2014 COM: Responses to Chair’s letters (CPs) Doc. No. COC ... · 2014 COM: Responses to Chair’s letters (CPs) Doc. No. COC-309A/2014 nov-14 (16:38) Page 3 of 38 CAPE VERDE DIRECÇÃO

2014 COM: Responses to Chair’s letters (CPs) Doc. No. COC-309A/2014 nov-14 (16:38)

Page 1 of 38

Original language: English/French/Spanish RESPONSES FROM CONTRACTING PARTIES TO LETTERS OF CONCERN

AND LETTERS OF IDENTIFICATION RECEIVED BEFORE 10 OCTOBER 2014

CPC Letter of concern Letter of identification No necessary

action

Reply received

Albania X

Algeria X

Angola X

Barbados X

Belize X

Brazil X

Canada X

Cap Vert X 13/09/2014

China X

Côte d'Ivoire X 08/10/2014

Curaçao X

Egypt X

European Union X 07/10/2014

France (St. P&M) X

Gabon X

Ghana X 02/10/2014

Guatemala X

Guinea Ecuatorial X

Guinée République X 17/09/2014

Honduras X

Iceland X

Japan X

Korea X

Libya X

Maroc X

Mauritanie X

México X 09/10/2014

Namibia X

Nicaragua X

Nigeria X 6/03/2014

Norway X

Panamá X 10/10/2014

Philippines X

Russia X

Sao Tome & Principe X

Sénégal X

Sierra Leone*

South Africa X

St. Vincent & G. X

Syria**

Trinidad & Tobago X

Tunisie X

Turkey X

UK-OT X

Uruguay

USA X

Vanuatu X

Venezuela*** * The Commission requested written confirmation of null catches in 2012 in accordance with Rec. 11-15.

**The Commission reminded Syria of its reporting obligations and requested confirmation of null catches in 2012 and 2013 in accordance

with Rec. 11-15.

***The Commission requested timely reporting and a report on national measures to reduce ALB and BUM overharvest.


Page 2 of 38

RESPONSES FROM COOPERATING NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES,

ENTITIES OR FISHING ENTITIES TO LETTERS OF CONCERN

AND LETTERS OF IDENTIFICATION

Flag Letter of

concern

Letter of

identification

No letter Reply received

Bolivia

Chinese Taipei X 09/10/2014

El Salvador

Suriname

Letters from the Secretariat were sent informing these CPCs that their cooperating status had been

renewed and reminding them of obligations under Rec. 03-20.

RESPONSES / CORRESPONDENCE FROM NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES

(letters not included in COC-309 but in COC-312)

NCP Letter

received

Subject Note

Guyana 03/10/2013

22/08/2014

Further to its

revocation, new

request for

cooperating

status

The request arrived late (after

the deadline established in Rec.

03-20). However the Secretariat

included the request in doc.

COC-312/13 for information.

Cambodia Continuing

identification

No reply received concerning

possible illegal transhipment in

the Gulf of Guinea with

Cambodian purse seiners.


Page 3 of 38

CAPE VERDE

DIRECÇÃO GERAL DAS PESCAS

Mr. Derek Campbell PRAIA, 12 September 2014

ICCAT Compliance Committee Chairman

Corazón de María, 8

28002 Madrid

Spain

Fax: 34 91 415 2612

N/Ref. 020 DGRM/DG/2014

SUBJECT: LETTER OF CONCERNS REGARDING DATA

2. The summary table of requirements was not included in the second part of the annual report.

3. The compliance tables were not submitted.

4. The internal actions report for vessels over 20 meters was not submitted.

5. The information regarding access agreements was not submitted.

Dear Sir,

I would like to express my appreciation and acknowledge receipt of your correspondence No. 725,

dated 13 February 2014, as regards the "Letter of concern regarding data".

In your correspondence you refer to the fact that Cape Verde has not complied with its

obligations, in accordance with the Recommendation by ICCAT on Compliance with Statistical

Reporting Obligations [Rec. 05-09]. In this respect you state that the Compliance Committee has

determined that Cape Verde had not submitted all the required reports and data within the

established deadlines, such as:

1. The annual report for the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) was

submitted late.

I would like to inform you that each year Cape Verde prepares the statistical data and its annual

report for the SCRS which are sent by our national correspondent, Ms. Vanda Marques Monteiro.

Please find attached the message that was attached to these data, dated 25 July 2013 for statistical

data and 27 September 2013 for the annual report. Considering that the deadline for the

submission of statistical data for the SCRS is the 31 July and that the deadline for the submission

of Annual Reports is the 16 October, you can observe that the deadlines established were

respected.

As regards the compliance tables, there was indeed a delay regarding data reporting. The

deadline is the 15 September and it was transmitted on 9 October (copy of email and table

attached). We apologize for the inconveniences caused.


Page 4 of 38

In fact the internal actions reports for vessels over 20 meters - CP10-IntAc20, as well as the

information regarding access agreements, were not submitted. We apologize once again for this and

we would like to guarantee that we will continue to make every effort to comply with our ICCAT

obligations

Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.

Juvino Vieira

Director General of Fisheries

Cape Verde

cc: Mr. S Depypere, Commission Chairman Driss Meski, ICCAT Executive Secretary Ms. Vanda Monteiro, Scientific Correspondent of Cape Verde


Page 5 of 38

Annex 1

Votre accuse réception concernent les données statistiques 2010, 2011 et 2012

De: Mauricio Ortiz [[email protected]]

Enviado: sexta-feira, 26 de Julho de 2013 5:51

Para: INDP / Vanda Marques Monteiro - Bióloga Grandes Pelágicos; info; Carlos Palma

Assunto: RE: DONNÉES STATISTIQUES

Madame Vanda Marques Monteiro

Le Secrétariat de l’ICCAT vous remercie et accuse officiellement réception de la soumission de

données statistiques du Cap Vert : 2010, 2011 et 2012 en date du Juillet 25, 2013. Veuillez noter que

nous pourrions vous contacter ultérieurement si des éclaircissements sont nécessaires. Nous vous

remercions pour votre collaboration.

Meilleures salutations,

Mauricio Ortiz, PhD

Research, Statistics and Information Technology Dpt

ICCAT Secretariat

Madrid 28002, Spain

www.ICCAT.int

Annex 2

Votre accuse réception concernent le tableau d’application 2012.

De: Info [mailto:[email protected]]

Enviada: quarta-feira, 9 de Outubro de 2013 14:04

Para: MIEM / Dir Geral Pescas - Juvino Mendes Vieira

Cc: USA - Christopher Rogers

Assunto: RE: CAP VERT : Circulaire ICCAT # 3796 / 2013 - TABLEAUX ICCAT DE

DECLARATION DE L'APPLICATION, REC. 11-11- CAP-VERT

Cher Monsieur,

Nous accusons réception le 9 octobre 2013 des tableaux d’application pour le Cap Vert.

