Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP...

"Strengthening Fisheries Management in

ACP Countries"

Project Funded by the European Union.

“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of ”name of the author” and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”

“The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the concerned governments”

Final Report

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training Workshop

PAC-2.2-B12

Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue,

Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Timor-Leste

Date

22 September 2013

Assignment by:


ACP Countries"




Contents

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................... 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 6

1. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 9

2. APPROACH TO THE ASSIGNMENT ..................................................................................... 10

2.1 SUBMISSION OF INCEPTION REPORT AND INTERIM REPORT .................................................... 10 2.2 LIAISON WITH FAO ON PARTNERING THE WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND DELIVERY .......... 11 2.3 LIAISON WITH FFA AND ACP FISH II ON COOPERATING IN PRESENTING THE WORKSHOP ...... 11 2.4 LIAISON WITH WCPFC IN PREPARING THE WORKSHOP .......................................................... 12

3. COMMENTS ON TERMS OF REFERENCE .......................................................................... 12

4. ORGANISATION AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 13

4.1 DELIVERY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE ....................................................................................... 13 4.2 CONDUCT AND DETAILS OF THE ASSIGNMENT......................................................................... 15

4.2.1 Preliminary research ............................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Assessment of available port State measures policy instruments ............................ 15 4.2.3 Travel schedule for the assessment field work and workshop ................................. 15 4.2.4 Field missions: visits to countries, FFA, WCPFC .................................................. 17 4.2.5 Prospectus and provisional Workshop programme ................................................. 18 4.2.6 Questionnaire for workshop participants ................................................................ 19 4.2.7 Workshop report ...................................................................................................... 19

4.3 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ...................................................................................................... 21 4.4 ACHIEVEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 22

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 23

6. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 25

6.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1. Background INFORMATION .................................................................................. 26 6.1.2. OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE AND EXPECTED RESULTS .......................................... 29 6.1.3. ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS ................................................................................... 29 6.1.4. SCOPE OF THE WORK .......................................................................................... 30 6.1.5. LOGISTICS AND TIMING ...................................................................................... 33 6.1.6. REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 33 6.1.7. REPORTS ................................................................................................................ 37 6.1.8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................................... 38

6.2 INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED ........................................................................ 39 6.3 LIST OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED .................................................................... 42 6.4 WORKSHOP-RELATED DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................ 43

6.4.1 Prospectus ............................................................................................................... 43 6.4.2. Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 54 6.4.3 Workshop documents ............................................................................................... 60 6.4.4 Final Programme .................................................................................................... 72 6.4.5 Presentations from workshop. ................................................................................. 78


ACP Countries"




6.4.6 Outcomes of workshop ............................................................................................. 79 6.4.7 Participants ............................................................................................................. 82 6.4.8 Workshop evaluation ............................................................................................... 88

6.5 COUNTRY REPORTS................................................................................................................. 92 6.6 TECHNICAL OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................ 151

6.6.1 Pros and Cons ....................................................................................................... 151 6.6.2 Guidelines for implementing port State measures in the region ............................ 193 6.6.3 Strategies ............................................................................................................... 213

6.7 PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................................................................................... 242

of 243

ACRONYMS

Acronym Full name

ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific

CCMs Members and Cooperating Non-members of WCPFC

CMMs Conservation and Management Measures

COFI Committee on Fisheries (FAO)

DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation

EC European Commission

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency

FFC Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee

FFV Foreign Fishing Vessel

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

HMTC Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions of Fisheries Access

IMO International Maritime Organization

IPOA-IUU International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing (FAO)

IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MIMRA Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NFA Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority

NORMA Federated States of Micronesia National Oceanic Resources Management

Authority

NTSA 2012 Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement

NGO Non-Government Organization

NPOA National Plan of Action

PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PNG Papua New Guinea

of 243

Acronym Full name

PSM Port State Measures

PSMA 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization

RFU ACP Fish II Regional Facilitation Unit

RFSC Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre (FFA)

RIMS Regional Information Management System

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

TCC Technical and Compliance Committee (WCPFC)

TUFMAN WCPFC Tuna Fisheries Database Management System

ToR Terms of Reference

UN United Nations

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Acknowledgements

The contract for this work was awarded to AGRER, and the consultants that undertook the study were

Ms. Judith Swan and Mr. Jude Talma. AGRER and the consultants would sincerely like to thank all

those that assisted in this work including those countries and institutions visited: the FFA, the WCPFC

Secretariat, the Governments of Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Solomon

Islands, Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea, all country officials and individuals and institutions that

contributed their time, experience and knowledge to this work. In particular we would like to thank

the ACP Fish II Regional Facilitation Unit (RFU), FFA and FAO for their generous support in

delivering the Workshop.

of 243

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The shared tuna fishery of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is managed under the umbrellas of a

number of regional and sub-regional organizations. The key organizations for port State measures

(PSM) include the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), whose members are coastal States in the region

and the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), with a membership of both coastal

and distant water fishing nations (DWFNs).

Regional and sub-regional organizations such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Communities (SPC) and

Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) do not play a role in port State measures because their focus is

on science and management respectively, and not fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance

(MCS).

The FFA advises its 17 Member States on tuna fisheries management issues within their exclusive

economic zones (EEZs) as well as in the high seas pockets in the region, as evidenced by a long

history of activities including advising in the negotiations of the multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with

the United States, agreed in 1986, which covers high seas areas, advising on national and regional

legal aspects concerning fishing and related activities in high seas areas and other aspects such as

those covering economic considerations and reporting requirements for adjacent areas.

The WCPFC provides the management framework mainly for the high seas areas but its area of

competence includes all waters in a specified area, including those under national jurisdiction

(including internal waters and archipelagic zones). It is also mandated to take measures in relation to

the stocks throughout their range. Conservation and management measures adopted by the WCPFC

are binding within members’ national waters, but require implementation into domestic legislation.

The above functions were not accurately stated in the ToRs for this project; in fact, they were

considerably wide of the mark, and this reflected widespread misunderstanding and confusion in the

region, which had legitimate concerns about sovereignty based on this misunderstanding and without

realizing the provisions of relevant instruments that safeguard sovereignty.

Proposals for binding resolutions on port State measures have been introduced at the previous three

sessions by WCPFC but have not been agreed by the FFA members. This was due to a range of

reasons, including their complexity and the lack of adequate notice, and importantly the absence of

any risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, gaps analysis, capacity assessment and broader

understanding of what the PSM actually involve in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO)

region. This was evident in the outcomes of the 2010 FFA Regional Workshop on Port State

Measures.

The purpose of this project was to provide technical assistance to all Pacific ACP States on PSM. The

results aimed at identification and prioritization of PSM requirements in the region; a list and analysis

of the pros and cons of whether countries in the region should implement the 2009 FAO Agreement on

Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

(PSMA) as a minimum standard; development of a Guideline for implementation of PSM in the

region; conduct of a regional PSM Workshop; and provide guidance through a brief or strategy

document on PSM measures and actions.

The scope of the PSMA is very broad, as it applies to fishing and related activities in support of

fishing, and to fishing vessels as well as those that carry out fishing related activities. A vessel may,

or in some circumstances must, be denied entry into port, and once there may – or must - be denied

certain uses of the port without an inspection if key requirements are not met.

Information requirements and inspection procedures must be harmonized and PSM requirements must

be integrated into a broader system of compliance tools and information systems. The training of

inspectors is addressed, as are the role of flag States and assistance to developing countries.

of 243

All of this requires comprehensive understanding at national, regional and international levels. This

report aims to reflect this fact in the in-country assessments, the training materials and the programme

and outcomes of the Workshop.

This Report provides information on the background of the project, the organisation and methodology,

and conclusions and recommendations. In the first phase, in-country visits and assessments were

made to six of the fifteen ACP States involved: Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands,

Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Of the others, the following attended the workshop:

Cook Islands, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.

Marshall Islands and Nauru could not attend because of other high level regional meetings, and Timor-

Leste did not respond to communications.

There were some logistical problems with travel and arranging in-country meetings during some of the

country missions, but substantively the main challenge was to overcome the impression held by

officials in all countries that adequate port State measures and regional compliance tools already

existed. There was some confusion and misunderstanding about the content of the PSMA and the

steps needed to implement it. Clarification on both aspects was achieved.

Training materials were developed which addressed all aspects of the implementation of port State

measures (legal, institutional, capacity, operational, assistance) and a five day ACP Fish II/FAO

Workshop was conducted in partnership with FAO and in cooperation with FFA in Nadi, Fiji from 9

to 13 September 2013. There were twenty-five participants from twelve ACP Fish II countries, and

one participant from Tokelau supported by FAO.

Presentations were made to the participants by the two ACP Fish II experts, three FAO experts and

two FFA officers. Additional presentations were prepared by three other experts who were unable to

attend, and they were delivered by resource persons present. The presentations covered a broad range

of topics, including the global view of PSM, framework of the PSMA, experience in other regions,

governance, economics, MCS, law, pros and cons, guidelines and strategies.

The participants followed up their training by breaking into three working groups. Each working

group had three tasks: solving a fictitious problem based on patterns of IUU fishing in the region, and

identifying pros and cons of PSM; supporting key recommendations for CPCs and the IOTC

Secretariat to consider in efforts to implement the IOTC PSMR; reviewing and making

recommendations on guidelines to implement PSM, and from that identifying strategies for

implementing PSM in the region. For the last two tasks, the three working groups each had a specific

angle to consider: legal and policy, institutional and capacity, and operational.

The outcomes of each of the working groups were consolidated into a general outcome identifying

strategies to implement PSM in the region. The outcomes were integrated, as appropriate, into the

Experts’ technical papers on pros and cons, guidelines and strategies.

of 243

The achievement was to explain the gaps and promote a better understanding of the benefits of

implementing PSM tailored to the region. Elaboration of possible processes for developing PSM that

would meet the region’s needs, e.g. through the review of the HMTCs and through FFC, was also an

achievement. The outcomes of the workshop showed that the previous concerns leading to reluctance

to delve further into port State measures had been lifted for the participants.

In general, much needs to be done at regional and national levels, including strengthening of human

capacity, institutions and laws and integrating PSM into existing regional and national MCS systems.

Regional processes should be used for this, and a better general understanding promoted. Assistance

should be identified as a priority for supporting this work so the countries can then move forward with

developing, agreeing upon and adopting PSM. Detailed recommendations are made to this effect.

of 243

DRAFT FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

The catches of tuna within the overall Western Pacific area are estimated at around 2.2 million tonnes

per year. These are caught by vessels from a registered vessel list of over 1 000 licensed vessels that

are flagged by nearly 30 countries. This magnitude of fishing over such a large area poses a challenge

for national MCS systems and calls for regional cooperation through the platforms of the WCPFC and

the FFA. In response to this, the FFA member countries have chosen some innovative ways to ensure

that fishing operations taking place within their EEZs and adjacent high seas areas in the Western

Pacific comply with agreed rules. These innovative ways include; FFA VMS, FFA Vessel Register,

Harmonized Minimum Terms & Conditions, Niue Treaty, Palau Arrangement, Agreed Minute on

Surveillance with the U.S, Lacey Act-Style Arrangements, Port State Enforcement, Harmonization of

National Fisheries Legislation, Observer Programmes, Coordination Point for Aerial Surveillance,

Liaison with Maritime Surveillance, MCS Website, Regional MCS Strategy 2010- 2015 and Regional

Fisheries Surveillance Centre (RFSC).

The PSMA was signed in 2009, including by Australia, New Zealand and Samoa, and since then eight

ratifications have been deposited, including the European Union (EU). A number of countries are in

the process of becoming party, and it needs 25 ratifications or accessions to enter into force.

The EU has tabled a draft Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) on Port State Measures for

consideration by WCPFC for the last three Commission sessions. The proposal did not gain much

traction, and this is attributed to insufficient accommodation by the EU of FFA Members’ stated

concerns:

the priority is to have in place a WCPFC measure that deals with non-licensed vessels only;

overlaps with existing WCPFC obligations;

lack of compatibility with existing national measures which are achieving the same outcome;

and

failure to provide tangible implementation strategies for SIDS.

In addition, the first two proposed CMMs were seen to be unreasonably complex and unrelated to

existing MCS mechanisms in the region, and the third, while less complex, was proposed without

permitting adequate time for review or consultation among FFA members, or any form of risk/gaps

analysis.

The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee, at its 85th Session in May, 2013, directed FFA

members to address port State measures at the September, 2013 WCPFC Technical and Compliance

Committee (TCC) meeting. However, the subject does not appear on the TCC agenda. It is expected

that the matter may be introduced under “other matters” or at the WCPFC session, but there is no

guarantee of this.

In general, there was a low level of understanding in the region of what needed to be done, and at what

cost, to prepare for implementation, and whether there were gaps in the existing regional MCS

systems that needed to be filled. The Project Workshop was intended to support FFA’s work in these

matters.

The overall objective of the ACP Fish II programme was to contribute to the sustainable and equitable

management of fisheries in ACP regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation and improving food

of 243

security in ACP States. The purpose of this contract is to provide technical assistance to all Pacific

ACP States on Port State Measures.

The direct beneficiary countries were all ACP countries in the Pacific region including: Cook Islands,

Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New

Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Timor-Leste. Despite many

communications with Timor-Leste concerning the project and the workshop, no response was ever

received from them.

The second phase included delivery of a one week training workshop, conducted in Fiji from 9 to 13

September 2013 and incorporation of workshop outcomes on strategies into the technical reports.

The results achieved are:

Significantly raised awareness of the nature and benefits of port State measures, a more

positive approach towards their implementation and improved understanding of the processes

and tools needed in the region for their implementation and integration with existing regional

and national instruments and mechanisms;

Reports on the pros and cons, guidelines and strategies for implementing minimum standards

for port State measures;

Regional stakeholders trained in the implementation of the IOTC PSMR.

The consultancy work was undertaken within two phases. The first phase between the 22nd of July

and the 18th of August 2012 included fact finding missions to FFA, the WCPFC Secretariat, the

Governments of Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and

Papua New Guinea as well as research and analytical work related to existing national and regional

legal and MCS arrangements, tools and activities.

Consultants also began work on the three technical papers, including pros and cons of adopting the

PSMA minimum standards, guidelines and a strategy for implementation of port State measures.

Workshop design and training material was reviewed within this period as well in phase two.

2. APPROACH TO THE ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Submission of Inception Report and Interim Report

The approach to the assignment was indicated in the inception report and interim technical report,

described below.

An inception report was prepared and finalized on 27 July 2013. It included reporting on key issues to

be addressed, liaison with regional organizations and a draft Prospectus and Provisional Programme

for the Workshop developed in consultation with the RFU, FFA and FAO, which was approved by

FAO.

An interim technical report was prepared and submitted on 31 August 2013. it described activities

undertaken for the ACP FISH II Regional Monitoring Workshop organization, including liaison with

FAO on partnering the Workshop, missions to FFA, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands,

Papua New Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia and WCPFC, assessment of available port State

measures policy instruments, development of guidelines for implementation of port State measures in

the region, development of a brief or regional strategy, problems encountered, achievements,

recommendations and suggestions.

of 243

2.2 Liaison with FAO on partnering the Workshop organization and

delivery

Liaison took place between the Experts and FAO headquarters and its sub-regional office on

partnering the workshop. FAO had already planned to hold a regional PSM workshop, with funding

from the United States, during the same time period as that planned by ACP Fish II and plans were

consolidated.

A programme and prospectus were agreed, ensuring that the ACP Fish II Terms of Reference (ToRs)

would be maintained. FAO was supportive of them and aimed at increasing understanding of the

PSMA in the region. As agreed between ACP Fish II and FAO, FAO supported the cost of the

workshop facilities, lunches and a reception with contributions from the United States of America.

FAO made the logistical arrangements for the venue and will prepare and publish the full report of the

Workshop as an FAO Circular.

Four FAO staff members supported the workshop: Matthew Camilleri, Fishery Liaison Officer,

Policy, Economics & Institutions Service, Masanami Izumi, Fishery Officer, Sub-Regional Office for

the Pacific Islands Karine Erikstein (Ms), Associate Professional Officer, Development Law Service,

Legal Office and Manah Lolani-Sam Chong (Ms) Clerk / Stenographer, Sub-Regional Office for the

Pacific Islands. FAO had contracted an international expert to participate, Mr. Terje Lobach, Legal

Adviser to the Norwegian Fisheries Minstry. He had prepared powerpoint presentations but due to

illness did not participate in the workshop; other resource persons made his presentations.

FAO supported the attendance of a participant from Tokelau, which otherwise would not have been

able to attend under ACP Fish II requirements. FAO brought information for distribution at the

Workshop, including hardcopies of the PSMA and the Guidelines for implementation of the PSMA

co-authored by Judith Swan, and put all presentations and workshop documents on a memory stick

which was distributed to participants prior to departure.

Workshop evaluation forms were completed by participants, and FAO assisted with their analysis.

They are continuing with this work.

2.3 Liaison with FFA and ACP Fish II on cooperating in presenting the

Workshop

In addition to cooperation by FFA in briefings of the consultants, liaison was undertaken with the

Deputy Director of FFA to cooperate in the presentation of the Workshop. It was originally hoped that

four resource persons could participate, but funding constraints resulted in the attendance by two

persons, William Edeson, Legal Adviser and Noan Prakop, MCS policy adviser. ACP Fish II offered

to request support for the others but their FFA duties did not permit travel. However, the other two

persons (management and economics experts) prepared presentations which were given by the two

resource persons on hand.

Mr. Augustine Mobiha, Manager of the ACP Fish II RFU, gave significant, and much needed support

to the organization of the Workshop through guidance, arranging appointments in the region and

contributing the services of Mr. Leonard Paia, DevFish II FFA Project manager, who contributed his

time and performed excellent work in arranging travel, questionnaire responses and information for

participants.

The FFA Corporate Services Director, Mr. David Rupokets, assisted with making arrangements to

transfer funds from AGRER to Fiji for payment of the participants’ per diems.

of 243

2.4 Liaison with WCPFC in preparing the Workshop

WCPFC was supportive of the project. The Director and Compliance Manager met with the

Key Experts, together with the Chair of TCC, Ms. Rhea Moss-Christian, who also accepted

the invitation to chair the Workshop. However, due to other commitments, including

preparations for the TCC, WCPFC was unable to provide further support.

