.

There is one resolution, engendering reporting requirements, that is primarily targeting the marketState, while three others that target flag States primarily, also target market States to some extent.Hence, market States have obligations under a total of four resolutions. These resolutions, and theobligations they contain, are outlined in this chapter.

Under the resolution which primarily addresses the market State:


Under resolutions, which primarily address flag States, the following three resolutions containspecific requirements for market States:

Res. 12/13: Management of tropical Tuna Res. 07/02: Record of authorised Vessels Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical Document Programme

These three resolutions are presented in full in the flag State CMMs chapter. In this chapter, only therequirements for market States will be presented.

Under resolutions which are cross-cutting, the following three resolutions plus the IOTC Agreementapply:


These three resolutions are presented in full in the Cross Cutting CMMs chapter. In this chapter, onlythe requirements for market States will be presented.

Requirements under primarily market State CMMs


This resolution represents an effort to translate thenon-binding Recommendation 03/05 concerningTrade related Measures into a binding resolution.However, in doing so, the resolution falls short onproviding a single “shall” clause – implying that thereare no actions that must be undertaken by a CPC, the






of 58

Commission, the Secretariat or the Compliance Committee. However, the resolution does endow theactors of the IOTC with the necessary powers to undertake action under the resolution – should theychose to do so. The resolution signals a step forward in the intent of the Commission to ensure thatCMMs are adhered to by CPCs and NCPs (as appropriate) alike.

The primary objective of the resolution is to “identify” CPCs who fail to implement IOTC CMMs andto level trade sanctions against them (translating into “market related measures”) in order to forcethem into compliance. The same applies to NCPs failing to discharge their duties under internationallaw and undermining the effectiveness of IOTC CMMs. A second, more subsidiary element of theresolution is to gain a better understanding of market dynamics (imports and landings) in CPCmarkets / ports.


Technical requirements are few. Paragraph 1 establishes that market States “should, as much aspossible” collect and examine relevant data on imports. The same applies to port States for landingsand transhipment data. In the latter instance, the collection of some of these data is mandatoryunder Resolution 12/05 on Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels (paragraph 20).

The remainder of the resolution lays down actions to be undertaken by the Commission, theSecretariat and the Compliance Committee in the process of identifying, notifying, and undertakingpossible actions against CPCs or NCPs. In this process, CPCs are voting as members of theCommission to support or reject the proposals made by the Compliance Committee.

It is implicit (paragraph 7) that CPCs are expected to implement whatever sanctions have been votedat their level.


The resolution encourages market States and port States to submit information on imports andlandings/transhipments collected to the Commission, annually, 60 days before its meeting. Thissubmission thus falls under the remit of Article X of the Agreement. However, it is not a bindingrequirement – just a firm encouragement.

The resolution also encourages CPCs to notify the Commission of the measures taken nationally forthe enforcement of market related measures levelled against another CPC or NCP, following asuccessful identification by the Commission. No deadline is provided for the submission of thisinformation. Again, as above, this is not a binding requirement – just a firm encouragement.

Finally, for CPCs being identified as non-compliant by the Commission, they are given the option torespond in writing to the Commission 30 days before its meeting, providing elements in support ofannulling the identification. Such elements could be in the form of evidence refuting allegations orplans of actions for improvement, and possible steps already undertaken.

of 58



This resolution, which is presented in full under thesame heading under the chapter on flag StateCMMs, introduces a series of management toolsdirected at tropical tunas.


As a CPC, market States are to prohibit all commercial transactions related to products that havebeen fished in contravention with this resolution. They are also to inform their industries of the areaclosure that is provided for under the resolution (paragraphs 2 and 7.b).

In terms of reporting requirements, as specifically relating to the area closure, market State CPCsshall inform the IOTC Secretary, 45 days before the entry into force of the closure, on whatadministrative steps have been taken to ensure that no products from vessels not having respectedthe area closure may enter the commercial circuit.


This resolution, which lays the foundation to identifythe vessels authorised by their flag States to operatein the IOTC area of competence, is presented in fullunder the same heading in the chapter on flag StateCMMs.


Under this resolution, the market State CPC is given specific responsibilities to ensure compliancewith the Statistical Document Programme (paragraph 7.b) established under Resolution 01/06. Indoing so, the market State importing species covered by the Statistical Document Programme mustensure that the document is accompanying the products and that the vessels having landed themare on the Record of Authorised Vessels. In addition to this, the market State is required tocooperate with the flag State to ensure documents are not forged or contain wrong information.