Meilleures salutations,

Secrétariat ICCAT

http://www.iccat.int/

mailto:[email protected]


Page 6 of 38

CÔTE D’IVOIRE

Ministry of Animal and Fishery Resources

Directorate of Aquaculture and Fisheries

The Director

Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

Union-Discipline-Work

No. 296/MIRAH/DPH/sdpml

Abidjan, 3 October 2014

To.

Mr. Derek Campbell

Compliance Committee Chair

ICCAT Corazón de María 8-6th floor

28002 Madrid, Spain

Subject: Côte d’Ivoire’s Response to the Letter of Concern

Dear Mr. Chair of the Compliance Committee,

I am writing this correspondence on behalf of Côte d'Ivoire in response to the letter of concern

transmitted to Côte d'Ivoire on 12 February 2014.

In the name of the government of Côte d'Ivoire, I acknowledge the deficiencies as regards to data

reporting for 2013.

Allow me, Mr. Chair, without questioning the work of the Compliance Committee, to inform you that

the fleet characteristics were correctly transmitted to the Secretariat with an acknowledgement of

receipt on 31 July 2013.

Moreover, for the marlin overharvest in 2010, Côte d'Ivoire transmitted an email to the ICCAT

Secretariat on 27 August 2013 providing information on marlin catches.

As regards to other issues, internal measures were taken by Côte d'Ivoire to correct these deficiencies.

These are as follows:

- the submission of the report to the SCRS within the established deadline

- the submission of information on access agreements

Besides, I would like to inform you that the data reported by Côte d'Ivoire includes information on

artisanal fishing.

With the support of the Compliance Committee in recognizing the progress made by my country, be

assured that Côte d'Ivoire will continue to carry out the necessary efforts to comply with its ICCAT

obligations.

Please accept, Mr. Chair of the Compliance Committee, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed and sealed)

Shep Helgullè

cc. Mr. S. Depypere, ICCAT Chairman

Driss Meski, ICCAT Executive Secretary

Attachments:

- Mail regarding information on marlin catches

Acknowledgement of receipt of Task I and Task II data


Page 7 of 38

Ministry of Animal and Fishery Resources

Directorate of Aquaculture and Fisheries

The Director

Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

Union-Discipline-Work

No. 227/MIRAH/DAP

Abidjan, 27 August 2013

TO.

Mr. Chris Rogers

Compliance Committee Chair

ICCAT Corazón de María 8-6th floor

28002 Madrid, Spain

Subject: Information on fisheries and marlin management

Dear Mr. Chair of the Compliance Committee,

Among the issues included in the letter of concern addressed to Côte d’Ivoire, is the transmittal of

information on Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries and information on the management of marlin species, in

particular, white marlin, following the overshoot of quota for 2011. I would like to point out that this

quota excess goes back to 2010 with 7.17 t for a quota of 2.31 t.

This fishery was mainly targeted by artisanal fishing. Artisanal fishermen became more aware of the

problem of dealing with this issue. Likewise, data information on these species has improved.

These provisions have allowed to reduce these consumptions from 7.17 t in 2010 to 0.52 t and 00 t, in

2011 and 2012, respectively.

Once again, I would like to reaffirm our wish to implement all the ICCAT recommendations

applicable to Côte d’Ivoire and I rely on the Compliance Committee to assist us.

Please accept, Mr. Chair of the Compliance Committee, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed and sealed)

Shep Helgullè

cc. Mr. M. Miyahara, ICCAT Chairman

Driss Meski, ICCAT Executive Secretary


Page 8 of 38


Page 9 of 38


Page 10 of 38

EUROPEAN UNION

Subject: European Union reply to ICCAT letter of concern

Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2014 highlighting the deficiencies that the Compliance

Committee (CoC) noted at the 23rd Regular Meeting of ICCAT. The European Union (EU) has

carefully investigated the questions you raised regarding its performance identified during the 2013

Annual Meeting, so as to take the necessary corrective measures, as and when required.

I would like to point out that over the last few years, thanks to the continued efforts of both the ICCAT

Secretariat and the EU to streamline and rationalize the process, the level of compliance of the EU

with the ICCAT reporting obligations has considerably improved. As you know, the EU has to

coordinate and process information received from its Member States. This requires the collection and

consolidation of data from a large and diversified fleet which ranges from small artisanal vessels to

large scale industrial vessels, which is a complex exercise.

Despite all our efforts for timely and comprehensive data submission, some delays occurred. I can

ensure you that we continue pay special attention to the need of timely and complete submission of

reporting and we always look for ways of further improving our record by adapting our internal

procedures. We also pay particular attention to the quality of the data and this may, on some

occasions, also entail some short delay in the transmission of such data. The European Commission

ensures that the EU Member States are constantly updated on the different ICCAT reporting

obligations, clearly identifying and regularly reminding them of data requirements, deadlines, formats,

and contact persons.

Response to the deficiencies identified by CoC:

As regards the Task I fleet characteristics and Task II size data missing for some EU Member States,

some of them faced formatting difficulties that delayed their contributions. Some reports, though

received timely in the European Commission, were found to contain some incorrect and/or missing

information that had to be corrected and re-submitted. We regret that the corrected information was

not available on time for the SCRS work. We are working with the concerned Member States in order

to ensure that these difficulties are solved for future submissions.

With reference to the Part II of the Annual Report, we regret the late submission on 14 November

2013 and we assure you that we are continuing our efforts to improve our timeliness in sending such

data.

The SWO-MED closure report was received late by ICCAT due to the complexity of gathering and

compiling the relevant information delays in the transmission of information by some Member States

prior to the finalisation of the report by the European Commission. I would like however to clarify that

all measures have been taken at EU level to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the

closure periods and to prevent similar delays in future.

The issue of the wrong unique identification number in EU-Greece has been resolved in 2013.

The reasons why some BCDs sent to the Secretariat were not completed and some BCDs were not

received 5 days after validation are multiple and mainly resulted from the complexity of the Bluefin

Tuna (BFT) fishery itself as explained thereafter. We have already provided, in the past, the main

reasons for such delays occurring and we are happy to provide the following additional information.

(1) Feedback from European Union Member States frequently refers to difficulties in complying

with the present 5 days deadline, particularly in the context of the farming sector. During

2013, several Member States experienced difficulties with IT systems specifically designed for


Page 11 of 38

the purpose of recording the information contained in the BCDs. These IT related

shortcomings have now been addressed and similar issues are not expected to occur anymore.

It is worthwhile noting that the implementation of the IT systems concerned has in turn

allowed identifying missing information which would otherwise not have been detected. In

many cases, delays can also be linked to the complexity of the various administrations

involved in each Member States, such as Fisheries directorates, Coast Guards or Customs. The

transmission of information between these various administrations can imply unexpected

delays preventing the provision of BCDs to the Secretariat within the imparted deadline.