3. COMMENTS ON TERMS OF REFERENCE

The ToRs (Appendix 6.1) were very extensive, and time given for their fulfillment was

disproportionately short when compared to other ACP Fish II projects that involve less complex

issues, a much smaller number of countries, much less distance travelled in the region and more time

to achieve outcomes. This was raised in the Interim Technical Report:

“Perhaps the most significant problem was the time frame allowed to achieve the objectives

and ToRs of this project in a region that covers 1/12th of the earth’s surface, involves 15

countries and has a wide range of complex and sophisticated regional and sub-regional

treaties, agreements and arrangements, as well as comprehensive MCS systems that include

reporting, monitoring and surveillance of a wide range of activities relevant to port State

measures.

This complexity is reflected in the very large number of staff required to serve countries

through FFA (almost 100) and WCPFC. It is understood that more time has been allocated

under ACP Fish II projects for simple in-country legislative reform and for port State

measures in a much smaller region. It has consequently been necessary for both key experts to

put in substantially more time than allowed under the project.”

This situation has not changed since the above was written.

Another problem is the assumption in the ToRs that a WCPFC PSM Scheme would have been agreed

by the time of project start-up, but this was not the case. The report therefore addresses a possible

future WCPFC Scheme in the context of preparation of a strategy paper.

A major concern is that the ToRs are significantly erroneous in interpreting the WCPFC Convention

and the FFA mandate and activities.

They describe the WCPFC as providing a management framework for the high seas and FFA for EEZ

management issues. In fact, it is much broader for both; the WCPFC Convention Area extends to all

waters under national jurisdiction and it has a mandate over fish stocks throughout their range. This is

acknowledged by the ToRs, in a manner which contradicts the first statement, in referring to the need

for countries to legally implement WCPFC CMMs that apply within their zones. WCPFC competence

over archipelagic waters is a real issue within the Commission.

Conversely, FFA addresses fisheries management on the high seas (e.g. under the multilateral Treaty

on Fisheries with the USA, reporting requirements, national legislation, etc.) and as appropriate in all

waters under national jurisdiction, not simply the EEZ.

These errors were corrected in the introductory paragraphs of the Executive Summary, shown below.

It should be emphasized that:

of 243

WCPFC and FFA each address both high seas and in-zone matters and do not have a clear

division of high seas-EEZ authority, respectively, as indicated in the ToRs; and

other sub-regional organizations do not address port State measures as an MCS matter

mandated under the PSMA;

The corrections to the ToRs, shown in the Executive Summary, appear below.

The shared tuna fishery of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is managed under the

umbrellas of a number of regional and sub-regional organizations. The key organizations for

port State measures (PSM) include the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), whose members are

coastal States in the region and the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC),

with a membership of both coastal and distant water fishing nations (DWFNs).

Regional and sub-regional organizations such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Communities

(SPC) and Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) do not play a role in port State measures

because their focus is on science and management respectively, and not fisheries monitoring,

control and surveillance (MCS).

The FFA advises its 17 Member States on tuna fisheries management issues within their

exclusive economic zones (EEZs) as well as in the high seas pockets in the region, as

evidenced by a long history of activities including advising in the negotiations of the

multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the United States, agreed in 1986, which covers high seas

areas, advising on national and regional legal aspects concerning fishing and related activities

in high seas areas and other aspects such as those covering economic considerations and

reporting requirements for adjacent areas.

The WCPFC provides the management framework mainly for the high seas areas but its area

of competence includes all waters in a specified area, including those under national

jurisdiction (including internal waters and archipelagic zones). It is also mandated to take

measures in relation to the stocks throughout their range. Conservation and management

measures adopted by the WCPFC are binding within members’ national waters, but require

implementation into domestic legislation.

The aspect of coastal State sovereignty in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, PSMA and WCPFC

Convention was not mentioned in the ToRs. It is a vital issue for FFA members and was addressed in

the strategy document. For example, the double guarantees of sovereignty under the WCPFC

Convention – both in general terms in Article 4 and in relation to port State measures in Article 27 –

and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement have not been understood by its Members. Improved

understanding of the protection afforded could contribute to strengthened approaches to accepting and

developing PSM in the region.

4. ORGANISATION AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Delivery of terms of reference

The Experts worked to cooperate in completing the three technical reports on pros and cons (Appendix

6.8.1), guidelines (Appendix 6.8.2) and strategies (Appendix 6.8.3) in tandem with country visits and

organization of the workshop. They based their presentations on materials they developed in the

reports. Because the workshop programme involved working group consideration of those areas,

culminating in strategic outcomes, the Experts aim was to assess the outcomes of the workshop and

include those that were relevant in the final version of the technical reports.

of 243

Terms of reference

(each of the key activities from the ToR) Delivery report and comments

Identify and prioritize PSM requirements in the

region, PSM in the region (both at the regional

and national levels) and relevant PSM schemes

around the world, are reviewed.

This was achieved in the Workshop

presentations and supporting technical

documents.

Priorities generally included consideration of

PSM requirements through the FFA process to

ensure capacity for implementation. They are

described in the workshop outcomes, after

consideration of presentations.

FFC direction to consider PSM as a priority

issue in TCC was noted, but the fact that it is not

on the agenda for the September 2013 meeting

was acknowledged.

A list and analysis of the pros and cons of

whether countries in the region should

implement the 2009 FAO PSMA as a

minimum standard is produced.



documents.

A Guideline for implementation of PSM in the

region is developed.



documents, and considered in working groups.

The final technical document took into account

workshop outcomes as appropriate.

A Regional PSM Workshop based on the

developed Guidelines on PSM (e.g. PSMA,

MTCs) and how to apply or implement these

measures at the national level is conducted.

This was held in Nadi, Fiji from 9 to 13

September 2013, together with FAO and in

cooperation with FFA.

Guidelines co-authored by KE1 in a FAO

publication1 were used as basis for discussion,

together with presentations made by ACP Fish

II Experts.

Guidance to Pacific ACP states through a Brief

or Strategy document on measures and actions

to undertake to ensure the PSM Scheme to be

adopted by the WCPFC enhances proper

management of the regional tuna fisheries and

maximizes benefits to the peoples of the

Pacific is provided.

This ToR was inappropriate, as no PSM Scheme

had been proposed. A formal amendment to the

ToR had been requested, to reflect the future

nature of a Scheme, but ACP Fish II advised this

would not be necessary.

The amended approach was achieved in the

Workshop presentations and supporting

technical documents.

The final technical document took into account

workshop outcomes as appropriate.

1 Doulman, D.J. and Swan, J., A guide to the background and implementation of the 2009 FAO Agreement on

Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO. 2012. 165 pp.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2590e/i2590e00.pdf


of 243

4.2 Conduct and details of the assignment

4.2.1 Preliminary research

The Experts conducted preliminary and ongoing research on the documents described in section 6.3.

4.2.2 Assessment of available port State measures policy instruments

There are no available port State measures policy instruments in the region. Only Samoa has signed

the 2009 FAO Agreement. The absence of relevant policy instruments reflects the concern of the

region that there is potential for duplication between port State measures and other MCS tools in place

in the region, and that the measures could place an undue burden on Pacific Island developing States.

Prior to this project, there had been no systematic study or gaps analysis that could contribute to a

decision on a WCPFC CMM, let alone a policy instrument on port State measures.

The rationale given by FFA Members for not agreeing to adopt the EU proposal for a CMM on port

State measures presented at the Eighth Session of WCPFC in 2012 clearly shows that there is no

regional policy or policy instrument on port State measures:

“FFA members stated their support for port state measures but expressed reservations about

using the FAO PSMA as the basis for a WCPFC CMM. These CCMs considered that the

EU’s proposal duplicates tools in place through the WCPFC, regionally or nationally; places

undue burdens on SIDS to implement the measures; and presents loopholes and

inconsistencies.

FFA members suggested that a gap analysis should first be conducted to identify what needs a

port State measure should fulfil.

Several CCMs expressed support for a port state measure which is appropriate for the WCPFC

fisheries and CCMs’ capacity to implement, and suggested that more work would be

necessary before WCPFC could agree a new CMM which could be effectively implemented

by its members.”

Although there is no policy, there appears to be common thinking to consider the development of port

State measures in the context of regional needs and MCS tools already in place.

4.2.3 Travel schedule for the assessment field work and workshop

The Experts undertook extensive travel for the assessment field work and workshop, as shown below.

There were some issues concerning Mr. Talma’s travel due to the AGRER travel agent unnecessarily

routing him through Los Angeles rather than Honolulu to travel from Fiji to Marshall Islands, as

explained in the Interim Report. This added an unconscionable burden to his already extensive travel

schedule. The consequences of cross the international dateline also caused some problems with

calculating his field days and arrival time in Marshall Islands.

Itinerary – Judith Swan, KE1

Depart Date Time Flight Arrive Date Time Flight

of 243

Phase I

Rome 17 July 2200 EK 96 Brisbane 19 July 1005 EK5510

Brisbane 22 July 0930 IE 701 Honiara 22 July 1345 IE 701

Honiara 05 August 1110 PX 85 Port

Moresby

05 August 1230 PX 85

Port

Moresby

08 August 1640 QF 198 Cairns 08 August 1830 QF 198

Cairns 09 August 0035 UA 99 Guam 09 August 0525 UA 99

Guam 11 August 1945 UA 136 Pohnpei 12 August 0050 UA 136

Pohnpei 17 August 1526 UA 154 Guam 17 August 1755 UA 154

Guam 17 August 1920 UA 183 Manila 17 August 2110 UA 183

Manila 17 August 2355 EK 335 Dubai 18 August 0420 EK 335

Phase II

Dubai 18 August 0840 EK 707 Mahe 18 August 1320 EK 707

Mahe 4 September 2355 EK 708 Dubai 5 September 0425 EK 708

Dubai 5 September 1025 EK 434 Brisbane 6 September 0605 EK 434

Brisbane 7 September 0930 VA 175 Suva 7 September 1500 VA 175

Suva 18 September 1535 VA 176 Brisbane 18 September 1810 EK 435

Brisbane 18 September 2100 EK 435 Rome 19 September 1315 EK 97

Itinerary – Jude Talma, KE2

Depart Date Time Flight Arrive Date Time Flight

Phase I

Mauritius 20 July 2215 EK 3704 Dubai 21 July 0445 EK 3704

Dubai 21 July 1025 EK 434 Brisbane 22 July 0605 EK 434

Brisbane 22 July 0930 IE 701 Honiara 22 August 1345 IE 701

Honiara 27 July 1415 IE 702 Nadi 27 July 1930 IE 702

Nadi 28 july 2015 FJ 25 Suva 28 July 2045 FJ 25

Suva 01 August 1000 FJ 281 Funafuti 01 August 1220 FJ 281

Funafuti 06 August 1225 FJ 280 Suva 06 August 1445 FJ 280

Suva 06 August 1600 FJ 16 Nadi 06 August 1630 FJ 16

Nadi 06 August 2200 FJ 810 Los Angeles 06 August 1320 FJ 810

Los Angeles 06 August 1630 AA 297 Honolulu 06 August 1915 AA 297

Honolulu 07 August 0725 AU 154 Majuro 08 August 1034 AU 154

Majuro 10 August 1119 Au 154 Pohnpei 10 August 1445 AU 154

Pohnpei 17 August 1526 UA 154 Guam 17 August 1755 UA 154

Guam 17 August 1920 UA 183 Manila 17 August 2110 UA 183

Manila 17 August 2355 EK 335 Dubai 18 August 0420 EK 335

Dubai 18 August 0840 EK 3703 Mauritius 18 August 1650 EK 3703

Phase II

Mauritius 02 Sept 2215 EK 3704 Dubai 03 Sept 0425 EK 3704

Dubai 03 Sept 1015 EK 412 Sydney 04 Sept 0605 EK 412

Sydney 04 Sept 1300 FJ 9 10 Nadi 04 Sept 1850 FJ 910

Nadi 16 Sept 1330 FJ 915 Sydney 16 Sept 1625 EK 915

Sydney 17 Sept 1845 EK 419 Dubai 17 Sept 0545 EK 419

Dubai 17 Sept 1015 EK 3704 Mauritius 17 Sept 1650 EK 3704

of 243

4.2.4 Field missions: visits to countries, FFA, WCPFC

The Key Experts undertook missions to the region from 22 July – 17 August. Their reports of visits to

countries, FFA and WCPFC are attached as Appendix 6.5. The country reports conform to an

assessment framework as follows:

Background (Port; Number, type and nationality of vessels (licensed, unlicensed); Purpose of

calls; Number of inspections and procedures/reports; Integration of MCS tools with port

inspections; Results of inspections; IUU fishing problems and detection);

Framework and implementation of legal authority and bilateral/regional/international

obligations;

Institutional arrangements;

Information systems;

Human capacity: MCS and Legal (staff, training, information, etc);

Systematic cooperation and sharing of intelligence (interagency, through WCPFC, FFA);

Pros and cons;

Specific needs for guidelines, strategies;

Conclusions and recommendations.

The reports were used as a resource for preparing the three technical papers on pros and cons,

guidelines and strategies.

The Experts arrived in Solomon Islands on 22 July 2013. Briefings were arranged with the FFA

Director-General and Deputy Director-General, and several meetings with staff and Mr. Augustine

Mobiha, RFU, took place during the first week: a general introductory inception meeting, as well as

smaller meetings with staff concerned with fisheries management, legal matters, planning and MCS.

It was agreed that the Workshop would be titled the “ACP Fish II – FAO Regional Workshop on Port

State Measures, in Cooperation with FFA”, and there was preliminary agreement with FFA on its

input and resource persons.

The Experts developed a template for reports of country visits to ensure consistency in the information

obtained, as well as a questionnaire (Appendix 6.4.2 for distribution to, and completion by Workshop

participants. The objective of the questionnaire was to provide a full picture of port and fishing

activities, measures and administration in each country. The responses will be analysed and presented

at the workshop.

Ms. Swan remained in Honiara the week of 29 July, when the Workshop prospectus and provisional

programme were finalized and distributed by Mr. Augustine Mobiha together with invitations to

nominate participants for the Workshop. Further administrative and logistical arrangements were

made for the Workshop, including assistance by the RFU in arranging travel to the Workshop, liaison

with the Novotel Nadi, the venue for the Workshop and development of a budget.

A matrix of country legislation was developed, showing the extent of implementation (not at all, partly

and fully) of the essential legal requirements in the FAO Agreement. Most provisions had not been

implemented by most countries. Only one country showed full implementation, and that was by

Solomon Islands in the Fisheries Amendment Bill which is expected to be considered by Parliament

later this year. The matrix is shown in the strategy document, described below.

Mr. Talma travelled to Fiji and Tuvalu the week of 29 July, and subsequently to Marshall Islands. In

Fiji he met with officials from the Fiji Department of Fisheries, Greenpeace Australia Pacific,

Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji, Solicitor General’s Office, WWF and industry representatives. In

Tuvalu he met with officials from the Department of Fisheries, Department of Marine and Port

Services and the Maritime Police, In the Marshall Islands met with officials from the Marshall Island

of 243

Marine Resource Authority, Coast Guard, Office of the Maritime Administration and Parties to the

Nauru Agreement Secretariat.

Ms. Swan met with officials from the Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources on

1 August 2013 and travelled to Papua New Guinea the week of 5 August where she met with officials

from the National Fisheries Authority.

The two Key Experts met in Federated States of Micronesia the week of 12 August to coordinate

information and organization for the Workshop, and had meetings with the National Oceanic Resource

Management Authority (NORMA), Attorney-General, Maritime Wing, Ports Authority and WCPFC.

4.2.5 Prospectus and provisional Workshop programme

In consultation with FAO and cooperation with FFA, a prospectus and provisional programme for the

workshop was developed by the Experts, which addressed the ACP Fish II project ToRs. It is in

Appendix 6.4.1, and states that the main objective of the workshop will be to support the work of FFA

and as appropriate other regional organisations in relation to port State measures, strengthen national

awareness and capacity and facilitate the process toward consolidating and harmonizing port State

measures. This will be achieved through, inter alia, considering the matters prepared in advance of

the Workshop, as well as relevant regional and international instruments, requirements and practices.

The prospectus described the expected outcomes of the Workshop, based on the ToRs, as to:

1. raise participants’ awareness of the deleterious effects of IUU fishing and the benefits of

developing and integrating strengthened and coordinated port State measures into existing

MCS tools, including through FFA and WCPFC, so that countries may act in a concerted and

decisive manner to prevent, deter and eliminate such fishing;

2. assure the comprehensive understanding of the existing relevant regional and international

instruments, practice, requirements, standards and strategies, including the FAO Agreement,

and their relation to participants’ countries;

3. identify port State measures requirements and minimum standards at international and

regional level and the degree of implementation in existing national legislation, institutions

and procedures;

4. identify potential benefits of implementing port State measures at regional and national levels;

5. identify regional and national needs and challenges for implementing port State measures at

regional and national levels, including improved laws, policies, institutions,

procedures/operations and capacity;

6. strengthen shared understanding of the role of good governance in implementing port State

measures;

7. identify areas for the prioritization of port State measures requirements in the region;

8. identify possible mechanisms at regional and national level which would serve to implement

port State measures and integrate them with existing MCS tools;

9. review and contribute to Guidelines and Strategies for the region, including legal, policy,

operational and administrative requirements.

of 243

The outcomes of the workshop were expected to lead to improved capacity for countries to strengthen

and coordinate port State measures with the objective of preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU

fishing.

The prospectus aimed at attendance as follows:

“Two participants from each country from middle or senior management level should be

nominated. Between them they should have knowledge and work experience in matters related

to the legal, operational and policy aspects of port State measures in order that the expected

outcomes of the workshop can be realized.”

The provisional Workshop programme was structured to provide two days of presentations by

resource persons, two days of working group activity and plenary consideration of consolidated

Workshop outcomes that were developed in the working groups.