One event-based reporting requirement arises if and when a suspected infringement to thisresolution is detected – namely when the suspicion arises that specific vessels not on the list of AFVshave engaged in fishing operations (including transhipment) in the IOTC area of competence. In sucha case, the market State – as a CPC – shall submit to the IOTC Secretary all factual information thatsubstantiates such suspicion.










Other related passages: page 16 and 42

of 58

Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical DocumentProgramme

This resolution, which aims to reduce uncertaintyabout Bigeye tuna catches through the collection ofmarket data and to reduce the opportunities to putillegally harvested catches on the market, has beenpresented in full under the same heading in thechapter on flag State CMMs.


In the case of re-exportation, the IOTC Bigeye Tuna Re-Export Certificate must be validated by agovernment official of the re-exporting market State (paragraph 2). In the case of importation ofBigeye tuna into their territory, CPC market States must demand a copy of the IOTC Bigeye TunaStatistical Document (validated by the flag State) or re-export certificate (validated by another thirdmarket State).

CPCs exporting and/or importing Bigeye tuna have to compile all data arising under this programme.Following reception of import data from the IOTC Secretary compiled from previous periods (seereporting requirements below), exporting CPCs must examine/cross-check their export data in lightof the compiled and shared import data.


CPC market States, as exporters and re-exporters of Bigeye tuna, are required to inform theCommission of the outcomes of their data cross-checking efforts (compiled third State import datareceived from the IOTC Secretary vs. national export data) mentioned in the foregoing paragraph; onan annual basis (paragraph 6). No date is specified, and it is assumed that such reporting wouldcoincide with reporting falling under Article X of the Agreement.

The market State, as an importer of Bigeye products (from vessels other than purse seiners and poleand line vessels exporting to canneries in the region) has to report collected data twice a year to theIOTC Secretary: on 1st April for the period July 1st to December 31st of the previous year, and onOctober 1st for the period 1st January to 30th June of the current year.




Reporting templates: 1 Excel file and 2 Word files




of 58


This complex resolution, which aims at providing amechanism to report, list and bring sanctions againstIUU fishing vessels, entails a number of technical andreporting requirements which also address themarket State.


For the market State, technical requirements relate primarily to the collection of evidence and thesubmission of evidence to the IOTC Secretariat. This applies to market States, as it does to all States.There are three specific technical requirements targeting the market State (also) in the list ofmeasures CPCs must undertake with respect to listed IUU fishing vessels. Paragraph 16 stipulatesthat the market State shall; a) prohibit imports of products from IUU-listed vessels into its territory;b) encourage importers, transporters and other actors in the chain of custody to refrain from dealingin products of known IUU sources; and c) to collect and exchange relevant information with otherCPCs to ascertain the authenticity of import and export certificates from vessels included in the IUUvessel list.



For third party vessels detected by market States to having infringed binding IOTC CMMs (bysubmitting falsified documentation, or otherwise), market States should submit a list of such vesselsto the IOTC Secretary – at least 70 days ahead of the annual meeting of the Commission (paragraphs2 and 3). The format in which this information should be submitted is prescribed in Annex I of theresolution. This format prescribes that the list should be submitted alongside relevant evidencesubstantiating the claims made against vessels included on the list.

All States, including market States, may submit additional evidence or information to the IOTCSecretariat at any time to contribute to the functioning of the IUU vessel list. However, this option,as well as all others under the resolution, is non-binding (paragraphs 8 and 14).

All States, including market States, are required to notify the Secretary – in form of a vote – onwhether to keep specific vessels on the list, within 30 days of the Secretary submitting a proposaland supporting evidence to remove specific vessels from, or to keep them (depending on thecircumstances) on the list (paragraphs 14 and 22).


This resolution, which primarily defines theobjectives, mandate and terms of reference of theCompliance Committee, provides a monitoring











of 58

framework for the implementation of IOTC management measures by CPCs.






The resolution exhorts States to investigate and sanction convicted offenders and to cooperate withother parties in the investigation of alleged offences. CPCs are required to submit reports on actionsand measures undertaken. The procedure is described in full under the same heading in the chapteron Cross Cutting CMMs.


All States are to submit an annual report underArticle X of the Agreement, and that requirement,which naturally applies to market States also, isdescribed under the same heading in the chapter onCross Cutting CMMs.