Finally, some delays have been linked to BCDs for BFT caught as by-catches by fishermen

not familiar with the filling in and submission of BCDs.

(2) Before BCDs are sent to the ICCAT Secretariat, they have to be validated by the competent

national authorities. If problems are identified, authorities have to verify the situation together

with all the parties involved. Furthermore, according to paragraph 86 of ICCAT

Recommendation 10-04, an investigation shall be initiated to verify the number and the weight

of fish. Such investigation can lead to a release procedure to be implemented by the authorities

concerned. Recommendation 12-03 replaced Recommendation 10-04 and confirmed this

provision. In addition Recommendation 12-03 added another control procedure involving the

assessment of caged quantities of BFT with stereoscopical cameras, also potentially leading to

an investigation and a release. These additional controls and their outcomes in the form of

release operations have resulted in some delays, sometimes, increased by the multi-parties

nature of the investigations, as the fishing and farming operations generally involve more than

one EU Member State. Sometimes there is also an important geographical distance between

the port or the farm and the national authorities concerned, which delays the necessary

verification on the spot. For these reasons, we consider that delays that have occurred are

related to an improvement in the monitoring and control of the farming activities. We consider

that this issue should be addressed in the context of the Annual session of the Commission.

It is important to note that the EU has further increased its efforts to ensure a full implementation of

ICCAT Recommendation 13-07 and in particular its paragraph 88. This has an important impact on

BCD related procedures due to the new provisions concerning the estimation of number and weight of

fish. Particular attention was given by the European Commission and the EU Member States to

enhance coordination at technical and political level and to exchange relevant information without

delay.

With regard to the late submission of a Member State annual BCD report, the delay in question was

due to difficulties encountered in the transmission of information between the various administrations

of the Member State in question.

I trust that the above elements provide a satisfactory response to the points raised in your letter of

concern and I wish to reaffirm the strong commitment of the European Union to ensure full

compliance with ICCAT measures.

Yours faithfully,

Stefaan Depypere

Head of Delegation of the

EU to ICCAT


Page 12 of 38

GHANA

At the 23rd Regular meeting of ICCAT (18-25 November 2013, Cape Town, South Africa), the

Commission issued Ghana a "Letter of Concern" in relation to three issues, namely: (I) continued

overharvest of S Atl. SWO; (2) monitoring of VMS messages; and (3) implementation of Rec-12-06

on prohibition of transshipment at-sea. Below is Ghana's response and actions taken in respect of these

compliance concerns.

(1) Continued Overharvest of S Atl. SWO

I provide some background explanation highlighting the complexity of the issues surrounding Ghana's

SAd SWO quota allocation in order to put the issue in proper perspective.

Ghana's S Ad SWO fishery has, for a long time, been an artisanal fishery, supporting food security and

subsistence lifestyle of fishing communities along Ghana's coast. Since 2007, catches of S Ad SWO

have varied between 54 and 177mt, with an average of 101mt per year.

The first ICCAT allocation agreement for S Ad SWO was documented in Rec 02-02. Although

catches of S Ad SWO by Ghanaian fishers had been recorded, there was no specific allocation to

Ghana in that agreement. In Rec 06-03, an allocation of 100 mt per year for 2007-2009 was made to

Ghana, despite Ghana's request for an allocation of 150 mt. Subsequent agreements have essentially

rolled over Ghanaian's initial allocation without much debate.

At the 23rd Regular Meeting of ICCAT a "Letter of Concern" was issued to Ghana for overharvesting

S Atl. SWO by 2.0 mt. Based on the compliance tables from COPCI3, it can be inferred that Ghana

recorded over-harvests in the years 2009 and 2010 with an aggregated over-harvest value of 48mt. In

2012, Ghana harvested only 54mt out of its allocation of 100mt and consequently recorded an under-

harvest value of 46mt. The conclusion here is that concern of over-harvest of 2mt expressed, is the

difference between Ghana's outstanding aggregated overharvest value of 48mt and the under-harvest

value of (46mt) from the 2012 harvest record.

Corrective Measures

Data for 2011, 2012 and 2013 show that Ghana did not overharvest its S Atl. SWO quota. However,

Ghana is putting in place a number of proactive measures at the national and ICCAT levels to ensure

that we stay within our agreed allocations over time and we intend to pursue the following strategies in

this respect.

• A new Fisheries Management Plan, to be implemented by mid-2015, will pay particular attention to

fleet management and capacity reduction. The Plan will also explore the use of alternative fishing

gears for the artisanal fishery (such as use of set nets) to harvest semi pelagic fish species in the

inshore exclusive zone (comprising the coastal waters between the coastline and the 30 metre isobath

or the 6 nautical miles offshore limit, whichever is further). It is planned that funds from the Enhanced

Billfish programme of ICCAT will be used as done in the past to collect data and monitor the fishery

in conformity with ICCAT regulations which include among others prohibiting landing of juvenile

fishes less than 115cm LJFL.

• Given the nature of the fishery (artisanal, canoe-based fishing mainly for domestic consumption to

support food security, for which catch likely reflects variability in availability), Ghana intends to make

proposals to ICCAT in 2015 to review its S Atl SWO allocation table to reflect these features as the

control of the artisanal sector is certainly not possible using the same techniques applicable to the

industrialized sector.1

1 It is noteworthy that the natural variability in availability to 'non-directed' fisheries has been used to modify allocation schemes in the

history of ICCAT. For example, for N Atl ALB, the US argued that essentially these features resulted in fairly large variations in its Rod and


Page 13 of 38

• Rec 06-03 contained a provision for carry-over of under harvested allocation (50%) and a pay-back

schedule for over harvest (typically within 2 years after the year in which over harvest was reported).

Ghana's adjusted quota for 2013 is 87.72mt. Ghana's 2013 data (yet to be presented to ICCAT) is

31.63mt, resulting in a significant under-harvest of 56.09mt. In accordance with Rec 06-03, Ghana

will seek to carry over its under-harvested allocation.

• Ghana also intends to request other ICCAT CPCs that have underused quota of S At! SWO to

transfer some of their quota to Ghana.

(2) Implementation of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

Ghana has previously reported to the Commission how it implements the ICCAT requirements on

VMS. However, due to persistent concerns expressed about the effectiveness of the measures, the

Commission requested more detailed information on how Ghana implements VMS in ICCAT

fisheries. Specific concerns that have been raised about Ghana's VMS in the past included:

• Lack of adequate training of VMS staff to undertake routine operations;

• Lack of analytical skills to effectively use VMS as a compliance tool (eg identifying and

interpreting fishing signatures and jumps in VMS signal;

• Lack of Guideline or administrative procedures for the operation of the system; and

• Lack of adequate human resources to operate an efficient VMS.

Corrective Measures Implemented

Ghana has, since the beginning of 2014, implemented a number of corrective measures, which have

effectively addressed all the short-comings in its VMS. These measures are summarised below.