4.2.6 Questionnaire for workshop participants

As noted above, a questionnaire was sent to participants together with the prospectus, with the

objective of identification of port State activities and gaps in MCS and legislation. It appears in

Appendix 6.4.2, and generally asks participants to provide information on the use of port, inspections,

legal requirements and operational procedures.

The results were summarized and presented to the Workshop by Ms. Karine Erikstein, FAO Legal

Office. They appear in Annex 6.4.5. In general they showed that there was very weak, if any,

implementation of PSM. Dockside inspections were for scientific purposes only and not compliance,

and information collected was inadequate for PSM.

4.2.7 Workshop report

A full Workshop report is being finalized by FAO, in cooperation with Judith Swan, and will be

published as a FAO Circular.

The Workshop was held 9-13 September 2013 in Nadi, Fiji. The following relevant documents are

shown in Annex 6.4:

Prospectus

Questionnaire

Workshop documents

Programme

Presentations from workshop

Outcomes of workshop

Participants

Evaluation of workshop by participants

Ms. Rhea Moss-Christian of FSM, who is also Chair of TCC, was invited to Chair the Workshop and

she had indicated availability. The meeting endorsed this selection. The Workshop was opened by the

Permanent Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry of Fiji, Mr. Inoke Wainiqolo.

The workshop programme was structured around presentations for the first two days, which addressed:

Relevant work of ACP Fish II, FFA and FAO in the region,

Overview of Port State measures in the global context

Introduction to port State measures, and relevant procedures

Relevant FFA activities - economics (fisheries, foreign fleets and major ports in the region),

MCS, management, legal implications,

of 243

Practicalities of implementing PSM in other regions

Report of responses to the national questionnaire on PSM

Presentations on the Pros and Cons, Guidelines and Strategy developed by the Experts.

Working group sessions were held for two days to examine aspects of the above, as described in the

programme. Three separate working groups were formed, and resource persons were appointed as

advisers during deliberations, and to comment on the reports of the working groups given to plenary.

Task 1 involved a problem-solving exercise with a fictitious but realistic fact situation

involving the pros and cons of implementing port State measures (the exercise is shown in

Annex 6.4.3, Workshop documents”);

Task 2 involved legal/policy, institutional/capacity development and operational aspects of

guidelines;

Task 3 involved legal/policy, institutional/capacity development and operational aspects of

strategies at national and regional levels.

In the Working Groups, participants considered the pros and cons of implementing the minimum

standards of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement and guidelines for implementation. Outcomes

of these two areas contributed to, and culminated in the identification of strategies. The process and

outcomes are summarized below.

“Pros” were identified as:

the same understanding of standards/requirements across the region;

the consistent and equal application of the rules and measures among and between all

members across the region;

closer co-operation/collaboration between members and national agencies;

once the recommendations are incorporated, member States would be well equipped in

combating IUU fishing by enforcing stringent PSM.

“Cons” included:

the need for greater funding and technical support, and interagency co-operation at regional

and national levels;

the need for national training, amendments of legislation and policies and recruitment of

additional workforce, all of which will take time and resources.

In reviewing guidelines for implementing minimum standards of port State measures in the FAO Port

State Measures Agreement, existing gaps or constraints were identified at national, subregional and

regional levels, together with measures that could address them, priorities for actions and

recommendations. Drawing from this, the workshop then identified the strategies shown in the

outcomes in Appendix 6.4.6, which addressed general, legal and policy, institutional and operational

elements, as well as assistance needed.

Participants designated priorities for the strategies and indicated short, medium or long-term activities.

In general, the adoption of implementation plans for the strategies were encouraged at national and

regional levels, including through existing plans such as NPOAs-IUU and regional strategies. It was

believed that assistance should be sought through all available channels, including ACP Fish II, FAO,

FFA and WCPFC.

An evaluation of the workshop was done by participants, and the results were highly positive

(Appendix 6.4.8). They were asked to rate twelve different aspects of the workshop on a scale of 1-5,

with 5 being high. 84% of the 25 responses indicated either 4 (145 responses) or 5 (109 responses).

of 243

The remaining responses (45) indicated 3, except for two which were lower. FAO is finalizing an

assessment of the open-ended questions on the evaluation form.

4.3 Problems encountered

Problems encountered during Phase I of the project were described in the Interim Technical Report.

They included: (i) logistical difficulties with travel involving inability by the AGRER travel agent to

issue a ticket for Mr. Talma from Honiara-Nadi and issuance of a ticket from Nadi-Majuro that

required completely unnecessary travel to Los Angeles and did not indicate his date of arrival in

Majuro which, due to the dateline, was one day after it appeared on the ticket causing loss of time for

meetings; (ii) failure by the ACP Fish II focal point in Papua New Guinea to set up the meetings

requested or respond to the requests made a number of times prior to the arrival of the Expert, and his

absence on duty travel upon her arrival; (iii) Solomon Islands officials were involved in an in-country

workshop on IUU fishing the week the Expert was available, so although a meeting was arranged with

several officials, full information was not available; and (iv) the unreasonably short timeframe for the

project, causing the Experts to work an additional two weeks without pay.

The logistical difficulties were encountered in relation to the in-country meetings but these were

surmounted and adequate arrangements made, although the Experts would have preferred a broader

range of meetings.

As noted in the Interim Report, perhaps the most significant problem was the time frame allowed to

achieve the objectives and ToRs of this project in a region that covers 1/12th of the earth’s surface,

involves 15 countries and has a wide range of complex and sophisticated regional and sub-regional

treaties, agreements and arrangements, as well as comprehensive MCS systems that include reporting,

monitoring and surveillance of a wide range of activities relevant to port State measures.

There was initial difficulty in identifying an administrative assistant for the Workshop, as described in

the Inception Report. This issue was solved, thanks to the generous assistance of the DevFish II FFA

Project Coordinator Mr. Leonard Paia, as agreed by Mr. Augustine Mobiha, who organized all travel

arrangements in an excellent manner, and to FAO, who agreed to provide the Workshop with an

administrative/secretarial assistant from the sub-regional office.

An apparent problem was that the countries did not comply with the request in the Workshop

prospectus to nominate two middle to senior level persons as participants who had between them

experience and knowledge of management, law and operations. Instead, nominees were mainly

middle level fisheries officers, or customs/port inspectors and only one lawyer was present.

This was due to other high level regional meetings being held around the time of the Workshop (but

not the same time) that absorbed the time of the senior officials, including the annual meeting of the

South Pacific Forum, the meeting of the WCPFC Scientific Committee and the forthcoming WCPFC

TCC meeting. However, it is believed that the participants had a positive and clear view of the

implementation of PSM. With the excellent chairing by Ms. Rhea Moss-Christian, who is also chair

of the WCPFC TCC, the participants were very well versed to take home the deepened understanding

by the end of the workshop.

Timor-Leste did not respond to any communications and did not attend the Workshop.

FFA had proposed to send a management expert to the Workshop but there was a conflict in

scheduling for the officer involved. A presentation was given by another FFA staff member. This

was a problem because the management expert, who is developing a draft CMM on port State measurs

of 243

for consideration by FFA Members, would have benefited from improved knowledge and

understanding.

Three experts who were originally scheduled to attend the workshop as resource persons could not do

so; one (international expert funded by FAO) because of illness and the other two (from FFA)

because of financial constraints and a heavy workload at FFA. However, their presentations (five in

all) were given by other resource persons and were well received.

4.4 Achievements

The main achievement was a raised understanding and awareness of the benefits of port State

measures, the gaps and opportunities for implementation, and the mechanisms and processes for

further regional consideration and adoption.

The three technical papers prepared under the project, including pros and cons, guidelines and

strategies will be distributed in the region and may be drawn upon in future. The strategy document

also includes as model implementing legislation, which was requested in the Workshop.

Identification of a strategy for adoption and implementation in the region by workshop participants,

including priority and duration, was produced for continuing use. It included:

the possibility of incremental implementation of port State measures in line with existing PSM

related CMMs; processes, MCS tools and needs;

human and institutional capacity development;

national and regional interagency cooperation;

improved legal framework to implement PSM;

production of an inspection manual and SOPs; and

possible assistance.

A significant achievement was the delivery of a successful workshop in partnership with FAO and in

cooperation with FFA that was highly evaluated by participants, including distribution of all

presentations and documents to participants at the end of the Workshop. The expected outcomes of

the Workshop, as stated in the Prospectus and based on the ToRs of this project, were achieved.

of 243

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The project was concluded successfully with positive cooperation from organizations and countries.

There is a realization that port State measures for MCS are different from those used simply for

monitoring, and that, while this region is exemplary in regional cooperation mechanisms and

agreements for MCS, there is still a gap that should be filled.

The importance of proceeding on a regional basis to ensure the capacity, laws, institutions and

operations are in place for implementing PSM cannot be overstated. It is recognized that other regions

estimate around a 5-10 year time period for implementation, this should be considered for the WPO as

well. The standards for PSM need to be better and more widely understood.

Various existing instruments and national legislation should be strengthened as indicated in the

Strategy paper, as well as databases and information systems. Once this is achieved, Standard

Operating Procedures should be developed, and capacity of people and institutions strengthened.

Interagency cooperation should be put on a strong foundation, such as an MOU and donor assistance

should be identified for the foregoing.

Recommendation 1

Build on the awareness already generated and needs identified, and extend information and awareness

to decision-makers and stakeholders throughout the region.

Recommendation 2

FFA Members should develop PSM based on the minimum standards of the FAO Agreement, adapted

to the needs of the region. They should do this:

through existing mechanisms and instruments, including Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC),

Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions of Fisheries Access (HMTCs), the Niue Treaty

Subsidiary Agreement (NTSA), the FFA Secretariat, the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC)

and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC);

mindful of the directive of the 85th Session of FFC in 2013 that PSM should be discussed as a

priority in TCC/WCPFC;

taking into consideration a strategy to agree on and implement on such measures

incrementally, based on the availability of assistance to:

o develop PSM appropriate for the region;

o make necessary amendments to legislation;

o develop legal and technical human capacity to implement the measures, including the

development of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and manuals;

o integrate necessary information in national and legal databases; and

o ensure institutional capacity and interagency cooperation; and

taking into consideration the other recommendations in this report and any applicable

requirements, decisions or directives of FFA-related bodies, agreements and arrangements.

Recommendation 3

Facilitate the development, harmonization and implementation of legislation for PSM, including

penalties, and of regional instruments.

Recommendation 4

Integrate port State measures with existing regional MCS tools, including databases, data exchange,

VMS, and training (e.g. integrate with FFA VMS training)

of 243

Recommendation 5

Develop a manual of procedures that can be used by FFA Members and WCPFC CCMs in

implementing port State measures, and as appropriate facilitate training of relevant personnel,

including delivering legal training to lawyers and operational personnel.

Recommendation 6

Review MCS-related CMMs of WCPFC and strengthen them to include relevant provisions on port

State measures.

Recommendation 7

Foster interagency cooperation and coordination through facilitating interagency MOUs and sharing

protocols at national, subregional and regional levels and providing operational guidelines.

Recommendation 8

Undertake a risk assessment for implementing PSM based on current national, subregional and

regional MCS.

Recommendation 9

Facilitate regional programmes to implement port State measures, such as the organization of regional

technical meetings or training courses for legal experts and national inspectors and exchange

programmes as appropriate. This may be achieved for each group individually and collectively; it is

important that the legal experts and national inspectors understand the requirements and procedures of

each other – as well as those applicable directly to them - and in this sense reciprocity is essential in

meetings/training courses.

of 243

6. APPENDICES

6.1 Terms of reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE

FOR

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training

Workshop

PAC-2.2-B12

6.1.1 Background information 26

6.1.2 Objective, purpose and expected result 31

6.1.3 Assumptions and risks 31

6.1.4 Scope of the work 32

6.1.5 Logistics and timing 35

6.1.6 Requirements 35

6.1.7 Reports 39

6.1.8 Monitoring and evaluation 40

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training Workshop,


Project Funded by the European Union A project implemented by AGRER pg. 26

6.1.1. Background INFORMATION

6.1.1.1 Beneficiary country

The direct beneficiary countries for the implementation of this contract are all ACP countries in the

Pacific region including: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands,

Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and

Timor-Leste.

6.1.1.2 Contracting Authority

ACP FISH II Coordination Unit

36/21 Av. de Tervueren

5th Floor

Brussels 1040, Belgium

Tel.: +32 (0)2.7390060

Fax: +32 (0)2.7390068

6.1.1.3 Relevant country background

The shared tuna fishery of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is managed under the umbrellas of

the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and

the Secretariat of the Pacific Communities (SPC). The FFA advises its 17 Member States on tuna

fisheries management issues within their Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ), while the WCPFC

provides the management framework for the high seas areas. Conservation and management measures

adopted by the WCPFC are also binding within member’s national waters, but require translation into

domestic legislation. The SPC provides scientific support and advice to both FFA and WCPFC.

The catches of tuna within the overall Western Pacific area are estimated at around 2.2 million tonnes

per year. These are caught by vessels from a registered vessel list of over 1 000 licensed vessels that

are flagged by nearly 30 countries. This magnitude of fishing over such a large area poses a challenge

for national MCS systems and calls for regional cooperation through the platforms of the WCPFC and

the FFA. In response to this, the FFA member countries have chosen some innovative ways to ensure

that fishing operations taking place within their EEZs and adjacent high seas areas in the Western

Pacific comply with agreed rules. These innovative ways include; FFA VMS, FFA Vessel Register,

Harmonized Minimum Terms & Conditions, Niue Treaty, Palau Arrangement, Agreed Minute on

Surveillance with the U.S, Lacey Act-Style Arrangements, Port State Enforcement, Harmonization of

National Fisheries Legislation, Observer Programmes, Coordination Point for Aerial Surveillance,

Liaison with Maritime Surveillance, MCS Website, Regional MCS Strategy 2010- 2015 and Regional

Fisheries Surveillance Centre (RFSC).

6.1.1.4 Current state of affairs in the relevant sector

Applying management and conservation measures at ports where fishing vessels operate has long been

considered a highly effective way to enforce compliance. In the Pacific, Port State Enforcement (PSE)

measures have been applied by FFA member countries for some years now through the

implementation of harmonized minimum terms and conditions of fishing access by foreign fishing

vessels and the adoption of standard boarding and inspection procedures. Other initiatives such as the

Regional Register, standard catch and effort reporting and the Vessel Monitoring System also act to




support PSE. The strengthening of national and regional MCS as elaborated in the Regional MCS

Strategy will inter alia further strengthen PSE systems.

Since its inception the WCPF Commission has considered the development of a Port State Measures

(PSM) Scheme for the region but in 2008, deferred further action to await the outcome of the FAO

process on development of a binding PSM arrangement. In November 2009 the FAO Conference

formally adopted the Agreement on Port State Measures (FAO PSMA) to Prevent, Deter and

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the agreement has been open for signature

since November 2009. Entry into force will occur 30 days following the ratification, acceptance,

approval or accession of 25 members. The arrangement is based on the 2001 FAO International Plan

of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the 2005

FAO Model Scheme on Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

The FAO PSMA is purported as a harmonized approach which is not intended to derogate from the

sovereignty of States over their ports, but to promote a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory system

for implementing port (and Flag) State obligations. The substantive elements of the regime cover the

following areas:

port State inspection procedures;

information to be provided in advance by fishing vessels prior to entry into port;

actions to be taken by port States when violations are detected;

information systems and information to be collected and disseminated by the port State

including to flag States and other affected States as appropriate; and

Standard elements of training to be provided for port State inspectors.

There are differences in interpretation of the FAO PSMA which could be a contributing factor as

expressed in the report of the FAO Technical Consultation to draft the Port State Measures that:

Pacific Island countries present at the Technical Consultation informed the Consultation that they

intended to exercise their discretion in applying the Agreement to foreign fishing vessels licensed to

fish within their national waters if measures already in place were as effective as those provided in

the Agreement. They indicated that in asserting their sovereignty over their ports and applying

sovereign rights they had in place regional and sub-regional arrangements to support monitoring,

control and surveillance of their fisheries including port State measures applicable to all vessels

conducting fishing or fishing related activities in their national waters. The countries stated further

that each licensed foreign fishing vessel was subject to stringent conditions including the

requirement to install and operate a mobile transceiver unit, accommodate an observer if required

and submit to port and other inspections. In their view, the Pacific Island countries that had

already equivalent or stronger measures to combat IUU fishing should not be required to apply the

Agreement to licensed foreign fishing vessels unless deemed necessary.

Now that the FAO PSMA has been adopted and at least 16 countries have signed it including

Australia, the European Union (EU), Indonesia, New Zealand and Samoa from the WCPFC

membership, its entry into force will, however, still probably take a few years and is very unlikely to

occur before the WCPFC, Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) convenes in 2012. The EU

has tabled a draft Conservation and Management Measure on Port State Measures for consideration by

WCPFC for the last three Commission meetings. The proposal has not gained much traction attributed

to insufficient accommodation of the following concerns:

The priority is to have in place a WCPFC measure that deals with non-licensed vessels only;

overlaps with existing WCPFC obligations;

lack of compatibility with existing national measures which are achieving the same outcome;

and

failure to provide tangible implementation strategies for SIDS.

In light of this, the ACP Fish 2 Project Workshop is intended to support FFA’s work on this matter

and it is anticipated that the project workshop will be convened in early 2013.




While many FFA MCS initiatives have been undertaken to deter IUU fishing in FFA member

countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and on the High Seas, significant gaps exist that

undermine fisheries management measures and the integrity of scientific and management information

upon which those measures are based. Previous FFA workshops and meetings and the recent MRAG

report on the five Regional MCS Strategy analytical projects, have identified a real need to improve

coordination of existing MCS programmes, personnel and assets and cooperation both within and

between FFA Members, and, in a wider context, with other members of the WCPFC. Action to

strengthen existing MCS arrangements is consistent with Leaders’ recognition in the Vava’u

Declaration on “the imperative need for us to take immediate and decisive collective action to ensure

that, within the next three to five years, we secure our peoples’ future livelihoods, regional food

security, and the environmental sustainability of our seas and their ecosystems”

Regional cooperation in fisheries between FFA Members has led to the achievement of significant

management and development gains described above that would not have been achieved by countries

working alone. The achievement of FFA members’ regional goals for their tuna fisheries depends

heavily upon the effective implementation by national governments of a comprehensive range of

management and associated MCS measures, recognising the diversity of national and sub regional

circumstances and priorities.