In addition to this, a number of resolutions addressing flag States define reporting requirementswhich are to be honoured under the same deadline which applies to the submission of the annualreport under Article X. These reporting requirements have all been highlighted under the relevantresolutions in this chapter. They are merely repeated here in order to provide a recapitulatingoverview of these requirements;

Res. 10/10 on Market related Measures: submit information on imports and landings/transhipments from market and port States;

Res. 01/06: Bigeye Statistical Document Programme: report on outcomes of data cross-checking routines.











of 58

CHAPTER 6 – Cross Cutting CMMs & duties from the Agreement

Cross-cutting CMMs target all States, and no State in particular. In some cases, as for resolution07/01 promoting compliance of nationals with IOTC CMMs, none of the classic State types to whichmaritime affairs generally respond – and forming the backbone of this manual and the segmentationof its chapters – even applies. While a resolution may “talk” more to the one or the other type ofState, all CPCs are targeted through their quality of being CPCs, and these resolutions applying to allMembers – regardless of their particular involvement in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries as coastal, port,market or flag States.

Resolutions which are cross-cutting, and which will be presented in full in this chapter, are thefollowing:

Res. 11/03: List of presumed IUU Vessels Res. 10/09: Functions of the Compliance Committee Res. 07/01: Compliance by Nationals

This chapter also highlights the duties arising under Article X of the IOTC Agreement. This articleprovides for an annual reporting requirement, and several resolutions – as indicated in earlierchapters – take advantage of Article X for the submission of information under those resolutions tothe IOTC Secretariat or the Commission.



This resolution, which supersedes earlier versions ofthe resolution (Res. 09/03 and Res. 06/01), providesfor a so-called “black list” of IUU fishing vessels. It isone of the resolutions in IOTC’s arsenal to directlyaddress and combat IUU fishing. As such, itcomplements Resolution 07/01 on Compliance byNationals, another cross-cutting resolution directly addressing and combating IUU fishing also (seefurther below).

The resolution lays down a rather complex system for listing IUU fishing vessels. The mechanismoperates as follows; on the basis of information submitted to the IOTC Secretary by CPCs(paragraphs 2 and 3), a draft IUU vessel list is drawn up. The draft list is circulated to flag State CPCsand NCPs of the vessels listed – together with the existing evidence 55 days in advance of the annualmeeting of the Commission (paragraph 4). It pertains to those flag States to then inform their vesselowners, and monitor the vessels closely (paragraphs 5 and 6), and they may transmit any commentsback to the Secretary until 15 days before the annual meeting (paragraph 4). Two weeks ahead ofthe annual meeting of the Commission, the IOTC Secretary draws up a provisional IUU vessel list,based on the same information, plus any additional feedback received, and this list is circulated to allCPCs who in turn may supply additional information concerning the cases (paragraphs 7 and 8). It





Other related passages: pages 17, 35, 43 and 50

of 58

pertains to the Compliance Committee to examine the provisional IUU list and the additionalinformation received and to submit a finalised provisional list to the Commission for adoption(paragraph 12). If adopted by the Commission, the list becomes the “IUU Vessels List” (paragraph13). The resolution makes provision to eliminate vessels from the list during Commission meetings(paragraph 10 and 12.b), as well as the inter-sessional removal of vessels from the list (paragraphs19 to 22). It also allows for more time for submission of evidence in case the Commission is unableto take a decision (paragraph 14). In all cases, it is the Commission which votes for vessels to leave orenter the list; always with a two thirds majority.


What constitutes IUU fishing in the IOTC area of competence is defined in paragraph 1 of theresolution; listing ten specific actions that would be regarded as IUU fishing. All of these pointsembody actions that run afoul of the substance of IOTC resolutions and/or international maritimelaw. All CPCs can potentially detect such infringements in their respective and often overlappingcapacities as costal, port, flag and/or market States – and are encouraged to do so. With respect toflag States whose vessels are listed, the requirement to sanction offenders is less silent, as they arerequested to “take all necessary measures” to eliminate IUU fishing activities of vessels that havebeen listed (paragraph 15.b).

The non-silent part of the resolution relates to what CPCs other than the flag State are required toundertake with respect to listed IUU vessels (paragraph 16). A list of seven specific items, to beimplemented by coastal, flag, port and market States, sometimes individually and sometimes insolidarity, cover actions such as the prohibition to allow products from listed vessels to be landed,the prohibition to tranship onto/from listed vessels, the prohibition to grant a flag to such vessels,etc. These actions are specified in detail in this manual under the same resolution heading in therespective chapters on coastal, flag, port and market State CMMs.