• Legal Framework: The use of VMS as a condition of fishing license is mandatory under Ghana's

fisheries legislation. Under section 76(2)(n) of the Fisheries Act (Act 625), one of the reasons the

Commission can refuse to grant a fishing license to a Ghanaian fishing vessel is where "the vessel for

which the license is sought is not equipped with a working transponder for satellite monitoring." The

Fisheries Regulations reinforce the provisions of the Fisheries Act by making it mandatory for all

fishing vessels to have operational VMS before proceeding to sea. Until 2014, the VMS requirements

were applied only to tuna fishing vessels. Ghana's VMS has been significantly enhanced since January

2014 and has become mandatory for all fishing vessels with the exception of artisanal canoe vessels.

Revision to Ghana's fisheries legislation, anticipated to be approved by the Ghanaian Parliament by

December 2014, will significantly revise the VMS provisions of the Fisheries Regulations and

increase the penalties for breach of the VMS requirements.

• Technical Enhancement and Capacity Development: Efficiency of Ghana's VMS has been

significantly improved since beginning of 20 14 through technical improvements and capacity

enhancement. For example:

• The Fisheries Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement Unit (FEU), as mandated by

the Fisheries Act, 2002, became functional on 21st October 2013, with a new staff

complement of 17 (increased from only 2).

• Additional conditions relating to the tampering of VMS have been imposed on all fishing

licenses (copy available for inspection if required).

• Comprehensive training has been provided to the FEU staff by DG Mare (through EU

technical assistance and CLS-Argos) on the use of VMS and other MCS tools to detect IUU

fishing.

Reel Sector catches and used a higher value than might have otherwise been agreed to account for that feature. Japan frequently applies a %

of its targeted catch (for example bigeye) to define a by-catch allocation limit that is taken as an average over a 5 or so year period.


Page 14 of 38

• Radio equipment that enables FEU staff to communicate with Navy and Marine Police as well

as with fishing vessels has been installed in the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) and

formal training in the use of the equipment has been provided.

• A 200kVA electrical generator to serve as alternative power source for the FMC has been

purchased and installed.

• The FMC is also equipped with AIS through an MOU with the US Government. Apart from

the overhaul of the old system, 13 staff made up of 1 technician, and 12 FEU were given

training in SeaVision and TV32 operations by personnel from the US Navy.

• A comprehensive MCS Operation Manual (including VMS) has been developed and training

has been provided to all VMS staff.

• Ghana's VMS will be supplemented by the Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) project under

the FAO ABNJ Tuna project which is intended to enable Ghana to more closely monitor its

purse seine fleet.

(3) Transshipment at Sea

The third area addressed by Ghana's "Letter of Concern" relates to the implementation of ICCAT

transhipment requirements. ICCAT Rec 12-06 (amending Rec 06-11) requires that all transshipment

within the Convention area of tuna and tuna-like species caught in association with these species that

were harvested in the ICCAT Convention area, must take place in port.

Corrective Measures

Ghana gave domestic legislative effect to the transshipment provisions of Rec 06-11 and 12-06

through Regulation 33(8) of the Fisheries Regulation which provides that "Transshipment of all fish

can only be undertaken at authorised ports."

To address concerns about the effectiveness of Ghana's implementation of the transhipment provisions

of Rec 12-06, Ghana has implemented additional measures since beginning of 2014. These include:

• Ministerial Directive to Enforce Transshipment Prohibitions: In February 2014, the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture Development, acting pursuant to section 3(2) of the Fisheries Act 2002,

issued a directive compelling the Fisheries Commission to immediately ensure full compliance with

ICCAT Recommendation 06-11 on prohibition at sea, transshipment by Large Scale Tuna Fishing

Vessels (Copy available for inspection if required).

• Restriction on the operation of carrier Vessels: At the centre of the transhipment allegations

against Ghana was the operation of Ghana's two carrier vessels. Since the beginning of2014, the

operations of the two carrier vessels have been restricted to port and they are required to have 100%

observer coverage.


Page 15 of 38

Summary

In summary, Ghana can report as follows:

• Continued Overharvest of S.Atl. SWO: Data for 2011, 2012 and 2013 shows that Ghana did

not overharvest its SAt. swordfish quota. Measures that are being implemented will further ensure that

over-harvest does not occur in future.

• Implementation of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS): Ghana's VMS has been substantially

upgraded since the beginning of 20 14, with comprehensive training provided to all VMS staff. FEU

analyses in 2014 demonstrate that Ghana's VMS is now operating effectively and all the concerns

expressed by ICCAT have now been fully rectified.

• Transshipment at Sea: With the effective implementation of legislation and additional licensing

conditions instituted, Ghana can confidently report that the ICCAT transshipment requirements are

being fully complied with. The enhanced VMS monitoring of all Ghanaian tuna fishing vessels, as

reported above, will provide additional safeguard against the breach of the ICCAT transhipment

requirements.

I will be happy to provide supporting documents if required.

Yours Sincerely,

Samual Quaatey

Head Delegate for Ghana


Page 16 of 38

REPUBLIC OF GUINEA

Subject: Letter of concern

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter # 728/ICCAT/Salida dated 12 February 2014

regarding the above-mentioned subject.

I note with great interest the observations made in your correspondence and I welcome the recognition

made by ICCAT as regards the efforts carried out by the Republic of Guinea which have allowed our

country to improve its classification, particularly, the lifting of Identification and registering as

Concern.

This recognition by ICCAT is also a call in favour of consolidating and strengthening the work carried

out by the Republic of Guinea's authorities.

- I would like to confirm that the Task I and Task II data were correctly transmitted to ICCAT

and that an acknowledgement of receipt was provided by ICCAT. Once again, I am

submitting this information.

- Since 2012, the data on catch statistics have been correctly transmitted on a quarterly basis,

including a consolidated report each year.

- There continue to be problems related to monitoring, collection, processing and publication of

statistical data due to constraints that require capacity building.

- Data on fleet characteristics, that include three vessels, have been submitted. This

transmission was carried out when the vessels were re-registered for 2013-2014, as confirmed

in 2014.

- Notwithstanding, the three vessels flying a Republic of Guinea flag, registered under the

framework of the ICCAT Convention, there is no Agreement or arrangement with any other

fleet, International, Regional or Sub-regional Institution.

The adoption of the following measures should also be considered:

- The installation of a satellite location device which is fully operative on all vessels is a

condition for licensing.

- The prohibition of all vessels flying a Republic of Guinea flag to carry out fishing activities at

sea without prior authorization;

- The mandatory embarkation of observers on board all fishing vessels flying a Republic of

Guinea flag and holding a fishing licence, for all fishing areas frequented including high seas.

Please do not hesitate to request further information which could be useful to you and I reiterate my

commitment to strengthen our cooperation.