This ACP Fish II project will be assisting Pacific ACP member States on developing their

understanding on Port State measures and developing strategies to enable the member states to fully

implement their responsibilities and also make progress on the PSM enforcement issue in the region.

6.1.1.5 Related programmes and other donor activities

Related programmes and other donor activities which contribute to similar or related ACP Fish II

programme activities include work or activities by the Japanese Trust Fund (OFCF), Australian Centre

for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR), Global Environmental Fund (GEF), DEVFISH and

the two Regional Fisheries Bodies; the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) & Secretariat of the Pacific

Community (SPC). Funding by the Japanese Trust Fund has gone into funding training workshops for

Pacific ACP countries in developing island fisheries officers understanding in fish stock assessment.

Funding from OFCF has gone into developing infrastructure in fisheries training institutions to better

train fisheries officers while ACIAR funding has gone mainly into developing sustainable fisheries

and aquaculture for food security in the region.

The FFA is now to commence the next phase of the DevFish project while the Global Environmental

Fund (GEF) funding is being used by the Regional Fisheries Bodies along with others such as the

Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and Non Government Organisations (NGOs), including Conservation

International (CI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC), which have

similar objectives to the ACP Fish II programme to address similar issues in the region. These

Regional Fisheries Bodies and other organisations will be consulted in this work on the regional

fisheries MCS strategy and individual country’s national MCS strategy.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) recently conducted as part of the Regional

Plan of Action (RPOA) to Promote Responsible Fishing Practices Including Combating Illegal,

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the South East Asia Region a Workshop in Malaysia, on the

practical implementation of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) with a focus on

preventing IUU vessels using regional ports for offloading IUU fish and resupplying their vessels.

Participants included some ACP Fish II countries, in preparation training modules where developed

and delivered. The PEW Foundation has also developed a gap analysis proforma to identify how and

where PSMA can be enhanced.

In the conduct of this assignment, consultants are expected to work closely with all countries fisheries

administrations/agencies and the countries fisheries associated stakeholders as well as relevant donors




and donor funded programmes to gather relevant information and ensure proper coordination of

activities.

6.1.2. OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE AND EXPECTED RESULTS

6.1.2.1. Overall objective

The overall objective of the ACP Fish II programme is to contribute to the sustainable and equitable

management of fisheries in ACP regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation and improving food

security in ACP States.

6.1.2.2. Purpose The purpose of this contract is to provide technical assistance to all Pacific ACP States on Port State

Measures.

6.1.2.3. Results to be achieved by the Consultant

The Consultant will achieve the following results as part of this assignment:

To identify and prioritize PSM requirements in the region, PSM in the region (both at the regional

and national levels) and relevant PSM schemes around the world, are reviewed.

A list and analysis of the pros and cons of whether countries in the region should implement the

2009 FAO PSMA as a minimum standard is produced.

A Guideline for implementation of PSM in the region is developed.

A Regional PSM Workshop based on the developed Guidelines on PSM (e.g. PSMA, MTCs) and

how to apply or implement these measures at the national level is conducted.

Guidance to Pacific ACP states through a Brief or Strategy document on measures and actions to

undertake to ensure the PSM Scheme to be adopted by the WCPFC enhances proper management

of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes benefits to the peoples of the Pacific is provided.

6.1.3. ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

6.1.3.1. Assumptions underlying project intervention

The need for this intervention was clearly identified in the Regional Needs Assessment workshop with

fisheries administrations and representatives of Regional Fisheries Bodies undertaken in Honiara,

Solomon Islands in November 2009. The relevance of this activity was further confirmed by

consultations with different Pacific ACP States’ national fisheries administrations/agencies and at the

Pacific Regional Action Plan Validation Workshop held from 10th to 11

th of November 2010 in

Lautoka, Fiji. The ACP Fish II regional workshops held in Apia, Samoa, in April 2011 and in Lami,

Fiji in January 2012 further confirmed the need for this project.

Since ACP FISH II is a demand-driven Programme, it is assumed that counterpart institutions

including fisheries administration/agencies within each of the Pacific ACP States will take all the

necessary measures to ensure their fulfilment of obligations and responsibilities as set forth under this

project. Failure to meet that requirement is likely to result in the project not achieving the desired

results.

6.1.3.2. Risk




Risks for the implementation of this contract are minimised, since the intervention was identified and

endorsed in cooperation with all Pacific ACP States’ relevant stakeholders. Fisheries Administrations

(FA) of all countries, the FAO and FFA should be consulted in the conduct of the Port State Measures

review and in the preparation of the regional workshop as failure to do so may result in the PSE issues

and workshop not addressing Pacific ACP member states needs. The assumption is that all ACP

Pacific country governments and other fisheries associated stakeholders are well aware of the

intervention and are prepared to allocate official hours to its implementation but failure to have project

dates confirmed and in stakeholder’s calendar might effect participation. The participatory planning

approach adopted in the development of this intervention will continue through implementation to

ensure that risks of overlap and lack of co-ordination with other initiatives of governments and RFBs

will be minimised.

6.1.4. SCOPE OF THE WORK

6.1.4.1. General

6.1.4.1.1.Project description

Phase 1

Phase one of the project is expected to commence with a briefing by the ACP Fish II Programme to

discuss the scope of the project, clarify any issue related to the TORs and agree on the project delivery

process. Then the experts, who will be based in FFA, Honiara, Solomon Islands, will consult with

FFA (Fisheries Operations, Legal Services and Fisheries Management Divisions) in Honiara, Solomon

Islands through face-to-face meetings. Consultation will be conducted with SPC, WCPFC, the PNA,

Te Vaka Moana Arrangement, the Pacific ACP member Government agencies involved in fisheries

MCS, Port authorities, the fishing industry and other fisheries stakeholders using the internet,

telephones calls and faxes. The experts are expected to identify and collect national MCS-related

documentation such as fisheries MCS planning instruments (e.g. national MCS strategies and plans),

NPOA-IUU, and MCS legislation/regulations that have relevance to Port State measures in each

Pacific ACP State.

The experts are expected to take a flexible approach and cooperate with any initiatives that FFA may

have underway.

A technical team (TT) will be set up to monitor project implementation, advise and support the

consultants on any technical issue that may arise under this assignment. The make-up of this TT will

be discussed with the FFA and should include a least one representative from FFA and one

representative from the WCPFC (if possible).

The consultants will visit six countries that will be carefully selected in consultation with the TT to

ensure a fair representation of the countries in the region, having regard to countries with major ports,

inshore processing infrastructure and countries with no major ports. These visits will be used to gather

additional information on PSM and discuss any issue related to PSM.

Documentation obtained is then reviewed and analyzed to extract information and provisions on PSM

both at the regional and country levels. The findings of this analysis will then be compared against the

2009 FAO PSMA to determine whether existing PSM in the region meet the minimum standard

reflected in this agreement. Based on the outcome of this analysis, the consultant will discuss the pros

and cons of implementing the PSMA as a minimum standard in the region and the best ways of

implementing PSM in the region.

In consultation with FFA and WCPFC, the consultants will devise a guideline for implementation of

PSM in the South Pacific region, as reflected in the PSMA, the MTCs and any other relevant

instrument. It is primarily designed to provide guidance to competent authorities at the national level

on the requirements to be met to ensure effective PSM implementation. It may address a wide range of

issues including policy, legal framework, institution and capacity development.




Using the information collected and analysed, the consultants are to prepare a brief or strategy

document on how Port State Measures Arrangements should be approached and implemented by ACP

member states within the region.

Phase 2

During Phase 2, a Regional PSM Workshop to increase awareness and understanding of National Port

State Measures issues & gaps, and on developing a regional approach on how to apply or implement

these measures at national level is to be organised and conducted over a 5 day period. This workshop

will discuss in detail the PSM guidelines developed in phase one. The PSM Brief or Strategy

document developed in Phase one for Pacific ACP member states on Port State Measures

Arrangements within the region will also be discussed during the Workshop.

The five days training workshop will be for two representatives from each country (30 participants in

total including host) and will be conducted in Honiara, Solomon Islands, or a country that will be

within the budgeted costs (most cost efficient).

6.1.4.1.2 Geographic area to be covered

The geographical area of this project extends to all Pacific ACP States’ territories and waters placed

under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

6.1.4.1.3 Target groups

The target group for this activity are all Pacific ACP States, and more particularly, their fisheries

administrations or agencies, Port Authorities, any agency or body involved in fisheries MCS and

enforcement as well as the fishing industry (vessel owner representatives) and relevant NGOs.

6.1.4.2.Specific activities

6.1.4.2.1 Specific activities

The Consultant will undertake the following activities in two phases:

Phase 1

1. Briefing by the ACP Fish II Programme;

2. Set up a technical team to monitor project implementation and advise on technical or other issues

that may arise;

3. Consult with FFA (Fisheries Operations, Legal Services and Fisheries Management Divisions) in

Honiara, Solomon Islands, the Pacific ACP member Government agencies involved in fisheries

MCS, Port authorities, the fishing industry and other fisheries stakeholders using the internet,

telephones and faxes;

4. Prepare the Inception Report;

5. Identify and collect national MCS-related documentation such as MCS planning instruments (e.g.

national MCS strategies and plans), NPOA-IUU, and MCS legislation/regulations that have

relevance to Port State measures in each Pacific ACP State;

6. Make visits to six selected countries to verify or review information collected and complement

information;

7. Review and analyze the documentation mentioned in items 3, 5 and 6 above so as to assess the

level of implementation of PSM within the different ACP member countries against the FAO Port

State Measure Agreement, the MTCs and any other relevant regional instruments;




8. Based on the analysis, develop a list of the pros and cons of whether countries in the region should

implement the 2009 FAO PSMA as a minimum standard only or as is probably the case in most

Pacific ACP member countries now also include additional measures;

9. Prepare in consultation with FFA and WCPFC, a guideline for implementation of PSM as

reflected in the PSMA, the MTCs and any other relevant regional instrument that may have been

identified;

10. Prepare a brief or strategy document on how Port State Measures Arrangements should be

approached and implemented by ACP member states within the region and;

Phase 2

11. Organize and conduct a five-day Regional PSM Training Workshop (30 participants) designed to

increase awareness and understanding of Port State Measures issues and improve effectiveness of

such measures in the Pacific region using the guideline prepared under item 9 and undertake

discussions on the brief or strategy document prepared under item 10;

The consultant is in charge of the workshop’s organization and logistics (subcontracting for

workshop organization is allowed). The indicative number of participants is 30 and the duration of

the workshop is 5 days.

12. Finalize Port State Measures brief or strategy document (prepared in 10 above) in light of the

comments and conclusions made from the workshop for ACP member states to be use in

WCPFC’s PSMA discussions.

6.1.4.2.2 Communication and project visibility

a) ACP FISH II projects should follow the EU requirements and guidelines for communication

and visibility available on the Programme website at http://acpfish2-

eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=en. The CU will provide ACP FISH II templates for

various communication products.

b) When validation workshops (where technical documents are presented to stakeholders for

validation) are needed, given their importance for disseminating the results of the Project and

ACP FISH II Programme the following activities will be requested:

1) The Consultant will provide all necessary information in press-release style

(“information note”) on the project objectives and results, the activities to undertake, the

main axes or strategic goals proposed and the future role of the beneficiaries.

2) The Fisheries Administrations/Regional Fisheries Bodies will receive the information

note at least 3 days before the workshop, through their Government

communication/press bodies or officials, in order to mobilise local media and to assure

full coverage of the event. Financial support to media coverage is included in the

“Incidental Expenditure”. Receipt(s) of the incurred cost for media coverage will be

required to verify the costs incurred.

3) The consultant will provide photographic record of the workshop activities

6.1.4.3.Project management

6.1.4.3.1 Responsible body

http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=en

http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=en




The Coordination Unit (CU) of the ACP Fish II Programme, based in Brussels, on behalf of the ACP

Secretariat is responsible for managing the implementation of this assignment.

6.1.4.3.2 Management structure

The ACP Fish II Programme is implemented through the CU in Brussels and six Regional Facilitation

Units (RFUs) across the ACP States. The RFU in Honiara, Solomon Islands, covering ACP Member

States in the Pacific will closely supervise the implementation of this intervention and equally monitor

its execution pursuant to these Terms of Reference. For the purposes of this assignment, the ACP

Fish II Programme Coordinator will act as the Project Manager.

All contractual communications including requests for contract modifications or changes to the Terms

of Reference during the execution period of the contract must be addressed with a formal request to

the CU and copied to the RFU. Beneficiaries’ support for these changes is required.

4.3.3 Facilities to be provided by the Contracting Authority and/or other parties

Not applicable

6.1.5. LOGISTICS AND TIMING

6.1.5.1. Location

The place of posting will be Honiara, Solomon Islands. The activities will be carried out in Solomon

Islands and six selected countries. Field visits in the countries will be carried out according to the

approved timeline and work plan presented by the Consultant.

6.1.5.2. Commencement date and period of implementation

The intended commencement date of this assignment is 2nd

May 2013 and the period of

implementation of the contract will be 5 months from the date of signature of the contract. Please

refer to Articles 4 and 5 of the Special Conditions for the actual commencement date and period of

implementation.

6.1.6. REQUIREMENTS

6.1.6.1. Personnel

6.1.6.1.1 Key experts

All experts who have a crucial role in implementing this assignment are referred to as key experts.

Their profiles are described as follows:

Key Expert 1: MCS Expert and Team Leader

Qualifications and skills

A post graduate university degree or equivalent in law, fisheries management, marine affairs,

or a directly related field;

The expert should have a high level of proficiency in spoken and written English;

Proven team leading skills.

General professional experience

Minimum 10 year experience in fisheries governance and fisheries MCS and enforcement;

Proven report-writing and project management skills.

Specific professional experience




Experience in giving effect to international law including international fisheries instruments

(minimum 3 assignments);

Related experience in the Pacific region is required and experience in both oceanic and inshore

fisheries is an advantage;

Experience in developing guidelines and running workshops based on such developed

guidelines;

Experience in carrying out consultancy assignments for the EU or other equivalent

international development partners (minimum of 3 assignments).

The indicative number of missions outside the normal place of posting requiring overnights is 3 for

this expert.

There will be in-country field visits outside the normal place of posting not requiring overnights for

this expert.

Key Expert 2: MCS and Training Expert

Qualifications and skills

A university degree or equivalent in law, fisheries, marine affairs, education or a directly

related field;

The expert should have a high level of proficiency in spoken and written English.

General professional experience

Minimum 5 years of experience in fisheries management or governance;

Proven experience in conducting trainings and report writing and facilitation skills.

Specific professional experience

Development of fisheries planning or operational instruments including strategies, plans,

operation manuals or guidelines (minimum 2 assignments);

Experience in developing guidelines and running workshops based on such developed

guideline;

Proven knowledge of the Regional MCS instruments in the Pacific is an advantage;

Related experience in the Pacific region is required (minimum 2 years).

The indicative number of missions outside the normal place of posting requiring overnights is 3 for

this expert.

There will be no in-country field visits outside the normal place of posting not requiring overnights for

this expert.

Indicative number of working days by expert and task

No. Indicative Task Key Expert 1

(Days)

Key Expert 2

(Days)

1 Phase 1

1.1 Briefing by ACP Fish II. 1 1

1.2 Documents review and analysis and preparation of

a Pros & Cons list

4 3




1.3 Draft a guideline for implementation of PSM in

the region

5 4

1.4 Inception Report preparation 2 2

1.5 Country visits, consultations and brief or strategy

document preparation

12 12

1.6 Brief or strategy document preparation 3 3

1.7 Finalising, Pros &Cons list and Guideline for

implementation of PSM in the South Pacific

region and brief

4 3

1.8 Preparation of ITR 2 2

2 Phase 2

2.1 Preparation for Stakeholder Workshop 2 2

2.2 Workshop organisation 5 5

2.3 Finalise PSM brief or strategy document 2 2

2.4 Final Technical report preparation 2 1

Total 44 40

Additional information

a) Key Experts are expected to spend at least 80 % of the total indicative number of working days in

the country(ies).

b) Note that civil servants and other staff of the public administration of the beneficiary country

cannot be recruited as experts, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the European

Commission.

The Consultant must complete a timesheet using the ACP Fish II template provided by the CU at the

start of the implementation period. The Consultant is entitled to work a maximum of 6 days per week.

Mobilisation and demobilisation days will not be considered as working days.

6.1.6.1.2 Other experts

No other experts will be recruited under this assignment.

6.1.6.1.3 Support staff and backstopping

Backstopping and support staff costs are considered to be included in the fee rates of the experts.

6.1.6.2. Office accommodation

Office accommodation of a reasonable standard and of approximately 10 square metres for each expert

working on the assignment is to be provided by the RFU at FFA, Honiara, Solomon Islands.

6.1.6.3. Facilities to be provided by the Consultant

The Consultant shall ensure that experts are adequately supported and equipped. In particular it shall

ensure that there is sufficient administrative, secretarial and interpreting provision to enable experts to




concentrate on their primary responsibilities. It must also transfer funds as necessary to support its

activities under the contract and to ensure that its employees are paid regularly and in a timely fashion.

If the Consultant is a consortium, the arrangements should allow for the maximum flexibility in

project implementation. Arrangements offering each consortium member a fixed percentage of the

work to be undertaken under the contract should be avoided.

6.1.6.4. Equipment

No equipment is to be purchased on behalf of the Contracting Authority or beneficiary country as part

of this service contract or transferred to the Contracting Authority or beneficiary country at the end of

the contract. Any equipment related to this contract which is to be acquired by the beneficiary country

must be purchased by means of a separate supply tender procedure.

6.1.6.5. Incidental expenditure

The Provision for incidental expenditure covers the ancillary and exceptional eligible expenditure

incurred under this contract. It cannot be used for costs which should be covered by the Consultant as

part of its fee rates, as specified above. Its use is governed by the provisions in the General Conditions

and the notes in Annex V of the contract. It may cover:

a) KEY EXPERTS

Travel costs and daily subsistence allowances (per diem) for missions for Key Experts,

outside the normal place of posting, to be undertaken as part of this contract. If applicable,

indicate if the provision includes costs for environmental measures, for example CO2

offsetting.