In inter-sessional periods, and given a vote is proposed, all CPCs are actively encouraged to informthe IOTC Secretariat on their vote for or against the listing of specific vessels, or the removal of listedIUU vessels from the list, following the Secretariat’s provision of information and request to the CPCto cast such a vote (paragraphs 14, 21 and 22).


There are several reporting requirements in the resolution, and these depend on the specific processthat is being considered.

A binding requirement, regarding all States, is to submit annually a list of vessels presumed to haveengaged in IUU fishing in the IOTC area of competence. This list should be submitted 70 days beforethe annual meeting of the Commission. However, it is assumed that if no such vessels weredetected, no list will have to be submitted for lack of substance.

Other reporting requirements are non-binding, and provide the possibility for States to submitadditional information (evidence) on listed vessels at different points in time of the procedure(paragraph 8 and 14.a).

of 58

For CPC flag States whose vessels have been listed, and/or who wish to have them removed fromthe list, the reporting requirements are specified in detail under the same resolution in the chapteron flag State CMMs.


This resolution, which supersedes Resolution 02/03,defines the mandate and functions of theCompliance Committee; one of the subsidiary bodiesof the Commission. The mandate of the ComplianceCommittee is to review all aspects of individual CPCcompliance with IOTC CMMs and, based on its findings, to make appropriate recommendations tothe Commission. In doing so, it provides a structured forum for discussion of compliance relatedchallenges throughout the IOTC area of competence and a mechanism to suggest remedial action.

The Compliance Committee prepares an annual report, complete with recommendations, which issubmitted to the Commission for consideration.


There are no technical requirements accruing to CPCs under this resolution.

All CPCs receive a standard questionnaire from the IOTC Secretariat four months prior to the annualmeeting of the Commission. The questionnaire evaluates compliance with a selection of resolutions.This questionnaire is to be returned completed, and with possible additional comments, to theSecretariat within 45 days of having received it (paragraph 4.1.i).

All CPCs receive a copy of all responses and comments submitted to the Secretariat, and may submitfurther comments or questions with respect to other CPCs answers (paragraph 4.1.ii). No explicitdeadline for the provision of these comments is defined in the resolution. However, based on theschedule provided for the next step in the process (paragraph 4.2), these comments would have tobe submitted within a couple of weeks, in order to be included in the information to be submitted tonon-compliant CPCs ahead of the meeting of the Compliance Committee.


This resolution aims to curb potential illegal fishingbehaviour by natural (individuals) or legal persons(companies), by requiring States to effectivelysubject them to their jurisdiction, and sanctionthem for proven offences. This approach is basedon the tenets of the IPOA-IUU on the same matter,enshrined in its paragraphs 9.3, 18 and 19. It addresses all Member States equally.


The resolution calls on all States to investigate allegations and reports of individuals or companiesengaging in IUU fishing operations, and if illegal actions are verified, to take appropriate action.











of 58

Cooperation with other CPCs in the course of investigations is also mandated. Seeking cooperationfrom, and making their jurisdiction bear on companies (i.e. legal persons) is highlighted (paragraph1).


CPCs are required to submit reports to the IOTC Secretariat and other CPCs on actions and measurestaken under this resolution in a timely fashion.

Requirements under the Agreement

Article X of the Agreement is on “Implementation”,and provides for the fundamental principles ofimplementation of CMMs and the submission ofoperational information (relating to theimplementation of actions) to the Commission. Itaddresses all Member States equally.


Section 1 of Article X provides that Members are to take action under their national legislation togive effect to the Agreement and to implement the binding CMMs adopted by the Commission. Italso provides for the development of a mechanism to keep under review the implementation ofadopted CMMs (section 4) – and the Compliance Committee, and its objectives, mandate and TORmay readily be viewed to be part of such mechanism. Finally, section 4 requires Members tocooperate with NCPs to obtain data/information on their fishing activities.


Importantly also, Article X provides in section 2 a mechanism to report annually to the Commissionthe action undertaken under section 1 (see above) to guarantee the effective implementation ofbinding CMMs. The deadline for the submission of this annual report is 60 days before the annualmeeting of the Commission.






of 58

ANNEX I – List of active resolutions with long and short titles

Resolution Resolution title Short Title

12/13 For the Conservation and Management of tropicalTuna Stocks in the IOTC Area of Competence Management of tropical Tuna

12/12 To prohibit the use of Large-Scale Driftnets on theHigh Seas in the IOTC Area Large-Scale Driftnets on the High Seas

12/11On the Implementation of a limitation of FishingCapacity of Contracting Parties and CooperatingNon-Contracting Parties