(Signed and sealed)

Hassimiou TALL

Attachment: - Task I data, Task II data and Consolidated report on catches


Page 17 of 38

MEXICO

As regards your correspondence No. 133, dated 13 February 2014, regarding the data submitted by

Mexico, in accordance with the ICCAT Recommendation on compliance of statistical reporting

obligations [Rec. 05-09].

Taking into account the information stated in this correspondence, please find below the following

considerations and responses to each of the issues identified.

Report for the SCRS.

Firstly, it should be noted that the deadline for the submission of the report was the 16 September

2013. Mexico's response was submitted via email to the ICCAT Secretariat on 13 September 2013,

Mazatlán time (UTC-7:00), in compliance with the established deadlines for the submission of

information. (Email of transmittal attached).

Furthermore, the SCRS report was submitted by hand, by the Mexican representatives at the Standing

Committee on Research and Statistics meeting (SCRS), held in Madrid, Spain from 30 September to 5

October 2013, where it was reviewed.

We would like to express our interest and commitment in complying with the correct submission of

information and within the deadlines established by the Commission and to this end we are working in

our communication and management procedures among the different areas of this process.

BET/YFT Vessel List:

Mexico reiterates its commitment to comply with Recommendation 11-01, regarding the transmittal of

the list of vessels fishing bigeye and yellowfin tuna. In this regard, the actions required were carried

out to update the information, which was fully submitted in compliance with the internal procedures.

The above was carried out as the consolidation of information includes joint validations among

different technical areas which only include part of the information.

Note that this information was transmitted to the Secretariat on 1 July 2013, stating that the

information was correctly submitted in a timely manner.

The BCD unique identification number is incorrect as it does not comply with the format stated

in Recommendation 11-20.

As regards the BCD unique identification number, I would like to point out that the information was

correctly sent on time, however, due to an involuntary error in the issuance process, it was transmitted

in the previous format.

Therefore, to avoid this type of situation at domestic level, the work is coordinated among different

bodies involved in the process, aimed at validating the bluefin tuna catch documents, in compliance

with Recommendation 11-20. Pursuant to the procedures established at domestic level, and transmitted

to the ICCAT Secretariat these documents are issued through the Sub-delegations of Fisheries

As regards the numbering in the format, the Sub-delegations of Fisheries were requested to

immediately correct this and the following bluefin tuna catch documents were corrected. To this

effect, the instruction sheet which was distributed to the offices responsible of this process, is attached.

Undoubtedly, the eBCD will avoid these types of man-made errors. We therefore take the opportunity

to reiterate our interest and commitment to move forward in this process.


Page 18 of 38

White marlin and blue marlin fishery management

To strengthen the management and the handling and rebuilding measures of white marlin and blue

marlin stocks, the measures which have been adopted and updated at domestic level to this end are as

follows:

On 24 December 2013, the "Agreement establishing the catch quota for the exploitation of blue marlin

(Makaira nigricans) and white marlin (Tetrapturus spp.), in the federal jurisdictional waters of the

Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea for 2013, 2014 and 2015", was published in the Official Journal

of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación), which establishes, among other measures, a total

catch quota for the marlin fishery at 70 t for blue marlin and 25 t for white marlin per year, during

2013, 2014 and 2015, to be distributed among the incidental catch of the tuna longline fleet and the

sport and recreational fleet in waters under the Federal Jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico and the

Caribbean Sea, as well as the prohibition to catch blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) under 251 cm

lower jaw fork length and 168 cm for white marlin (Tetrapturus spp.). (Annexed)

It should be stressed that there are no commercial fisheries targeting these species, except for

incidental catches which are authorized under specific values (percentages) per semester for swordfish

and marlins, thus contributing to reduce the fishing pressure on species included in this this

recommendation.

Moreover, the Official Mexican Regulation (Norma Oficial Mexicana) NOM-023-PESC-1996, which

regulates the exploitation of tuna species by longline vessels in waters under the Federal Jurisdiction

of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Annex). Item 4.4 states a total annual incidental catch

rate for swordfish, sailfish, bluefin tuna, marlins (Makaira and Tetrapturus)and sharks, not greater that

20% of the nominal catch obtained during the calendar year of this fishery, which contributes to the

recovery of these populations. This measure is mandatory for all Mexican longline vessels that catch

tunas.

It should be noted that this regulatory provision is being updated to include the regulations adopted by

ICCAT. Among others, the update includes the following provisions:

o It establishes the characteristics of authorized longline; measuring a maximum of 60.00

metres; 100% circle hooks, caliber 16/0 and a maximum of 800 longline hooks.

o It establishes the maximum allowable limit of effort units.

o It establishes that for each vessel, the total annual incidental catch of bluefin tuna

(Thunnus thynnus), marlins (Makaira and Tetrapturus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius),

sailfish (Istiophorus albicans) and sharks, must not be greater than 20% of its nominal

catch.

o It establishes that when marlins (Makaira and Tetrapturus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius)

and sailfish (Istiophorus albicans) are caught as by-catch during tuna fishing operations,

they must be released in good survival conditions.

In compliance with ICCAT regulations, Mexico has established the necessary measures for the

effective management of blue marlin and white marlin in its national legislation.

It should also be taken into account that the Inter-sessional meeting of the Billfish Species Group was

held in Mexico, where the available information on fishing effort, biological parameters and tagging

data of specimens supported by specialized laboratories, was reviewed. This information which will be

the base of future decision making for the exploitation and handling of these fisheries within the

ICCAT framework.

The Mexican government reiterates its commitment to continue working and strengthening

cooperative actions carried out within the framework of ICCAT towards responsible and sustainable

fishing.


Page 19 of 38

With kind regards.

Dr. Antonio Garza de Yta

cc. Lic. Mario Gilberto Aguilar Sánchez.- National Commissioner of Aquaculture and Fisheries

Raúl Adán Romo Trujillo.- Director General of the National Institute of Fisheries

Attachments


Page 20 of 38


Page 21 of 38


Page 22 of 38

HOJA DE INSTRUCCIONES DEL DOCUMENTO DE CAPTURA DE ATÚN ROJO

De conformidad con la Recomendación de ICCAT sobre el programa ICCAT de documentación de

capturas de alón rojo [Rec. 07-10], los pescadores, criadores y comerciantes de atún rojo (BFT) que

comercian con, importan o exportan atún rojo y las instituciones o personas autorizadas por las Partes

contratantes y las Partes, Entidades o Entidades pesqueras no contratantes colaboradoras (CPC) de

ICCAT deberán rellenar, validar o verificar las secciones adecuadas del Documento de captura de atún

rojo (BCD).

Sólo los BCD cumplimentados y validados garantizarán el comercio, importación o exportación en el

territorio o al territorio o desde el territorio de una CPC de ICCAT.