Travel costs for field visits for the Key Experts (car or boat rental, fuel and domestic flights).

Any subsistence allowances to be paid for missions undertaken as part of this contract must not exceed

the per diem rates published on the European Union (EU) website at:

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/per_diems/index_en.htm.

b) WORKSHOP/TRAINING/CONSULTATIONS ORGANISATION

The cost of organisation of the Regional training including cost for venue, communication

and media activities, transport (domestic travel or car or boat rental to/from);

The payment of a lump-sum to participants requiring an overnight stay to cover

accommodation and meals. This lump-sum payment will be up to 160 EUR and must not

exceed the published EU per diem rate for the country;

The payment of a lump sum, up to 35% of the published EU per diem rate for the country, to

all participants not requiring an overnight stay, to cover the cost of transport and meals;

In the two cases above, an attendance list signed by each participant and a separate list

stating that the lump-sum was received (with an indication of the amount) shall be used to

justify the expenditure.

The cost of venue (if needed) and lunch for consultations of less than one day with locally-

based participants.

c) TRANSLATION

The cost of translation of the Draft Final Technical Report and the approved Final Technical Report as

well as its executive summary into Portuguese.

d) OTHER

The cost of producing extra copies of the Final Technical Report, to be presented to the Pacific ACP

member states and FFA upon formal request.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/per_diems/index_en.htm




The Provision for incidental expenditure for this contract is EUR 106,989. This amount must be

included without modification in the Budget breakdown.

6.1.6.6. Expenditure verification

The Provision for expenditure verification relates to the fees of the auditor who has been charged with

the expenditure verification of this contract in order to proceed with the payment of further pre-

financing instalments if any and/or interim payments if any.

The Provision for expenditure verification for this contract is EUR 1,500. This amount must be

included without modification in the Budget breakdown.

This provision cannot be decreased but can be increased during the execution of the contract.

6.1.7. REPORTS

6.1.7.1.Reporting requirements

Please refer to Article 26 of the General Conditions. There must be a final report, a final invoice and

the financial report accompanied by an expenditure verification report at the end of the period of

implementation of the tasks. The approved Final Technical Report (FTR) must be annexed to the Final

Report (FR). The final report must be submitted to the CU after receiving the approval of the Final

Technical Report (FTR).

The Final Report (FR) shall consist of a narrative section and a financial section. The financial section

must contain details of the time inputs of the experts, of the incidental expenditure and of the provision

for expenditure verification.

To summarise, in addition to the documents, reports and output which could be specified under the

duties and responsibilities of each key expert above the Consultant shall provide the following reports:

Name of report Content Time of submission

Inception Report (IR) Analysis of existing situation and plan of

work for the project.

No later than after the first

Expert arriving in the place

of posting for the first time.

Interim Technical Report

(ITR)

Assessment of available PSM policy

instruments, guidelines to support devising

of WCPFC PSM policy instruments and

PSMA brief or Strategy document.

No later than 14 days after

the end of phase 1

Draft Final Technical

Report (DFTR)

Description of achievements, problems

encountered, recommendations and

technical proposals suggested by the

consultant.

Before the Team Leader

leaves the country at the end

of the assignment




Final Technical Report

(FTR)

Description of achievements, problems

encountered, recommendations and

technical proposals suggested by the

consultant, taking into account changes

and comments from the RFU, CU and the

fisheries administrations or Regional

Fisheries Bodies.

Within 10 days after

receiving comments on the

Draft Final Technical report

(DFTR)

Final Report (FR) Short description of achievements

including problems encountered and

recommendations and suggestions;

together with the Final Technical Report

and a final invoice and the financial report

accompanied by the expenditure

verification report.

After receiving the approval

of the Final Technical Report

(FTR).

6.1.7.2. Submission and approval of reports

One electronic copy of the reports referred to above must be submitted to the Project Manager

identified in the contract (CU) and RFU. Two hard copies of the approved Final Technical Report

must be submitted to the Project Manager identified in the contract (CU), one hard copy to the RFU

and two hard copies to FFA. The original and a hard copy of the Final Report (FR) must be submitted

to the CU together with its annexes and supporting documents. All reports must be written in English.

The Draft Final Technical Report (DFTR) and the Final Technical Report (FTR) will be translated into

Portuguese. The Project Manager is responsible for approving the reports. The cost of producing such

material will be included in the fees.

6.1.8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

6.1.8.1. .Definition of indicators

The results to be achieved by the consultant are included in section 2.3 above. Progress to achieving

these results will be measured through the following indicators:

1. Quality of consultants fielded and speed of mobilisation to the relevant country will indicate a

positive start to the assignment;

2. Number of consultations carried out in the selected countries;

3. Reported involvement of stakeholders in drafting of the training module;

4. Level of attendance, participation, and issues discussed at the consultation workshop;

5. Number and nature of comments received on the Draft Final Technical Report;

6. Respect of project milestone time schedule and reports time delivery

7. Quality of technical outputs.

The Consultant may suggest additional monitoring tools for the contract duration.

6.1.8.2. Special requirements

Not applicable.




6.2 Institutions and individuals consulted

Person Position Agency/Department

ACP FISH II RFU

Augustine Mobiha Manager, RFU ACP Fish II

FFA

James Movick Director General FFA

Ian Freeman Assistant Director Fisheries

Management

FFA

Wez Norris Deputy Director General FFA

Pamela Maru Advisor Fisheries Management FFA

Peter Gaham Surveillance Operations Officer FFA

Noan Pakop MCS Policy FFA

Manu Tupou

Rosen

Legal Counsel FFA

Leonard Paia Devfish II Project Coordinator FFA

Yoland Elanzo Finance Officer, Observer

Programme

FFA

Ramesh Chand VMS Manager FFA

Allan Rahari Surveillance Operations Assistant FFA

Kenneth Katofono Database Administrator FFA

William Edeson Legal Advisor FFA

Steve Masika Surveillance Operations Assistant FFA

WCPFC

Glenn Hurry Executive Director WCPFC

Lara Manarangi-

Trott

Compliance Manager WCPFC

Rhea Moss-

Christian

Chair, TCC NORMA

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Patrick MacKenzie Executive Director NORMA

Eugene Pangelinan Deputy Executive Director NORMA

Rhea Moss

Christian

Chief of Statistics, Compliance,

and Technical Projects

NORMA

Pius Roby Manager Pohnpei Port Authority

Alfred Lebehn Statistic and IT manager FSM NORMA

Justino Helgen Manager VMS and Compliance FSM NORMA

Nicholas Raifbrai Dockside Inspector Maritime Wing

Peter Syeward Commander Maritime Wing

Johnny M Santos Chief of Police Department of Justice

April Dawn M

Skilling

Secretary Of Justice Department of Justice

Marko Kamber Assistant Manager Caroline Fisheries Corporation.INC

Peter Sitan President and CEO National Fisheries Organisation

John Tiegnai Manager Maritime Safety and

Inspection

TC&I




FIJI

Suresh Chand Director Department of Fisheries

Ms.Alitia

Bainivalu

Assistant Fisheries Officer Department of Fisheries

Ms. Leba

Raketekete

Assistant Fisheries Officer -VMS Department of Fisheries

Anare Raiwalui Principal Fisheries Officer Department of Fisheries

Jone Amade Senior Fisheries Officer Department of Fisheries

Duncan Willian Pacific Ocean Campaigner Greenpeace

Karli Thomas Pacific Ocean Campaigner

Coordinator

Greenpeace

Seni Nabou Pacific Political Advisor Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Jenny Zo Executive Director West& Central Pacific seafood

John Lee Director Zhong Fei Shipping

Peichia Shi Director Trans Cold Marine & Shipping Services

Julia Koi Trans Cold Marine & Shipping Services

John Tunidau Manager standard and compliance Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji

CPT Pauliasi

Vakaloloma

Manager qualification and

licensing

Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji

Alfred Cook WCP Tuna programme Manager WWF

Seremiaia Tuquiri Fisheries Policy officer WWF

Sophina Ali Lawyer Office Solicitor General

Ajendra Pratap Lawyer Office Solicitor General

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Glen Joseph Director MIMRA

Jacob Apelbaum MIMRA

Dike Poznank Enforcement Manager MIMRA

Gary Bithel Chief Petty officer Technical

Advisor to RMI

Royal Australian Navy

Commander Peter

Metcalf

Maritime Surveillance Technical

Advisor to RMI

Royal Australian Navy

Bernard Fiubala Observer Programme Advisor MIMRA

Tion Nabau Legal Advisor MIMRA

James M Myazoe Deputy Commissioner of

Maritime Affairs

Office of the Maritime Administrator

Maurice

Brownjohn

Commercial Manager PNA Secretariat

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mark Bangkoma Acting Team Leader Enforcement National Fisheries Authority

Steven Klembassa Enforcement Officer National Fisheries Authority

Alois Kinol Coordinator – Audit and

Certification

National Fisheries Authority

SOLOMON ISLANDS

Dr. Chris

Ramofifia

Permanent Secretary MFMR

Ms Ronelle Panda Principal Fisheries Officer

(Policy)

MFMR

Charles Tobasala PFO (Compliance) MFMR

Ms. Selina Lipa PFO (Licensing) MFMR

Jonathan Peacey Offshore Fisheries Advisor

(IMSSIF)

MFMR

Derek Suimae Observer coordinator MFMR




Ms. Charlyn Golu Tuna Tag Recovery Officer MFMR

Simon Diffey Team Leader/Institutional

Development Advisor

MFMR MSSIF Programme

TUVALU

Sam Finikaso Director Department of Fisheries

Simon Kofe Legal Officer Department of Fisheries

Siloua Ave Director of Marine and Port &

Services

Ministry of Communication and Transport

Talafou Esekia Maritime Commander Maritime Police

Elinta Taula Executive Officer Maritime Police

Seleganiu Fusi Commanding Officer Maritime Police

Selomia Ionatana Fisheries Licencing Officer Department of Fisheries

Onusai Takataka Fisheries Observer Department of Fisheries

Laifailiu Seono Fisheries Surveillance Officer Department of Fisheries




6.3 List of reports and documents consulted

Following are the documents consulted:

national fisheries legislation for 14 countries;2

national MCS strategies;

national MCS tools and reporting procedures/documentation;

the 2010-2015 Regional MCS Strategy;

relevant WCPFC conservation and management measures (CMMs);

the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement;

the 2013 FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Flag State Performance;

Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions for fisheries access (HMTCs);

Agreement and operations of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA);

activities and reports of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC);

the multilateral fisheries access agreement with the USA (bilateral agreements were not made

available);

report of the 2010 FFA Port State Measures training workshop;

reports of FAO regional workshops on Port State Measures (nine workshops given 2006 -

2012);

2013 draft FFA Dockside Boarding & Prosecution Training Programme;

the WCPFC CMMs proposed by the EC on port State Measures and relevant WCPFC reports;

WCPFC CMMS in general;

the 2012 DevFish/FFA survey on tuna transhipment;

the 2011 MRAG report on Development and Updating of National MCS Strategic Plans in

line with the Regional MCS Strategy

the 2013 FFA Guide to application for registration and good standing on the FFA vessel

registry;

WCPFC Final Compliance Monitoring Report for the activities in 2011 - Executive

Summary;

Summary Status of WCPFC Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement Framework

as at March 2013;

Doulman, D.J. and Swan, J., A guide to the background and implementation of the 2009 FAO

Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated Fishing. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO. 2012.

165 pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2590e/i2590e00.pdf

the Kobe process.

2 This was supplied by FFA and countries concerned. Timor-Leste did not respond to requests for copies of its

fisheries legislation.





6.4 Workshop-related documents

6.4.1 Prospectus

ACP FISH II – FAO REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PORT STATE MEASURES

In cooperation with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency

9-13 September 2013

Nadi, Fiji

WORKSHOP PROSPECTUS

1. INTRODUCTION

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing occurs in all capture fisheries and poses a direct and

significant threat to effective conservation and management of many fish stocks. The loss from IUU

fishing in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) region has been estimated to be in the vicinity of

21-46% of reported catch, valued at US $0.7 - $1.5 billion.3 A recent example of IUU fishing was

shown in a 2012 Eastern High Seas Pocket (EHSP) Analysis by Cook Islands, which concluded that

the EEZs adjacent to the EHSP have experienced several cases of IUU fishing over the past ten years.4

In addition, IUU fishing is often associated with criminal activity and weak governance. By frustrating

fisheries management objectives, IUU fishing can lead to the collapse of a fishery or seriously impair

efforts to rebuild depleted fish stocks. This in turn may result in lost economic and social

opportunities, both short-term and long-term, for legitimate fishers and coastal States. Left

unchecked, IUU fishing can completely negate the benefits of effective fisheries management.

The countries of the Western and Central Pacific region have cooperated through the Pacific Islands

Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

to develop a number of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools to address the situation

including VMS, the FFA Vessel Register, Harmonized Minimum Terms & Conditions, Niue Treaty,

3http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/PageFiles/469544/Greenpeace%20Breifing%20Paper_WCPFC9_Setting

%20the%20Limits%20on%20WCPFC%20tuna%20fisheries.pdf, citing 3 MRAG and University of British

Columbia (2008) The Global Extent of Illegal Fishing, April. Available at

www.mrag.co.uk/Documents/ExtentGlobalIllegalFishing.pdf 4 EHSP Analysis paper by Cook Island WCPFC-TCC8-2012-DP03 27 September 2012.

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/PageFiles/469544/Greenpeace%20Breifing%20Paper_WCPFC9_Setting%20the%20Limits%20on%20WCPFC%20tuna%20fisheries.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/PageFiles/469544/Greenpeace%20Breifing%20Paper_WCPFC9_Setting%20the%20Limits%20on%20WCPFC%20tuna%20fisheries.pdf




Palau Arrangement, Agreed Minute on Surveillance with the U.S, Lacey Act-Style Arrangements, port

State enforcement, harmonization of national fisheries legislation, observer programmes, a 2010-2015

Regional MCS Strategy and a Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre (RFSC).

WCPFC member countries have at the past three Sessions considered, but not adopted, conservation

and management measures (CMM) relating to another MCS tool: port State measures. Port State

measures are requirements established or interventions undertaken by port States with which a foreign

fishing vessel must comply as a condition for use of their ports. They include requirements related to

the use of designated ports, prior request for port entry, denial of entry, denial of port use,5 port

inspections and information on vessels and their activities as well as related measures, such as the

transmittal of reports, the role of flag States and training.

The 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing (FAO

Agreement)6 provides a standard for consideration of port State measures. It takes a harmonized

approach, providing minimum standards for port State measures. It clearly states that it does not

prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of Parties under international law, and does not affect the

sovereignty, or exercise of their sovereignty by the Parties over their ports. It seeks to promote a

minimum and uniform, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory system for implementing the port

State rights and duties that are recognized in other international fisheries agreements.

FFA is currently coordinating a regional review of the matter in preparation for further consideration

at the next Session, which is addressing the benefits and implications of implementing standards in

the FAO Agreement in view of the current arrangements, MCS tools and needs of the region. A

number of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) in other regions have adopted

CMMs that set out various requirements on port State measures.

In advance of the Workshop, two ACP Fish II Key Experts, Judith Swan (legal, policy) and Jude

Talma (MCS and operational), will have worked with regional bodies and visited six countries7 to

review port State measures in the region (both at the regional and national levels) and relevant PSM

schemes in other regions. To better assess the situation, a questionnaire will be sent to all countries

and FAO will contribute to the analysis of the responses. These consultations will:

seek to identify and prioritize port State measures requirements in the region;

prepare a list and analysis of the benefits and implications of implementing the FAO

Agreement in the region as a minimum standard;

develop a Guideline for implementation of PSM in the region; and

prepare a brief or strategy document on measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a

CMM on port State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper

management of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes benefits to the peoples of the

Pacific.

These matters will be considered, and as appropriate further developed, at the Workshop.

5 For landing, transhipping, packaging and processing of fish and for other port services including, inter alia,

refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking. 6 The FAO Agreement has been signed by 23 countries and ratified, approved or acceded to by six countries and

the European Union as at 1 July 2013, and will come into force after 25 ratifications or accessions. See

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/5_037s-e.pdf. 7 Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands,

Tuvalu.

https://faohqmail.fao.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=VskZ6HiWqEukpSsRsgYrjNQm5YbzSdBII3-OvqQ4GiFfb4tD-QnGus--Z3zpBWshxtXdBo2SVp4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fao.org%2ffileadmin%2fuser_upload%2flegal%2fdocs%2f5_037s-e.pdf




2. OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKSHOP

The main objective of this workshop will be to support the work of FFA and as appropriate other

regional organisations in relation to port State measures, strengthen national awareness and capacity

and facilitate the process toward consolidating and harmonizing port State measures. This will be

achieved through, inter alia, considering the matters prepared in advance of the Workshop, as well as

relevant regional and international instruments, requirements and practices.

3. OUTCOMES

The expected outcomes of the workshop are to:

1. raise participants’ awareness of the deleterious effects of IUU fishing and the benefits of

developing and integrating strengthened and coordinated port State measures into existing

MCS tools, including through FFA and WCPFC, so that countries may act in a concerted and

decisive manner to prevent, deter and eliminate such fishing;

2. assure the comprehensive understanding of the existing relevant regional and international

instruments, practice, requirements, standards and strategies, including the FAO Agreement,

and their relation to participants’ countries;

3. identify port State measures requirements and minimum standards at international and

regional level and the degree of implementation in existing national legislation, institutions

and procedures;

4. identify potential benefits of implementing port State measures at regional and national levels;

5. identify regional and national needs and challenges for implementing port State measures at

regional and national levels, including improved laws, policies, institutions,

procedures/operations and capacity;

6. strengthen shared understanding of the role of good governance in implementing port State

measures;

7. identify areas for the prioritization of port State measures requirements in the region;

8. identify possible mechanisms at regional and national level which would serve to implement

port State measures and integrate them with existing MCS tools;

9. review and contribute to Guidelines and Strategies for the region, including legal, policy,

operational and administrative requirements.