Limitation of Fishing Capacity

12/09On the Conservation of Thresher Sharks (FamilyAlopiidae) caught in association with Fisheries inthe IOTC Area of Competence

Conservation of Thresher Sharks

12/07Concerning a Record of licensed foreign Vesselsfishing for IOTC Species in the IOTC Area ofCompetence and Access Agreement Information

Record of licensed foreign Vessels

12/05 On establishing a Programme for transhipment byLarge-Scale Fishing Vessels Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels

12/04 On the Conservation of Marine Turtles Conservation of Marine Turtles11/04 On a Regional Observer Scheme Regional Observer Scheme

11/03On establishing a List of Vessels presumed to havecarried out Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing in the IOTC Area of Competence

List of presumed IUU Vessels

10/11On Port State Measures to prevent, deter andeliminate Illegal, Unreported and UnregulatedFishing

Port State Measures

10/10 Concerning Market related Measures Market related Measures

10/09 Concerning the Functions of the ComplianceCommittee Functions of the Compliance Committee

10/08 Concerning a Record of active Vessels fishing forTunas and Swordfish in the IOTC Area Record of active Vessels

10/06 On reducing the incidental Bycatch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds

10/02Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTCMembers and Cooperating Non-ContractingParties (CPC’s)

Mandatory statistical Requirements

07/02 Concerning the establishment of an IOTC Recordof Vessels authorised to operate in the IOTC Area Record of authorised Vessels

07/01

To promote Compliance by Nationals ofContracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties with IOTC Conservation andManagement Measures

Compliance by Nationals

06/03 On establishing a Vessel Monitoring SystemProgramme Vessel Monitoring System

05/05 Concerning the Conservation of Sharks caught inassociation with Fisheries managed by IOTC Conservation of Sharks

05/03 Relating to the establishment of an IOTCProgramme of Inspection in Port Programme of Inspection in Port

01/06 Concerning the IOTC Bigeye Tuna StatisticalDocument Programme Bigeye Statistical Document Programme

of 58

ANNEX II – Implementation sheets

14 in total

Resolution Resolution Short Title Implementation sheet12/13 Management of tropical Tuna -12/12 Large-Scale Driftnets on the High Seas -12/11 Limitation of Fishing Capacity Yes12/09 Conservation of Thresher Sharks -12/07 Record of licensed foreign Vessels Yes12/05 Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels Yes12/04 Conservation of Marine Turtles -11/04 Regional Observer Scheme -11/03 List of presumed IUU Vessels Yes10/11 Port State Measures Yes10/10 Market related Measures Yes10/09 Functions of the Compliance Committee -10/08 Record of active Vessels Yes10/06 Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds -10/02 Mandatory statistical Requirements Yes07/02 Record of authorised Vessels Yes07/01 Compliance by Nationals Yes06/03 Vessel Monitoring System Yes05/05 Conservation of Sharks Yes05/03 Programme of Inspection in Port Yes01/06 Bigeye Statistical Document Programme Yes

of 58

ANNEX III – Reporting templates

19 files in total

Resolution Resolution Short Title Reporting template(s)12/13 Management of tropical Tuna Yes (1 Word file)12/12 Large-Scale Driftnets on the High Seas -12/11 Limitation of Fishing Capacity Yes (1 Excel file)12/09 Conservation of Thresher Sharks -12/07 Record of licensed foreign Vessels Yes (2 Excel files and 1 Word file)12/05 Transhipment by Large-Scale Fishing Vessels Yes (2 Excel files and 1 Word file)12/04 Conservation of Marine Turtles -11/04 Regional Observer Scheme -11/03 List of presumed IUU Vessels Yes (1 Word file)10/11 Port State Measures -10/10 Market related Measures Yes (1 Excel file)10/09 Functions of the Compliance Committee Yes (1 Word file)10/08 Record of active Vessels Yes (1 Excel file)10/06 Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds -10/02 Mandatory statistical Requirements Yes (several Excel files)07/02 Record of authorised Vessels Yes (1 Excel file)07/01 Compliance by Nationals -06/03 Vessel Monitoring System Yes (1 Word file)05/05 Conservation of Sharks -05/03 Programme of Inspection in Port Yes (1 Excel file)01/06 Bigeye Statistical Document Programme Yes (1 Excel file and 2 Word files)

Agreement (Article X) IOTC Agreement Yes (1 Word file)

indian ocean tuna commission commission des thons de … cmm... · 2014. 2. 4. · chapter 1 –...

Documents