Cualquier cargamento que no vaya acompañado de un BCD cumplimentado y validado no será

aceptado por la CPC importadora, excepto cuando todo el atún rojo esté marcado en lugar de contar

con la validación. Se considerará que cualquier envío que no vaya acompañado de un BCD, o que

vaya acompañado de un BCD incompleto, inválido o falsificado, ha sido capturado contraviniendo las

medidas de conservación de ICCAT y su comercio, importación o exportación será suspendido a la

espera de recibir un BCD adecuadamente cumplimentado y validado.

INSTRUCCIONES

1. NÚMERO DE DOCUMENTO ICCAT DE CAPTURAS DE ATÚN ROJO

Línea para que la CPC que emite el documento designe un número de documento codificado de CPC.

2. INFORMACIÓN SOBRE CAPTURA.

Esta sección deberá rellenarla el patrón del buque de pesca o el operador de la almadraba o un

representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante.

El patrón del buque o el operador del buque, o el operador de la almadraba o de la instalación de

engorde o el representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante deberá registrar el nombre del buque o

almadraba, la CPC abanderante, el número de registro ICCAT, la fecha de captura, el número de

peces, el peso total (kg), el área de capture (Mediterráneo, Atlántico occidental, Atlántico oriental o

Pacífico), el arte utilizado (véanse más abajo los códigos de artes) y el peso medio (kg) del pescado

(especificar el tipo de producto (por ejemplo, GG) en peso total y en peso medio si el pescado no está

en poso vivo). Cuando estén disponibles, deberán consignarse los números de las marcas.

Esta información será validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante para toda la

captura de atún rojo desembarcada, transferida a jaulas o transbordada, con el nombre, cargo y firma.

Dicha validación no es necesaria cuando todo el atún rojo disponible para la venta está marcado por la

CPC del buque/almadraba (las marcas deberían contener la información necesaria requerida por el

BCD o el número de identificación de cada marca debería estar vinculado con la información que debe

incluirse en el BCD).

Si el área de captura es “Pacífico”, entonces sólo deben rellenarse el campo de área de la sección

“Información de captura” y la sección de “Información comercial” de este documento.


Page 23 of 38

Observaciones sobre información comercial


representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante si el pescado es transferido a otra CPC para su

engorde.

Tachar “F/FR” y “RD/GG/DR/FL/OT” ya que no son aplicables al comercio de peces vivos e insertar

el peso neto del cargamento. Identificar el punto de exportación/salida por ciudad, provincia y CPC

(cuando el atún rojo se captura en alta mar, especificar el nombre de la CPC de la zona de pesca donde

fue capturado el atún rojo, si se conoce, o insertar “alta mar” en caso contrario), nombre, dirección y

firma de la empresa exportadora o vendedora y fecha de exportación.

Esta información deberá ser validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante para la

exportación o venta del atún rojo incluyendo su nombre, cargo y firma, a menos que todo el atún rojo

haya sido marcado por la CPC abanderante. Identificar el punto de importación/destino por ciudad,

provincia y CPC, nombre y firma de la empresa importadora o compradora y fecha de

llegada/importación.

3. INFORMACIÓN SOBRE TRANSFERENCIA


representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante en el momento de la transferencia si el pescado es

transferido a un remolcador para su engorde.

Insertar el nombre, pabellón y número de registro ICCAT del remolcador que recibe la captura de atún

rojo y los números de las jaulas (en el caso de remolcadores con más de una jaula) del atún rojo

transferido.

4. INFORMACIÓN SOBRE TRANSBORDO


representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante en el momento de la transferencia si el pescado es

transbordado.

Incluir el nombre, pabellón, puerto de registro, número de registro ICCAT del buque de transporte,

fecha y coordenadas (latitud/longitud) de La posición de la transferencia. Describir el tipo de producto

mediante “F/FR” y “RD/GG/DR/FL/OT”.

Está información deberá ser validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante del

buque pesquero o de la almadraba con el nombre, cargo y firma a menos que todo el atún esté

marcado.

5. INFORMACIÓN SOBRE ENGORDE

El operador de la instalación de engorde o un representante autorizado de la CPC en que esté situada la

instalación de engorde (en lo sucesivo denominada “CPC de la instalación de engorde”) deberá

rellenar esta sección en el momento en que el pescado entre en la instalación de engorde si los peces

son transferidos a una instalación de engorde.


Page 24 of 38

Describir la instalación de engorde con el nombre, CPC de la instalación de engorde, ubicación, y

número ICCAT de la IEAR. Hacer un circulo en “SI” o “No” para identificar si la CPC de la

instalación de engorde participa en el Programa Nacional de Muestreo. Rellenar la fecha de

transferencia y los números de jaula. Registrar el número estimado de peces, el peso total (kg), el peso

medio (kg) por jaula, y la composición de tallas estimada.

Esta información será validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC de la instalación de engorde

con el nombre, cargo y firma.

6. INFORMACIÓN SOBRE SACRIFICIO EN LAS INSTALACIONES DE ENGORDE

Esta sección deberá rellenarla el operador de instalación de engorde, o un representante autorizado de

la CPC de la instalación de engorde cuando los peces sean sacrificados en la instalación de engorde.

Rellenar la fecha de sacrificio, el número de peces, el peso vivo total (kg) y el peso medio (kg) del

atún rojo sacrificado. Cuando estén disponibles, deberán consignarse los números de las marcas.

Esta información será validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC de la instalación de engorde

con el nombre, cargo y firma a menos que todo el atún rojo esté marcado.

7. INFORMACIÓN COMERCIAL

Esta sección deberá rellenarla el exportador o un representante autorizado de la CPC exportadora antes

de que el pescado sea exportado, tal y como estipula la Recomendación 07-10.

Describir el tipo de producto mediante “F/FR” y “RD/GG/DR/FL/OT” e incluir el peso neto (kg) del

cargamento. Identificar el punto de exportación/salida por ciudad, provincia y CPC, nombre, dirección

y firma de la empresa exportadora o vendedora y la fecha de exportación.

Para todas las exportaciones/ventas de atún rojo desde los pescadores hasta los compradores, está

información deberá ser verificada y validada por un representante autorizado de la CPC exportadora, a

menos que todo el atún rojo esté marcado.

Identificar el punto de importación/destino por ciudad, provincia y país o entidad pesquera, nombre,

dirección y firma de la empresa importadora o compradora y fecha de llegada/importación.

Observaciones

- En los casos en que de un BCD resulte más de una transacción de comercio, exportación o envío, un

representante autorizado de la CPC abanderante del buque, almadraba o instalación de engorde deberá

validar una copia del BCD original a menos que todo el atún rojo esté marcado y esta copia se utilizará

y aceptará como un BCD original.

- Todos los pesos deberán consignarse en kilogramos.


Page 25 of 38

- Tipo de producto: Identificar el tipo de producto que se envía como F/FR (fresco o congelado) y en

RD (peso vivo), GO (eviscerado y sin agallas), DR (canal), FL (filetes) o OT (Otros). Para “OT”

describir el tipo de productos incluidos en el cargamento.