The outcomes of the workshop will lead to improved capacity for countries to strengthen and

coordinate port State measures with the objective of preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU

fishing.

4. FUNDING

The Workshop is supported by the ACP Fish II project, Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State

Measures Training Workshop (PAC-2.2-B12) and FAO. The Government of the United States of

America has also made a financial contribution to support the Workshop through FAO.




5. PROGRAMME, TIMETABLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP

The provisional programme and timetable of the workshop is shown in Annex 1.

5.1 Delivery of workshop

The workshop will be delivered in partnership between ACP Fish II and FAO, in cooperation with

FFA. International and regional experts will serve as resource persons.

5.2 Working groups

Working groups will meet during the workshop as a means of encouraging maximum group

participation and developing recommendations on matters of regional concern, which will feed into

many of the outcomes described in section 3 above.

The resource persons will assist the Convenor of each working group by providing advice as required,

and in finalizing the report of the group. Each report will be presented in plenary and be incorporated

into the report of the Workshop. Resource persons will provide commentary on the report of each

working group, and will assist in drafting the Workshop report.

5.3 Location and dates

The Workshop will be held at the Novotel Hotel in Nadi, Fiji from 9 to 13 September 2013.

5.4 Invitations and Participation

The workshop will be by invitation issued by ACP Fish II to ACP countries in the region.8

Two participants from each country from middle or senior management level should be nominated.

Between them they should have knowledge and work experience in matters related to the legal,

operational and policy aspects of port State measures in order that the expected outcomes of the

workshop can be realized. Observers will not be permitted to attend the workshop.

5.5 Languages

The Workshop will be conducted in English. A workshop report will be produced jointly between

ACP Fish II and FAO and will be published in English by FAO.

The ACP Fish II Draft Final Technical Report and the approved Final Technical Report will be

translated into Portugese.

5.6 Documents

The proposed list of documents for the workshop is in Annex 2.

6 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

Administrative arrangements related to the travel and accommodation of country participants will be

handled by ACP Fish II through the consultant company, AGRER, while FAO will take care of

meeting venue arrangements, meeting facilities, meeting organisational affairs and hospitality matters.

8 The countries comprise: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru,

Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Timor-Leste.




7 REPORT AND OUTPUT OF THE WORKSHOP

The report of the workshop will be published in the FAO Fisheries Department report series. ACP

Fish II and FAO will cooperate to oversee the production and distribution of the report.

8 WORKSHOP INFORMATION

Information regarding participation, nominations, travel and other logistical arrangements will be

available from:

Leonard Paia

DevFish II

FFA, Project Coordinator

Telephone: +677 21124 ext. 222

E-mail: [email protected]

General information regarding the Workshop, as well as technical matters (legal, policy, institutional),

is available from:

Judith Swan

ACP Fish II Consultant

Telephone: +39 348 594 0454


Matthew Camilleri

Fishery Liaison Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Phone: +39 0657056435


Information on technical matters relating to MCS and operational matters is available from:

Jude Talma

ACP Fish II Consultant

Telephone: +230 7174844





ANNEX 1



9-13 September 2013, Nadi, Fiji

PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME AND TIMETABLE

Monday, 9 September 2013

I. INTRODUCTION

0800-0900 Registration

09.00-10.00

Opening

Call to order

Opening of the Workshop

o Mr. Augustine Mobiha, ACP Fish II,

o Mr. Matthew Camilleri, FAO

o Mr. William Edeson, FFA

o Mr. Inoke Wainiqolo, Permanent Secretary for Ministry

of Fisheries & Forests

Election of Chair

Administrative arrangements for the workshop

Technical matters concerning the workshop

Introduction (participants and resource persons)

Multimedia presentation on the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement

10.00-10.10 Introduction to the ACP Fish II regional project on port State measures

Mr Augustine Mobiha, ACP Fish II

10.10-10.20 Introduction to FAO activities on port State measures

Mr Masanaminami Izumi, FAO

10.20-10.30 Introduction to FFA activities on port State measures

FFA

10.30-11.00 Coffee break

II. INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND

11.00-11.30 The Big Picture: Overview of Port State measures in the global context

FAO Agreement on Port State Measures – background, status and framework

IPOA-IUU

Voluntary Guidelines on flag State performance

RFMO implementation of port State measures

Workshop discussion

Mr Matthew Camilleri, FAO

11.30-12.00 Introduction to port State measures

What are they? – rationale and key requirements

How do they need to be supported by national policy, laws, institutions,

operations and capacity and by information systems and RFMOs?

Linkages with other MCS tools




Linkages among tuna and other RFMOs

Ports of non-compliance and their consequences

Illustration on how port State measures operate: case studies

Workshop discussion

Mr Terje Lobach, FAO Consultant

12.00-12.30

Procedures for port State measures

Key elements of inspection operations: evidence, communications, decision-

making, information systems and political considerations.

Mr Terje Lobach

12.30-13.30 Lunch

III. REGIONAL FOCUS

13.30-14.00 Economics

Fisheries, foreign fleets and major ports in the region.

A profile of landings, transhipments and markets of fish caught in the region.

Value to ports and fishers

FFA

14.00-14.30 MCS

IUU fishing in the region: scope, impact on resources and economies

Fisheries management and compliance by foreign fleets in the region

Relevant regional MCS tools

FFA

14.30-15.00 Management

Overview of relevant regional management tools

Relevant WCPFC measures and development by FFA Members of draft

Resolution

FFA


15.30-16.00 Legal implications

Relevant legally binding international and regional law

FFA

16.00-16.30 Practicalities

Process and priorities of implementing port State measures, potential support for

implementation

Experience in the South West Indian Ocean region

Mr. Jude Talma, ACP Fish II Expert

16.30-17.00

National questionnaire on port State measures :

Summary report on the responses to the questionnaire

Summary analysis of gaps, constraints and action needed

Workshop discussion

Ms Karine Erikstein, FAO

17.00 Close for the day

18.00 Reception hosted by FAO

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

IV. BENEFITS, PRIORITIZATION, GUIDELINES, GOVERNANCE, STRATEGIES

09.00-09.45

Introduction and assessment of national laws and relevant regional agreements,

measures and strategies.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan, ACP Fish II Expert, Commentary by FFA




09.45-10.30 Introduction and assessment of national and regional MCS operations and human

capacity relevant to port State measures.

Workshop discussion

Mr Jude Talma, Commentary by FFA


11.00-11.45 Analysis of the pros and cons, benefits and implications of implementation of the FAO

Agreement in the region as a minimum standard.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan

11.45-12.30 Identification and suggested prioritization of port State measures requirements in the

region.

Workshop discussion

Mr Jude Talma

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.15 Guidelines for implementing port State measures: legal, policy, institutional.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan, Commentary by FFA

14.15-15.00 Guidelines for implementing port State measures: operational, capacity development.

Workshop discussion



15.30-16.15 Good governance and port State measures:

Conflict of interest and corruption

Increasing understanding among colleagues and politicians on the needs and

priorities of port State measures

Workshop discussion

Mr Terje Lobach

16.15-17.00 Proposed strategy on measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM on port

State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper


Pacific.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan


Wednesday, 11 September 2013

V. WORKING GROUPS

0900-10.30

Working Group Task 1: Participants will be formed into three working groups and

given a fictitious situation featuring IUU fishing, port State measures, RFMO, coastal

and flag State issues.

Purpose: The working groups will be requested to:

1. Provide advice in situations where port State measures have:

not been adopted in the region;

been adopted in the region.

2. Advise on the pros and cons, and benefits and implications of adopting port State

measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard, taking into account

documentation distributed prior to the Workshop.

Coordinator Ms Judith Swan





11.00-12.30 Continuation of working groups.

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.30 Chairpersons of each working group report to plenary.

Commentary on the working group reports: Lobach/FFA/Erikstein

14.30-15.00 Working Group Task 2: Three working groups will be formed to address the

implementation of port State measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard,

taking into account the draft Guidelines for implementation to be distributed prior to

the Workshop.

Legal and policy – Advisers Terje Lobach, Karine Erikstein

Institutional and capacity development – Advisers FFA, Matthew Camilleri

Operational – Advisers FFA, Jude Talma, Masanami Izumi

Purpose: Each group is tasked to identify, at (1) national and (2) regional levels:

(a) strengths in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

(b) constraints in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

(c) how the constraints might be addressed;

(d) how the Guidelines might be strengthened; and

(e) priorities for moving forward.

Coordinator Ms. Judith Swan


15.30-17.00

Continuation of working groups.


Thursday, 12 September 2013



Commentary on the working group reports: Talma/FFA/Camilleri


11.00-12.30 Working Group Task 3: The following three working groups, with advisers noted

above, will undertake this task:

Legal and policy

Institutional and capacity development

Operational

Purpose: The working groups will review and make recommendations on the

proposed strategy on the measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM on

port State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper


Pacific. They will take into consideration the:

(a) outcomes of Task 1 (pros and cons – to be summarized and provided);

(b) outcomes of Task 2 (priorities – to be summarized and provided);

(c) tuna fisheries management and compliance by foreign fleets in the region; and

(d) document distributed prior to the workshop on proposed strategy and

measures.

12.30-13.30 Lunch







Commentary on the working group reports: Lobach/FFA/Izumi


Friday, 13 September 2013

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

09.00-10.30 Identification and adoption by plenary of recommendations on priority steps to be

taken nationally and regionally in relation to port State measures to enhance proper


Pacific.

A framework for discussion will be prepared, based on the key outcomes of Tasks 2

and 3 of the Working Groups.

Coordinator Ms Judith Swan with all staff


11.00-11.30

Recommendations and priority steps continued.

Ms Judith Swan

11.30-12.00 Evaluation of workshop.

12.00-12.30 Close of Workshop

ACP Fish II, FAO, FFA

12.30 Lunch




ANNEX 2

PROVISIONAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS

2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated Fishing. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf



Unregulated Fishing. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO. 2012. 165 pp.


2001 FAO International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM

2013 FAO Voluntary Guidelines for flag State performance ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/tc-

fsp/2013/VolGuidelines_adopted.pdf

Documents to be prepared and distributed under the ACP Fish II project, including:

A list and analysis of the pros and cons of whether countries in the region should implement

the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

A Guideline for implementation of PSM in the region; and

A brief or strategy document on measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM on

port State Measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper


Pacific.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf


http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/tc-fsp/2013/VolGuidelines_adopted.pdf





6.4.2. Questionnaire

FOR SUBMISSION BY 15 AUGUST 2013

TO: [email protected]

ACP FISH II/FAO REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PORT STATE MEASURES

9-13 September 2013

Nadi, Fiji

QUESTIONNAIRE

COUNTRY:

NAME AND POSITION:

EMAIL CONTACT:

DATE:

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to better understand the current practices, procedures

and laws of countries in the region concerning port State measures. Responses from all countries will

be combined and analysed at the Workshop to provide a clear foundation for recommendations on the

way forward at regional level.

Instructions: Countries with ports used by foreign fishing vessels are requested to complete Part A

(pages 2-5). The parts are:

I. USE OF PORT – GENERAL

II. INSPECTIONS

III. LEGAL (Note this mainly consists of “yes/no” responses; where there is uncertainty, general

reference to the relevant law will suffice.)

IV. OPERATIONAL

Countries that do not have ports used by foreign fishing vessels are requested to complete Part B

(page 6).




PART A

COUNTRIES WITH PORTS USED BY FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS

“Fishing vessels” include vessels used for fishing or fishing related activities.

“Fishing related activities” means any operation in support of, or in preparation for, fishing,

including the packaging, processing, transhipping or transporting of fish that have not

previously been landed at a port, as well as the provisioning of personnel, fuel, gear and other

supplies at sea.

“Foreign fishing vessels” means fishing vessels that are not registered in your country/do not fly

your country’s flag.


1. Please identify any port/ports in your

country that is used by foreign fishing

vessels.

2. Approximately how many foreign

fishing vessels call into port annually

(average over past 2 years)?

a. Approximately how many of

these vessels do not hold, or

have not applied for, fishing

licenses issued by your

country?

b. Approximately how many of

these vessels do not hold

authorizations to operate in the

WCPFC Convention Area?

3. What types of fishing vessels make

port calls (approximate percentage if

available)?

Purse seiners

__________

Longliners

__________

Vessels used for

related activities

__________

4. What is the purpose of their port calls

(check all relevant activities)?

Landing

__________

Transhipment

__________

Packaging, processing

__________

Refuelling

__________

Resupplying

__________

Maintenance

__________

Drydocking

__________

Other (please describe)

__________




5. Have any foreign fishing vessels been

denied entry into your port over the

past two years?

Yes__________ No_________

a. If yes, please explain.

6. Have any foreign fishing vessels that

have entered your port been denied the

use of your port over the past two

years (e.g. for landings, transhipment,

packaging, processing, etc)?

Yes__________ No_________


II. INSPECTIONS

7. Approximately how many foreign

fishing vessels are inspected annually

in port (average over past 2 years)?

a. Approximately how many of

these were pre-fishing

inspections (over past 2

years)?

b. Approximately how many

inspections resulted in

evidence of IUU fishing (over

past 2 years)?

8. Has your country set levels and

priorities or other criteria for selecting

vessels to inspect?

a. If yes, please describe briefly

9. Are there standard operating

procedures for port inspections?

10. Is there a standard format for

inspection reports?

11. Where are the port inspection reports

usually transmitted?

Flag State of vessel

__________

Relevant coastal State

__________

Relevant RFMO

__________

Master’s national State

__________

FAO

__________

Other

__________

12. Please describe briefly any main

strengths in your country of effective




port inspections.

13. Please indicate any main constraints in

your country for effective port

measures (please check all relevant

areas)?

Human capacity

__________

Legal authority

__________

Interagency cooperation (e.g. with port authorities)

__________

Inadequate information exchange

__________

Inadequate integration of other MCS tools (e.g.

VMS) __________

Other (please describe)

__________

III. LEGAL

14. Do your laws and regulations require:

a. an advance request for

permission to enter port?

Yes__________ No_________

b. authorization for port entry? Yes__________ No_________

15. Do your laws and regulations

empower national authorities to:

a. deny a vessel entry into port? Yes__________ No_________

b. prohibit landings and

transhipments where it has been

established that the catch has been

taken in a manner which

undermines the effectiveness of

RFMO management

measures?

Yes__________ No_________

c. deny use of port for landing,

transhipping, packaging and

processing of fish that have not

previously been landed and for

other port services, including refuelling and

resupplying, maintenance and

drydocking?

Yes__________ No_________

16. Do your laws and regulations provide

for denial of use of port in the

following circumstances ?

a. the vessel does not have a

valid and applicable authorization

for fishing and related activities

required by:

i. its flag State? Yes__________ No_________

ii. another coastal State

in respect of its areas under

Yes__________ No_________




national jurisdiction?

b. there is clear evidence that the

fish on board was taken in

contravention of coastal State

requirements in areas under its


Yes__________ No_________

c. the flag State does not

confirm, on request and in a

reasonable time, that the fish on board

was taken in accordance

with requirements of a relevant RFMO?

Yes__________ No_________

d. there are reasonable grounds

to believe that the vessel was

otherwise engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities?

Yes__________ No_________

e. following inspection, there are

clear grounds for believing that

the vessel has engaged in IUU fishing?

Yes__________ No_________

17. How are your country’s laws relating

to port State measures implemented

(comment optional)?

Fully _________

Moderately _________

Weakly _________

18. How would you describe the

implementation of WCPFC binding

resolutions by your country (comment

optional)?

Fully _________


Weakly _________

IV. OPERATIONAL

19. If applicable, please describe any

operational or other procedures that

are not addressed above in relation to:

a. port entry d. denial

of use of port

b. inspection e.

information exchange

c. approvals f. other

PART B

COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE PORTS USED BY FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS




1. Is your country a member of the Western

and Central Pacific Fisheries

Commission?

Yes__________ No_________

2. How are the provisions of WCPFC

binding resolutions implemented by your

country (comment optional)?

Fully _________


Weakly _________

3. Does your country cooperate in the

implementation of regional MCS tools

that support port State measures, such as

a regional observer programme,

surveillance activities and VMS?

Yes__________ No_________


4. Does your country have any bilateral

MCS arrangement to undertake port

measures on their licensed foreign

fishing, eg. pre-licensing inspection, with

neighboring port States?

Yes__________ No_________


5. What do you consider to be the main

strengths of adopting port State measures

through WCPFC?

6. What do you consider to be the main

constraints for adopting port State

measures through WCPFC?

7. Please describe solutions to the

constraints.




6.4.3 Workshop documents

Background reference documents

2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated Fishing. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf



Unregulated Fishing. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO. 2012. 165 pp.


2001 FAO International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM

2013 FAO Voluntary Guidelines for flag State performance ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/tc-

fsp/2013/VolGuidelines_adopted.pdf

Documents distributed during workshop

(Problem-solving exercise, evaluation form)

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf


http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM






PROBLEM SOLVING EXERCISE

SEA BREEZE III

Background

The Sea Breeze III, a longliner flying the flag of Aseana, has a license to fish tuna in the waters of the

island country of Atlantica and planned to apply for a license to fish tuna in the Pacifica EEZ.

Pacifica, Atlantica and Aseana are all members of the Western Oceanic Offshore Fisheries

Organization (WOOFO), and Pacifica and Atlantica are also members of the Fisheries Regional

Oceanic Group (FROG).

WOOFO requires that a vessel must be on its authorized vessel list to fish or carry out related

activities (including transhipment, crew changes and resupply) in its Convention Area, which covers

the national waters of its members, and the high seas in between. If a vessel fishes without a license in

the Convention Area or commits a serious offence, members may decide to include it on an IUU

Vessel List. This means that the vessel cannot fish anywhere in the Convention Area.

WOOFO requires authorized vessels to comply with vessel monitoring system (VMS) conditions, and

transmit continuously when in the high seas. If the VMS breaks down, procedures require manual

reports every four hours. Members may make a request VMS data transmission by WOOFO, so they

can see VMS transmissions of authorized vessels originating 100 nautical miles beyond their outer

maritime boundaries. Pacifica has VMS data 100 nautical miles beyond its EEZ.