- Descripción del transporte en la sección de INFORMACIÓN COMERCIAL: la documentación

oficial pertinente deberá ir adjunta al BCD.

- CÓDIGOS DE ARTE

BB Barco de cebo

GILL Red de enmalle

HAND Liña de mano

HARP Arpón LL Palangre MWT Arrastre semipelágico

PS Cerco

RE. Caña y carrete

SPHL Lilia de mano deportiva

SPOR Pesquerías deportivas sin clasificar

SURF Pesquerías de superficie sin clasificar

TL Barrilete

TRAP Almadraba

TROL Curricán UNCL Métodos sin clasificar

OT Otro


Page 26 of 38


Page 27 of 38


Page 28 of 38


Page 29 of 38


Page 30 of 38


Page 31 of 38


Page 32 of 38


Page 33 of 38


Page 34 of 38

NIGERIA

Re: Letter of Concern

I wish to acknowledge the receipt of the Letter of Concern dated 13th February, 2014. Nigeria

sincerely appreciates the revocation of the letter of Identification issued in 2013.

As expressed by Nigeria at the 23rd Regular Meeting of ICCAT (184 25, November, 2013, Cape

Town, South Africa), Nigeria would continue to do her best to ensure full compliance with all ICCAT

conservation and management measures, in particular, submitting complete and timely data in

accordance with the recommendations of ICCAT on compliance with statistical reporting obligation

(Rec. 05-09).

Nigeria once more wishes to commend the good efforts of the Secretariat and Compliance Committee

and promises to adequately address any data reporting and other compliance deficiencies noted against

Nigeria in order not to impede the work of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS)

in performing its duties.

Thank you for your usual understanding and co-operation.

H.A. Okpe (ICCAT Desk Officer).

For Honourable Minister.

PANAMA

The Republic of Panama, through the Authority of Aquatic Resources would like to take this

opportunity to greet the Compliance Committee of the International Commission for the Conservation

of Atlantic Tunas and respond to the letter of concern transmitted to Panama, under office No. 735,

dated 13 February 2014.

We regret the delayed presentation of data, yet we would like to inform you that these data were

transmitted by Panama in accordance with Recommendation by ICCAT on compliance with

statistical reporting obligations [Rec. 05-09].

As regards the information received by the Republic of Guinea, who stated during the Annual meeting

that there was no access agreement between Panama and the Republic of Guinea, we would like to

inform you that once we have finished communicating with the government of the Republic of

Guinea, we will inform on the outcome of this communication.

We recognize that the problems related to the lack of reporting, late transmittal, incomplete reporting

and poor data quality make it difficult for the work of the Standing Committee on Research and

Statistics (SCRS) when conducting stock assessments and providing management advice, therefore the

Republic of Panama will work towards transmitting this information on time in the future.

We would also like to express that the Republic of Panama has continuously improved as regards the

compliance of management measures and the compliance of obligations as State Party to this C

Commission.

Reiterating the assurances of highest considerations.

Sincerely,

Raul Delgado

Director General


Page 35 of 38

CHINESE TAIPEI

Subject: Reply to the Letter of Concern Dated 13 February 2014

In response to the letter of concern of 13th February 2014 from you in the name of the of Compliance

Committee Chairman, we attach an information paper concerning the actions we have taken with

respect to the following items:

1. To fully comply with the Recommendation on a Programme for Transshipment [Rec. 12-06]

2. To fully comply with the Recommendation to Promote Compliance by Nationals of Contracting

Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities with ICCAT Conservation

and Management Measures [Rec. 06-14]

3. To provide information on steps it will take to control its catches, as well as explanations of the

irregularities between catch declarations and total reported landings, which should be informed by

port inspection reports that South Africa and Uruguay agreed to send to Chinese Taipei to facilitate

its investigation.

In view of the positive actions we have taken, we sincerely hope the Compliance Committee and

members of the Commission can recognize the efforts we have made and our commitment in

continuing our cooperation with ICCAT and complying with the management measures adopted and to

be adopted by ICCAT. We request the Commission continue granting Chinese Taipei the Cooperating

Status as before.


Sincerely yours,

Ding-Rong LIN

Head of Delegation of Chinese Taipei to ICCAT

cc: ICCAT Secretary


Page 36 of 38

Attachment

Actions taken by Chinese Taipei

to comply with the conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT

In response to the letter of concern from the Chair of Compliance Committee dated 13th February

2014, Chinese Taipei would like to provide the information, investigation results and further steps or

actions taken to comply with the conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT as

following:

1. Actions taken by Chinese Taipei to be in full compliance with ICCAT Recommendation on a

Programme for Transhipment [Rec. 12-06]

We submitted to the ICCAT Secretariat within the required timeframe and promptly updated

addition, deletion or modification, the list of the carrier vessels that were authorized to receive

transshipments from large scale pelagic longline vessels (LSPLVs) in the Convention area and the

list of our fishing vessels that were authorized to transship at sea.

According to our domestic regulations, any fishing vessel intends to transship at sea or in port

shall apply for permission from the Fisheries Agency at least 24 hours prior to such transshipment,

with the notification of intended transshipment date, location, species, quantities, and other

relevant information. Transshipment shall only be conducted after the receipt of written approval

from the Fisheries Agency. The ICCAT transshipment declaration shall also be submitted within

15 days after the completion of the transshipment. Furthermore, when the vessel monitoring

system device on board the fishing vessel is mal-functioned, no transshipment activity will be

permitted before the device is repaired.

2. Actions taken by Chinese Taipei to be in full compliance with ICCAT Recommendation to

Promote Compliance by Nationals of Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting

Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities with ICCAT Conservation and Management Measures

[Rec. 06-14]

In December 2008, Chinese Taipei implemented the Ordinance to Govern Investment in the

Operation of Foreign Flag Fishing Vessels, which clearly stipulates that Chinese Taipei nationals

who invest and operate foreign fishing vessels shall apply for authorization and make regularly

report of the data relating to fishing operation to the competent authority of Chinese Taipei. Any

Chinese Taipei national who has invested in a foreign flag fishing vessel which has violated the

RFMOs’ recommendations/resolutions/conservation and management measures shall be liable to

imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 3 years, if convicted, and may be liable to an

additional fine of not exceeding ten million New Taiwan Dollars.

In the 23rd Regular meeting of ICCAT, South Africa mentioned a number of vessels were detained

in its ports for which their beneficial ownership could have some connection with Chinese Taipei,

and requested Chinese Taipei to make investigation. In the past few months, Chinese Taipei took

action to investigate this case in accordance with the information provided by South Africa, and

the Fisheries Agency suspected 2 or 3 nationals of Chinese Taipei might have involved in the case.