WOOFO has adopted a conservation and management measure, CMM-100, on fishing for sharks,

which includes the following requirements that its members must implement:

Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing, any part or whole

carcass of the hothead sharks. (Carcharhinus hotheadus). All discards of these species should

be recorded as dead or alive.

Vessels cannot have onboard fins that total more than 5 percent of the weight of sharks.

Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing fins harvested in

contravention of the CMM.

FROG requires that a vessel must have good standing on its Regional Register before any member

issues a license to it. It also maintains a VMS that covers members’ national waters. Members

receive transmissions of the vessels in their waters and may agree that the transmissions are available

to other members of FROG. However, there is a time lag in receiving transmissions, which must first

be processed at a station based in a developed member country of FROG.

Pacifica allows its VMS information to be seen by other FROG members, but cannot see VMS

information in the neighbouring waters of the Atlantica Islands. The latter has not “changed the

channel” with WOOFO.

Members of FROG have developed Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) for

foreign fishing vessels, including requirements for pre-licensing port inspections. The HMTCs are

attached as Annex 1.

If a vessel does not meet the requirements of WOOFO and FROG, including those relating to the

authorized vessel list, Regional Register and VMS, countries that are members of both organizations

will not issue a license to a vessel.




Conditions of the fishing licenses issued by Pacifica include:

(a) pre-licensing inspection;

(b) transhipment in port only unless otherwise authorized in exceptional circumstances, and with

agreement of WOOFO;

(c) authorization required for transhipment;

(d) port monitors or observers for carrier vessels required during transhipment;

(e) provide notice of entry to port 24 hours in advance;

(f) only enter port under authorization from Fisheries authorities;

(g) compliance with WOOFO conservation and management measures (CMMs).

Pacifica and Atlantica are considering becoming parties to the FAO Agreement on Port State

Measures, but wish also to develop a regional standard through FROG and WOOFO. Aseana and

Africana are already parties to the FAO Agreement.

Problem

Sea Breeze III had been fishing in Atlantica waters for two months, when it applied for a fishing

license in Pacifica to fish for yellowfin tuna. It steamed to the designated port of Peri-Peri in Pacifica,

where a pre-licensing inspection was carried out in accordance with the HMTCs.

It was discovered that the logbook contained a statement made by inspectors from Atlantica, signed by

the vessel master, that the vessel markings did not comply with their national requirements relating to

vessel identification specifications; it did not properly display its name, registration number and

unique identifier number in accordance with FAO standard specifications. The vessel had still not

complied by the time it was inspected in Pacifica.

A note was made in the vessel log, signed by the master, who undertook to do this within 30 days of

license issuance. The situation was advised to the licensing authority, which then issued the license to

fish for one year in accordance with standard license conditions.

Sea Breeze III immediately steamed out to sea and, according to sporadic VMS reports, fished at the

outer edge of the Pacifica EEZ for two months. It travelled between Atlantica and Pacifica, so

Pacifica could not see its activity on VMS. It also may have fished on the high seas because Atlantica

only received sporadic VMS reports. The other possibility was that Sea Breeze III was switching the

VMS off. It did not carry an observer on board, because the observer failed to report for

disembarkation.

Sea Breeze III did not return to port for two months, and was sighted by a vessel flagged to another

WOOFO member transhipping fish on the high seas to the Blu Maru, a carrier vessel flying the flag of

Africania, not a member of WOOFO or Frog. This was reported to WOOFO, noting that the fishing

vessel identification was unclear but that it appeared to be the “Sea Bream III” flying the flag of

Aseana. The vessel specifications matched those of the Sea Breeze III.

WOOFO communicated the report to its members, noting that there was reason to believe the “Sea

Breeze III”, also identified as the “Sea Bream III”, and the “Blu Maru” had been engaged in activities

related to IUU fishing.

After three months the Sea Breeze III called into the port in Atlantica. A port inspector from the

Atlantica Marine Resources Authority (AMRA) boarded and inspected the vessel, using the form in

Annex 2 which essentially monitors catch for scientific purposes. The vessel identification still had

not been fixed, so another note was made in the logbook. The Sea Breeze III transhipped its catch at

port and steamed towards Peri Peri Port in Pacifica.




Upon arrival at Peri Peri Port, the inspectors, who had been concerned at the failure of the vessel to fix

its identification, and the report of WOOFO, fully inspected the vessel as a priority, even though it had

a license. They made a report using the inspection form in Annex 3.

The inspectors found 100 tonnes of hothead shark fins on board in bags hidden underneath the legal

tuna catch, and .05 tonne of hothead shark carcasses. They realized that the vessel had been following

the migratory pattern of that species in Atlantica waters and on the high seas and had likely targeted

the hotheads since they left Peri Peri after pre-licensing inspection.

In the meantime, while the Blu Maru was steaming out of the WOOFO Area through Atlantica’s

waters, it requested entry to Atlantica’s port so some crew members could disembark. In fact it had

been a long time since they had been ashore and because the vessel was ahead of schedule, the master

thought it a good time for recreation. However, because it was unlicensed authorities did not want to

allow the vessel to enter port. It therefore steamed out of the WOOFO Area to offload its catch,

believed to have been composed 100% of hothead sharks.

A map of the area is attached.

Solve the problem

1. Advise what steps the following should have taken, if any, to implement the regional

requirements and national law:

(a) Atlantica

(b) Pacifica

(c) Aseana

(d) Africana

(e) WOOFO

2. Elaborate the elements of a regional standard to be developed through FROG and WOOFO on

the following:

(a) Standards for entry into port

(b) Authorizations or denial of port entry

(c) Criteria for use of port

(d) Criteria for use of port

(e) Priorities for inspection

(f) Conduct of inspections

(g) Elements of the report on the results of inspection

(h) Information exchange

(i) Responsibility of flag States

3. Indicate the pros and cons of adopting the standards elaborated under 2.




ANNEX 1

FROG MINIMUM TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PRE-FISHING INSPECTIONS

Pacifica has adopted the following requirements of FROG for pre-fishing inspections in its

national rules and procedures.

1. All fishing and support vessels must provide a port entry notice (including their authorization

to fish, details of their fishing trip and quantities of fish on board, with due regard to confidentiality

requirements in accordance with national laws) to the port authority and the national fisheries

authority at least 24 hours before entering port.

2. No fishing vessel or support vessel may enter port to carry out any functions without prior

clearance from the port authority and the national fisheries authority.

3. Any fishing vessel that enters the ports of an FROG member country can, and will be subjected to a

full inspection of the vessel, documents, fishing gear, catch and fish in storage prior to it being

permitted to conduct any activities in the ports, to ensure that:

(i) all fishing within national jurisdiction is within the terms and conditions of an

approved licence and/or agreements; and

(ii) the full investigation of all relevant documents, fishing gear, catch and fish in

stowage demonstrate compliance with national and international fisheries legislation

and agreements, and meet the port State’s international fisheries obligations.

4. In the exercise of their right to inspect fishing vessels that enter their ports, FROG members should

collect the following information and remit it to the flag State and, where appropriate, the relevant

regional fisheries management organization:

(i) the flag State of the vessel and identification details;

(ii) name, nationality, and qualifications of the master and fishing master;

(iii) fishing gear;

(iv) catch on board, including origin, species, form, and quantity;

(v) where appropriate, other information required by relevant regional fisheries

management organizations or other international agreements; and

(vi) total landed and transhipped catch.




ANNEX 2

Pacifica Marine Resources Authority (PMRA)

Boarding Checklist

LONGLINE AND POLE AND LINE FISHING VESSELS Vessel Name Vessel Flag PACIFICA License Number International Call Sign

Arrival Date/Time Agent Type

LL PL

Last Port

Purpose of entry

Crew embark/disembark Provisioning Bunkering Emergency Stop Repair

Original PACIFICA License on board and is still effective ………………………………..…………….. YES NO

FROG/VMS Certificate on board and is still effective ………………………………..……………… YES NO

PACIFICA License number displayed on both sides of the vessel and is easily identified ……………...... YES NO

Provide copies of crew list/crew declaration list, provision list ……………………………….…… YES NO

CATCH LOGSHEETS

All heading filled out (i.e. vessel name, date, port of unloading, agent, call sign, etc.) …….……... YES NO

Catch details all filled out (positions, catch, sets, time{GMT}, including DISCARD etc.)……….. YES NO

Copies of catch logsheets provided ………………………………………………………………… YES NO

Signed stamped, and dated by vessel captain ……………………………………….…..….. YES NO

Retained Catches

1. Skipjack ________ tons 3. Bigeye ________ tons 5. Sharks ________ tons 7. TOTAL ________ tons

2. Yellowfin ________ tons 4. Marlin ________ tons 6. Others ________ tons

COMMENTS

Boarding Officer Signature _________________________________ Date _________________




I declare that the information provided here signed by me is true. I understand that I must provide a copy of the vessel

catch logsheet via the vessel agent. I further understand that I am to notify the PMRA of the vessel date and time of

departure 24 hours in advance.

I have read, understand and agree to the above statements.

Vessel Captain’s Signature ________________________________ Date _________________




ANNEX 3

PACIFICA

REPORT OF THE RESULTS OF PORT INSPECTION

1. Inspection report no

2. Port State

3. Inspecting authority

4. Name, ID of principal inspector

5. Port of inspection

6. Commencement of inspection YYYY MM DD HH

7. Completion of inspection YYYY MM DD HH

8. Advanced notification received

Yes

No

9. Purpose(s) LAN TRX PRO OTH (specify)

10. Port and State and date of last port call YYYY MM DD

11. Vessel name

12. Flag State

13. Type of vessel

14. International Radio Call Sign

15. Certificate of registry ID

16. IMO ship ID, if available

17. External ID , if available

18. Port of registry

19. Vessel owner(s)

20. Vessel beneficial owner(s), if known and different from vessel owner

21. Vessel operator(s), if different from vessel owner

22. Vessel master name and nationality

23. Fishing master name and nationality

24. Vessel agent

25. VMS

No

Yes: National

Yes: RFMOs

Type:

26. Status in RFMO areas where fishing or fishing related activities have been

undertaken, including any IUU vessel listing

Vessel identifier

RFMO

Flag State status

Vessel on authorized vessel list

Vessel on IUU vessel list

27. Relevant fishing authorization(s)

Identifier Issued by Validity Fishing area(s) Species Gear

28. Relevant transhipment authorization(s)

Identifier Issued by Validity

Identifier Issued by Validity

29. Transhipment information concerning donor vessels

Name

Flag State

ID no.




Species Product form

Catch area(s)

Quantity

30. Evaluation of offloaded catch (quantity)


Catch area(s)

Quantity declared

Quantity offloaded

Difference between quantity declared and quantity determined, if any

31. Catch retained onboard (quantity)


Catch area(s)

Quantity declared

Quantity retained

Difference between quantity declared and quantity determined, if any

32. Examination of logbook(s) and other documentation

Yes

No

Comments

33. Compliance with applicable catch documentation scheme(s)

Yes

No

Comments

34. Compliance with applicable trade information scheme(s)

Yes

No

Comments

35. Type of gear used

36. Gear examined in accordance with paragraph e) of Annex B

Yes

No

Comments

37. Findings by inspector(s)

38. Apparent infringement(s) noted including reference to relevant legal

instrument(s)

39. Comments by the master

40. Action taken

41. Master’s signature

42. Inspector’s signature




Blu Maru

Africana

flag

High Seas

Sea Breeze III

Aseana Flag

Port

ATLANTICA

Peri

Peri

PACIFICA

FROG

Atlantica

Pacifica

WOOFO

Aseana

Atlantica

Pacifica

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training Workshop, Western and Central Pacific Ocean

70

ACP – FAO REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PORT STATE MEASURES

IN COOPERATION WITH FFA

Nadi, Fiji

9-13 September 2013

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Low up Medium up High

1 2 3 4 5

1. Objectives of the Workshop

1.1 Do you consider that the objectives of the Workshop were met?

1.2 Do you understand the international, regional and national frameworks that relate to port

State measures?

1.3 Do you now have an idea of the steps needed to implement the FAO Agreement on

port State measures?

2. Presentation

2.1 How do you judge the presentation of the Workshop overall?

2.2 Is the content relevant?

2.3 Were the presentations informative?

2.4 Were the presenters knowledgeable about their respective areas?

2.5 Did you benefit from the discussion?

3. Your expectations from the Workshop

3.1 Did you benefit from the Workshop exercises?

3.2 Did the Workshop meet your expectations?

3.3 Was the Workshop a positive learning experience?

3.4 Was the time allocated to the training sufficient?

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training Workshop, Western and Central Pacific Ocean

71

4. Please describe UP TO three aspects of the Workshop that were most beneficial

5. Please describe UP TO three aspects of the Workshop that were least beneficial

6. Please describe UP TO three ways in which the Workshop might be improved

7. Please provide Other Comments (optional)



72

6.4.4 Final Programme




PROGRAMME AND TIMETABLE


I. INTRODUCTION


09.00-10.00

Opening

Call to order

Prayer

Opening of the Workshop

o Mr. Augustine Mobiha, ACP Fish II,

o Mr. Matthew Camilleri, FAO

o Mr. William Edeson, FFA

o Mr. Inoke Wainiqolo, Permanent Secretary for Ministry

of Fisheries & Forests

Election of Chair








Mr Masanami Izumi, FAO


Mr William Edeson, FFA Legal Advisor

Workshop photo




73




IPOA-IUU



Workshop discussion










Workshop discussion

Ms. Judith Swan, ACP Fish II Expert, prepared by Mr Terje Lobach, FAO Consultant

12.30-13.30 Lunch

III. REGIONAL FOCUS





Mr William Edeson, Legal Advisor, FFA

13.45-14.15 MCS




Mr Noan Pakop, Monitoring Control Surveillance Policy Advisor, FFA




Resolution

Mr Noan Pakop, Monitoring Control Surveillance Policy Advisor, FFA



FFA Mr William Edeson, Legal Advisor


15.30-16.00 The process of considering port State measures in the WCPFC

Ms Rhea Moss-Christian, Chair, TCC

16.00-16.30 Case study: Port inspections in Fiji

Mr Meli Raicebe, Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries


Process and priorities of implementing port State measures, potential support

for implementation

Key inspection and reporting requirements


Mr Jude Talma, ACP Fish II Expert





74



09.00-09.45


Key elements of inspection operations: evidence, communications,

decision-making, information systems and political considerations.

Mr Jude Talma, prepared by Mr Terje Lobach

09.45-10.30




Workshop discussion



11.00-11.45 Pros and cons of existing port State measures and related MCS tools at national

and regional level

Workshop discussion

Mr Jude Talma

11.45-12.30 Pros and cons of implementing key provisions of the FAO Agreement in the

region as a minimum standard.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.15 Guidelines for implementing port State measures: legal, policy, institutional at

regional and national levels.

Workshop discussion


14.15-15.00 Guidelines for implementing port State measures: operational, information,

capacity development at regional and national levels.

Workshop discussion





Increasing understanding among colleagues and politicians on the

needs and priorities of port State measures

Workshop discussion

Mr Matthew Camilleri, prepared by Mr Terje Lobach

16.00-17.00 Proposed strategy on measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM

on port State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances

proper management of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes benefits to the

peoples of the Pacific.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan, Mr Jude Talma




75


V. WORKING GROUPS

0900-10.30

Working Group Task 1: Participants will be formed into three working

groups and given a fictitious situation featuring IUU fishing, port State

measures, RFMO, coastal and flag State issues.





2. Advise on the pros and cons, and benefits and implications of adopting port

State measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard, taking into

account documentation distributed prior to the Workshop.




12.30-13.30 Lunch


Commentary on the working group reports: Talma/Swan/Erikstein


implementation of port State measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum

standard, taking into account the issues considered in presentations and

discussion, and checklists that appear in Appendix 9 of the FAO Guide to the

background and implementation of the PSMA.

Legal and policy – Advisers William Edeson, Karine Erikstein

Institutional and capacity development – Advisers Masanami Izumi,

Matthew Camilleri

Operational – Advisers Noan Pakop, Jude Talma

Purpose: Each group is tasked to identify, at (1) national and (2) regional

levels:

(f) strengths in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

(g) constraints in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum

standard;

(h) how the constraints might be addressed;

(i) how the Guidelines might be strengthened; and

(j) priorities for moving forward.







76




Commentary on the working group reports: Pakop/Camilleri/Izumi


11.00-12.30 Working Group Task 3: The following three working groups, with advisers

noted above, will undertake this task:

Legal and policy


Operational


proposed strategy on the measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a

CMM on port State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC

enhances proper management of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes

benefits to the peoples of the Pacific. They will take into consideration the:

(e) outcomes of Task 1 (pros and cons – to be summarized and provided);

(f) outcomes of Task 2 (priorities – to be summarized and provided);

(g) tuna fisheries management and compliance by foreign fleets in the

region; and

(h) options for a strategy, measures and actions considered in presentations

and discussion.

12.30-13.30 Lunch




Commentary on the working group reports: Edeson/Pakop/Camilleri




09.00-10.30 Identification and adoption by plenary of recommendations on priority steps to

be taken nationally and regionally in relation to port State measures to enhance

proper management of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes benefits to the

peoples of the Pacific.

A framework for discussion will be prepared, based on the key outcomes of

Tasks 2 and 3 of the Working Groups.



11.00-11.30


Ms Judith Swan





77


12.30 Lunch



78

6.4.5 Presentations from workshop.



79

6.4.6 Outcomes of workshop

The Workshop considered the pros and cons of implementing the minimum standards of the FAO Port

State Measures Agreement and guidelines for implementation. Outcomes of these two areas

contributed to, and culminated in the identification of strategies. The process and outcomes are

summarized below.
















recommendations. Drawing from this, the workshop then identified the following strategies which

addressed legal and policy, institutional and operational elements.





FFA and WCPFC.

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES

General Priority Term

Expert study on the current process and risk analysis.

High Short

Carry out a risk assessment based on current national, subregional and

regional MCS.