The Fisheries Agency had forwarded the related information provided by the South Africa as well

as the information collected by the Fisheries Agency to the judicial authority for further

investigation and prosecution, in accordance with the above Ordinance.


Page 37 of 38

3. Steps taken by Chinese Taipei to control its catches of the southern Atlantic albacore and

explanations of the irregularities between catch declarations and total reported landings

To ensure catches of our fishing vessels were commensurate with the quota allocated to Chinese

Taipei by ICCAT, the Fisheries Agency set the ceiling on the number of fishing vessels and their

fishing areas. All vessels are not permitted to fish in non-designated areas without prior

authorization. Furthermore, the Fisheries Agency also allocates annual individual catch limit to

each vessel so as to avoid total catches by species exceeding the quota allocated to Chinese Taipei

by ICCAT. When the catch of an individual vessel has reached its allocation, the vessel should

stop fishing immediately and return to the designated port. If the individual catch limit is

overused, the fishery operator will be punished in accordance with relevant regulations.

In addition, Chinese Taipei has taken the following measures to manage fishing vessels that target

south Atlantic albacore:

1. All vessels are required to install vessel monitoring system device and report their positions to

the monitor center every six hours. VMS data is capable to monitor whether the vessel is

operating in the designated area as well as to verify the relevant information on logbooks and

transshipment declarations.

2. The captain of a fishing vessel is required to accurately fill in the catch logbook and rapid catch

report. The fishery operator shall weekly submit the rapid catch report of his/her vessel to the

Taiwan Tuna Association it belongs. The Association is required to compile the data received

and submit in electronic data file to the Fisheries Agency weekly for the purpose of calculation

and controlling the utilization of allocated quota. The Fisheries Agency also requires that

bounded catch logbook be maintained on board the vessel for at least 12 months. In case the

fishing vessel enters into a port or has completed its transshipment, the fishery operator shall

submit catch logbook of his/her vessel to the Fisheries Agency within 60 days of the port entry

for consignment or transshipment.

3. If a fishing vessel intends to carry out at-sea or in-port transshipment, the fishery operator shall

comply with the above-mentioned management measures on at-sea or in-port transshipment.

The related information can be used for crosschecking the amounts of catch by species recorded

by the fishery operators who fill in their rapid catch reports concerned.

4. The fishery operator is required to submit copies of sales notes of the catches to the Fisheries

Agency for crosschecking within 60 days after completion of customs clearance for export of

catch.

4. Explanations of the irregularities between catch declarations and total reported landings of

the southern Atlantic albacore

South Africa and Uruguay mentioned in the 23rd Regular Meeting of ICCAT that catch

declarations for southern Atlantic albacore from Chinese Taipei vessels landing in their ports have

exceeded the quota allocated to Chinese Taipei [i.e. 13,000 t].

Accordingly, the Fisheries Agency asked the fishery operators to provide their reports on the

quantity of southern Atlantic albacore of their fishing vessels which had entered into the ports of

South Africa and Uruguay. Considering the information provided by the fishery operators could

be insufficient as well as taking into account the record of the 23rd Regular Meeting of ICCAT,

Chinese Taipei requested South Africa and Uruguay to provide port inspection reports and the

relevant information on the southern Atlantic albacore landings in their ports by Chinese Taipei

flagged fishing vessels. We had received the information from South Africa on 30th September

2014. However, up to the time of writing this paper we have not received any above information

from Uruguay.

We consider the reason of irregularities between catch declarations mentioned by South Africa and

our total reported landings could be as following:


Page 38 of 38

1. Among the fishing vessels of Chinese Taipei provided by South Africa, two of them are vessels

which operated in the Indian Ocean;

2. The landings of another fishing vessel should be the key irregularity. This fishing vessel

entered into the port of Cape Town twice in 2012, and the total landings, based on the record of

South Africa, were 2,425 metric tons. However, the said fishing vessel has a tonnage of 530

GRT, and its deadweight tonnage is 463 metric tons. In addition, according to the sales note of

the vessel, the total landing was about 335 metric tons. Thus, the total landings (2,425 metric

tons) as provided by South Africa seem unreasonable and we assume this could be due to a

mistake or a typo from South Africa at the time of recording the landings. Except the

aforementioned irregularities, there was no violation recorded under the port State inspections

by South Africa.

3. It should note in practice some vessels which had applied the entry permission with catch

declarations for entering into the port of Cape Town, but eventually they did not enter the port

of Cape Town.

4. Due to the fact that fishery operators could not precisely forecast the exact date of port entry,

they re-applied the entry permission with catch declarations for the same trip and catch amounts

which resulted duplication in the calculation of catch declarations of southern Atlantic albacore.

5. Considering the catch quantity estimated by the captain at sea has high possibility of difference

from the catch quantity measured at land, the fishery operator may tend to slightly increase the

amount of catch for filling in the catch declaration of entry permission issued by the port

authority so as to prevent from being identified as violation.

As for the total landing of southern Atlantic albacore caught by Chinese Taipei fishing vessels in

2012, it should be 12,812 metric tons after crosschecking with our reconciliation data of catch

sales notes and rapid catch reports/logbooks. The figure is close to the preliminary estimated

amount of 12,644 metric tons, and has not exceeded the quota allocated to Chinese Taipei by

ICCAT. The SCRS species groups meeting held in September 2014 also accepted this figure.

5. Further steps to be taken by Chinese Taipei to control catch of south Atlantic albacore

We appreciate CPCs of ICCAT expressing their concerns on Chinese Taipei’s southern Atlantic

albacore catch in 2012. Through the above efforts and measures taken by Chinese Taipei to

control its catch of southern Atlantic albacore, we think the data we provided to the ICCAT are

reliable. Nevertheless, we think there still has the room for improvement of our fishery

management of southern Atlantic albacore, and we will take the following steps to strengthen the

management of southern Atlantic albacore:

1. In order to simultaneously obtain the catch amounts addressed in the applications for the port

entry as well as landing reports issued by the port authority concerned, we will amend the

current regulations, asking the fishery operators to provide the port-entry report and/or landing

declaration when they apply the permission from the Fisheries Agency to transship or land their

catch in foreign ports. This amendment of the regulations will be done in the end of 2014.

2. Considering the benefits of rapid communication by means of e-logbook system which has been

implemented on our big-eye vessels since 2006, we have requested fishing vessels actively

targeting Atlantic albacore tuna to install e-logbook system as from July 2015.

3. Chinese Taipei will continue to contact and consult with the port and/or the fisheries authorities

of South Africa and Uruguay to discuss the issues relating to closer cooperation so as to ensure

our fishing vessels fully comply with the conservation and management measures adopted by

ICCAT.

Documents

2014 COM: Responses to Chair’s letters (CPs) Doc. No. COC ... · 2014 COM: Responses to Chair’s letters (CPs) Doc. No. COC-309A/2014 nov-14 (16:38) Page 3 of 38 CAPE VERDE DIRECÇÃO