High Short

Legal and policy

Request technical assistance to:

review existing national legislation;

develop generic legislation that can be tailored to a country’s needs;

review cooperation in port inspections under the Niue Treaty

Subsidiary Agreement;

Parties to Niue Treaty to begin development of minimum standards for

PSM on MCS issues;

High Medium



80

hold consultations with relevant agencies and stakeholders.

WCPFC to continue to review CMMs in relation to MCS issues in a

transparent process.

High Medium

FFA MCS Working Group to continue to review HMTCs, and conduct

workshops to standardise regional forms for port entry and inspection,

based on Annexes A and C in the PSMA.

High Medium

FFA to continue to develop regional standards for port State measures;

FFC to review development of port State measures;

FFA to conduct regional workshops on the outcomes.

High Medium

Develop ongoing legal training courses. High Long

Operational

Identify SOPs for national, subregional and regional levels based on

PSMA framework and national priorities. SOPs to include:

o port entry;

o inspection;

o investigation;

o confiscation of property;

o reporting.

High Medium-

long

Develop a manual based on the SOPs for use in the region.

High Medium

Increase workforce capacity.

High Short-

long

Develop advanced training in PSM SOPs for investigators.

High Medium

Build PSM into existing national, subregional and regional databases.

Develop formats for PSM-related data exchange.

Develop a training programme for data entry officers.

Build training into existing FFA VMS training.

High Short

Set procedures and criteria on transmittal of inspection results.

High Medium

Work in close collaboration with the flag States and relevant RFMOs.

High Medium

Institutional

Foster interagency cooperation and coordination through establishment

of interagency MOUs and data sharing protocols at national,

High Short



81

subregional and regional levels. MOUs should:

o appoint a lead agency;

o establish a National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for

PSM.

National and regional consultations should be held as appropriate.

Operational guidelines should be developed to govern the NCC through

national consultations.

High Medium

Identify the necessary national infrastructure to develop through a

national consultative process, and seek external funding for the

development.

Medium Long

Technical Assistance for a Regional Port State Measures Training Workshop, Western and

Central Pacific Ocean

82

6.4.7 Participants

Participant List

COOKISLANDS

Andrew Jones

MCS & VMS Officer, Observer

/ Port-sampling Coordinator

Offshore Division

Ministry of Marine Resources

P.O Box 85

Rarotonga, Cook Islands

Tel: + (682) 28721

Fax: + (685) 29721


Rima Manavaikai

Compliance and Licensing Officer

Legal & Policy Division

Ministry of Marine Resources

P.O Box 85

Avarua, Rarotonga

Cook Islands

Tel: + (682) 28721


FIJI

Meli Raicebe

Fisheries Officer, Control & Surveillance

Offshore Fisheries Division

Department of Fisheries

P.O Box 2218

Government Building

Suva, Fiji

Tel: + (679) 3301 611

Fax: + (679) 3318 769


Pauliasi Vakaloloma

Manager Qualifications & Licensing

Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji

P.O Box 326

Suva, Fiji

Tel: + (679) 331 5266 / 331 5266 (Mobile)

Fax: + (679) 330 3257


Alitia Bainivalu (Ms)

Fisheries Officer

Offshore Fisheries Division


P.O Box 2218

Government Building

Suva, Fiji

Tel: + (679) 934 3135 / 330 1611

Fax: + (679) 331 8769


Timoci Waqaniburotu

Senior Custom Officer

Fiji Revenue & Customs Authority

Private Mail Bag

Tavewa Avenue

Lautoka, Fiji

Tel: + (679) 662 6702


FSM

Rhea Moss-Christian (Ms)

Chief of Statistics, Compliance & Technical

Projects

FSM National Oceanic Resource Management

Authority

P.O Box PS122

Pohnpei, FM 96941

Tel: + (691) 320 2700

Fax: + (691) 320 2383

Email: [email protected]

Pius Roby

Seaport Manager

Pohnpei Port Authority

P.O Box 1150

Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

Tel: + (691) 320 2793

Fax: + (691) 320 2832


mailto:[email protected]










83

KIRIBATI

Mbwenea Teioki (Ms)

Senior Fisheries Officer

Monitoring Control & Surveillance

Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources &

Development

P.O Box 64

Bairiki, Tarawa

Kiribati

Tel: + (686) 21099

Fax: + (686) 21120


Ruria Iteraera (Ms)

Legal Officer

Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources

Development

P.O Box 64

Bairiki, Tarawa

Kiribati


NIUE

James Tafatu

Principal Fisheries Officer

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

(DAFF)

78 Alofi

Niue Island

Tel: + (683) 4302


Eugene Mautama

Fisheries Officer

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries

(DAFF)

Manunu, Hakupu

Niue Island

Tel: + (683) 4302 (Work) / 5140 (Home /

Personal)


/ [email protected]

PALAU

Celson Tekriu

Maritime Safety Officer

Division of Maritime Transportation

Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment &

Tourism

P.O Box 374

Koror, Palau 96940

Tel: + (680) 488 4224 / 778 5982

Fax: + (680) 488 3195


/ [email protected]

Kathleen Sisior (Ms)

Fisheries Licensing, Tuna Data Manager

Bureau of Oceanic Fisheries

Ministry of Natural Resources Environment &

Tourism

P.O Box 117

Koror, Palau 96940

Tel: + (680) 488 4394

Fax: + (680) 488 3555


PAPUA NEW GUINEA

John Sam

Assistant Commissioner, Customs

Department of Treasury, PNG Customs Service

P.O Box 923

NCD, Papua New Guinea

Tel: + (675) 3127542 / 72322418

Fax: + (675) 3231882

Email: [email protected]

Steven Bill Klembassa

Enforcement Officer

PNG National Fisheries Authority

P.O Box 2016

Port Moresby, National Capital District

Papua New Guinea

Tel: + (675) 3201950 / 71448703

Fax: + (675) 3202061 / 3201465


/ [email protected]














84

SAMOA

Michael Forsyth

Fisheries Officer (Offshore), Fisheries Observer

Fisheries Division

Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries (MAF)

Apia, Samoa

Tel: + (685) 20369 (Work) / 771 3463 (Mobile)

E-mail: [email protected] /

[email protected]

Ameto Kalolo

Compliance, Fisheries Officer

Fisheries Division

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF)

Apia, Samoa

Tel: + (685) 20369

E-mail: [email protected] /

[email protected]

SOLOMON ISLANDS

Charles Tobasala

Principal Fisheries Officer (Compliance)


(MFMR)

MFMR, P.O Box G13

Honiara, Solomon Islands

Tel: + (677) 39143 Ext 27

Fax: + (677) 38106


Samson Maeniuta

Senior Fisheries Officer (Enforcement and

Surveillance)

Compliance Department


(MFMR)

MFMR, P.O Box G13


Tel: + (677) 39143

Fax: + (677) 38730 / 38106


TOKELAU

Feleti Tulafono

Offshore Fisheries Officer, MCS, VDS and

Licensing

Department for Economic Development, Natural

Resources and Environment

Fisheries Division

Fakaofo, Tokelau


TUVALU

Solomua Ionatana

Fisheries Licensing Officer,


Vaiaku, Funafuti

Tuvalu

Tel: + (688) 20814


Onosai Takataka

Fisheries Officer


Vaiaku, Funafuti

Tuvalu

Tel: + (688) 20814


TONGA

Uanoa ‘Ahoafi

Fisheries Officer (Compliance & Enforcement),

Ministry of Agriculture & Food, Forests and

Fisheries (MAFFF)

P.O Box 871

Nuku’alofa, Tonga

Tel: + (676) 21399

Fax: + (676) 23891


Makeleta Vaikaka Mahe (Ms)

Technical Officer

Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Forests and

Fisheries













85

P.O Box 871

Nuku’alofa, Tonga

Tel: + (676) 21399

Fax: + (676) 23891


/ [email protected]





86

VANUATU

Wesley Obed

Principal MCS

Fisheries Department

PMB 9045

Port Vila, Vanuatu

Tel: + (678) 550 1158


/ [email protected]

FFA

William Edeson

Legal Advisor

Forum Fisheries Agency

1 FFA Road


Tel: + (677) 21124


Noan Pakop

MCS Policy Advisor

Forum Fisheries Agency

P.O Box 629


Tel: + (677) 21124


ACP FISH II

Judith Swan (Ms)

ACP Fish II Expert

via di Santa Melania 1

00153 Rome, Italy

Tel: + 39 348 594 0454


Augustine Mobiha

ACP Fish II, RFU – Pacific Manager

ACP Fish II Programme

c/o Forum Fisheries Agency

P.O Box 629


Tel: + (677) 21124 / 740 4305


/ [email protected]

Jude Talma

Fisheries MCS Expert

Programme for the Implementation

of a Regional Fisheries Strategy

for the Eastern & Southern Africa – Indian Ocean Region

Blue Tower, 5th Floor, Rue de I’Institut

Ebene, Mauritius










87

Tel: + 230 5402 6100

Fax: + 230 5406 7933


FAO

Matthew Camilleri

Fishery Liaison Officer

Policy, Economics & Institutions Service

Fisheries & Aquaculture Policy & Economics Division, Fisheries & Aquaculture Department

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla – 00153

Rome, Italy

Tel: + 39 06 57056435


Masanaminami Izumi

Fishery Officer

Sub-Regional Office for the Pacific Islands

Private Mail Bag

Apia, Samoa

Tel: (685) 22127 / 20710

Fax: (685) 22126


Karine Erikstein (Ms)

Associate Professional Officer

Development Law Service, Legal Office

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla

00153, Rome, Italy

Tel: + 39 06 57055226


Manah Lolani-Sam Chong (Ms)

Clerk / Stenographer

Sub-Regional Office for the Pacific Islands

Tel: (685) 22127 / 20710

Fax: (685) 22126










6.4.8 Workshop evaluation

ACP – FAO REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PORT STATE MEASURES

IN COOPERATION WITH FFA

Nadi, Fiji

9-13 September 2013

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

LOW UP MEDIUM UP HIGH

1 2 3 4 5

1. Objectives of the Workshop

1.1 Do you consider that the objectives of

the Workshop were met? 3 11 11

1.2 Do you understand the international,

regional and national frameworks that

relate to port State measures?

7 11 7

1.3 Do you now have an idea of the steps

needed to implement the FAO

Agreement on port State measures?

4 17 4

2. Presentation

2.1 How do you judge the presentation of

the Workshop overall? 3 14 8

2.2 Is the content relevant? 4 10 11

2.3 Were the presentations informative? 4 9 12

2.4 Were the presenters knowledgeable

about their respective areas? 1 9 15

2.5 Did you benefit from the discussion? 5 13 8

3. Your expectations from the

Workshop

3.1 Did you benefit from the Workshop

exercises? 2 15 8

3.2 Did the Workshop meet your

expectations? 4 16 5

3.3 Was the Workshop a positive learning

experience? 1 11 13

3.4 Was the time allocated to the training

sufficient?

1 1 7 9 7

Total 1 1 45 145 109

ASPECTS OF THE WORKSHOP THAT WERE MOST BENEFICIAL

Group Discussion (16)




Thirteen responses cited benefits from the group discussions; particularly with reference to

sharing experiences and information. Three individuals cited that the practical working group

exercises which put the information in perspective was useful.

Agreement on Port State Measures (8)

Eight responses indicated that a better understanding of the benefits of the PSMA was

beneficial. One participant specifically mentioned that discussing the linkages of PSMA to

other areas of operation was useful, and a general reference to the need for countries to adopt

PSMA was made by another individual.

Presentations (17) The presentations were well received. Eleven individuals expressed approval for the

presentations generally, while five individuals cited the discussions after the presentations as

especially beneficial. Finally, one individual mentioned the opportunity to present as most

helpful.

Interaction with Other Countries (7)

Six participants cited sharing information and experiences with members of other countries as

most beneficial. One individual mentioned that working with regional counterparts was also

helpful.

Increased Understanding of Gaps (4)

Discussion of strategies to bridge gaps (2) and understanding of existing gaps (2)

Funding Assistance (2)

Funding assistance generally (1) and FAO’s assistance with funding specifically (1).

Increased Understanding (4)

Importance of Addressing IUU in the region (2)

Competence of Resource Persons (2)

Identification of national MCS strengths/areas needing improvement (2)

Review of National Laws and Regulations (1)

ASPECTS OF THE WORKSHOP THAT WERE LEAST BENEFICIAL

None (11)

The majority of evaluators did not mention which aspects of the workshop were least

beneficial.

Presentations (5)




Two participants suggested that there were too many presentations, while one participant

wrote that the length of presentations could be improved upon, one participant stated that

presentations generally were an issue, and one participant stated that some presentations were

repetitive and caused confusion.

Issues with other participants/supervisors (2)

One evaluator suggested that some participants relied on others and did not contribute.

Another participant stated that the supervisor’s role in the last two activities was not effective.

Timing (2) Two respondents wrote that the timing of the workshop generally was least beneficial.

Sign-in of Attendance (2)

Two participants thought that the sign-in attendance was least beneficial.

Money Matters (2)

One participant thought that the budget was least beneficial, while another participant thought

that the late payment of money was not useful.

Procedures for PSMs (1) (no elaboration)

Legal Implications (1) (no elaboration)

Pros and cons of existing PSMs related to MCS (1)

Second last group task not specific adding confusion (1)

WAYS IN WHICH THE WORKSHOP MIGHT BE IMPROVED

Timeframe (19)

Nine participants suggested that the timeframe of the workshop be extended. Two weeks was

one suggested timeframe. Five participants suggested that there be more time for working

group exercises. Three participants thought that having more time for discussions would have

improved the workshop. One participant suggested having more time to go through all the

legally binding instruments with the expert. One person wrote that more time to go through

the actual agreement would have been helpful.

Logistics and Organizational Details (8)

Two respondents mentioned the delays with the per diems. Similarly, another respondent

thought the per diem was too low. An additional participant suggested improvements in

accommodations. Another evaluator suggested improving the location. Three evaluators

would have preferred to have more detailed information about the workshop prior to the

workshop (i.e. Workshop discussions sent out earlier in order to facilitate national

consideration and discussion).




Staff-Training Comments (2)

Two responses indicated more training for staff and inspectors.

Presentation Comments (3)

One participant said that presentations should be more linked to details set out in relevant

materials. Another respondent said that the presentations should be more enthusiastic.

Another evaluator said that the presenters needed to be more audible and clear.

More involvement by facilitators (1) (Guiding group/work activities to allow all to participate actively)

Better review of national legislation (2)

Greater involvement with FFA (1

Involvement of at least one representative from all broader control agencies to get more practical input (1)

Transparency of Agencies (1)

Involvement of other line agencies (3)

Give example of PSM in other countries outside the region (1)

Better understanding of Flag State measures (1)

Regional Approach (1)

Comparisons between RFMOs on developments of issues discussed (1)

OTHER COMMENTS

Expressions of appreciation and thanks (3) o Looking forward to completing the outcomes that were achieved o Well organized o Workshop a success in terms of awareness/capacity building

Suggested improvements (3) o More information on flag State responsibility and how they can assist in combating IUU

fishing for countries in the FFA region o Practical exercise to be presented through video/role-play? o More training for implementing PSMA effectively

Follow up Workshop next year (6)

To find out the level of implementation of the strategies




6.5 Country reports

REPORTS OF MISSIONS TO FFA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, FIJI, TUVALU, MARSHALL

ISLANDS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, WCPFC9 General FFA Introductory Inception Meeting

23 July 2013

A general introductory inception meeting was held on Tuesday, 23 July with FFA staff, including Mr.

Wez Norris, Deputy Director-General FFA, Mr. Augustine Mobiha, Regional Manager, ACP Fish II

RFU, Mr. Ian Freeman, Acting Director of Fisheries Management, Ms. Pamela Maru, Fisheries

Management Advisor, Mr. Peter Graham, Surveillance Operations Manager, Mr. Noan Pakop,

Monitoring, Control, Surveillance Policy Advisor, Ms. Manu Tupou-Roosen Legal Consel; Mr.

Leonard Paia, DevFish II FFA Project Coordinator.

Mr. Wez Norris, Deputy Director-General of FFA welcomed the Experts and agreed to serve as

contact point for technical advice. It was recognized that technical advice would also be sourced from

WCPFC, and otherwise the various technical experts at FFA would provide advice. A specific

technical team would therefore not be required. It was agreed that the Workshop title would include

“In cooperation with FFA”.

The sensitivity of FFA Members to the draft documents proposed at WCPFC was described, and FFA

participants encouraged the experts to review existing regional and national measures to identify

where they can be supplemented or strengthened. It was made clear that FFA is not driving the

regional position.

Members have been favouring an integrated approach, and are concerned that assistance to SIDS is

realized before a decision is taken to move forward. The work undertaken by FFA with Members

parallel to the developments in WCPFC needs to be effective and to work into the latter’s approach.

It was emphasized that information management systems at regional and national levels should be an

important component of the study and recommendations.

The variation in national challenges was underscored, and the Experts were encouraged to take this

into account.

Meeting with FFA MCS Experts

23 July 2013

A meeting took place with the MCS Experts, including Mr. Ramesh Chand, Manager VMS, Mr. Peter

Graham, Surveillance Operations Manager, Mr. Allain Rhari, Surveillance Operations Assistant, Mr.

Kenneth Katofono, Database Administrator and Mr. Noan Pakop, MCS Policy Officer.

The Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF) and Regional Register for Foreign Fishing

Vessels were explained. There are two sets of foreign fishing vessels operating in the region: one for

9 In chronological order by consultant.




high seas fishing the other and licensed to fish in member countries. There are approximately 1,500 in

each category – 3,000 active vessels in the region.

FFA registered vessels (foreign vessels) must be authorized by flag State. FFA requires VMS before

it issues a certificate of good standing, then vessels must receive a license to fish in Members’ waters

for a one year period. During the year, activities are monitored by VMS. Members can monitor

vessels directly when they sail into their EEZs.

National and sub-regional observer programmes became part of the regional observer programme at

WCPFC. The original observer programmes of WCPFC do audits of national programmes. WCPFC

has minimum standards for national and subregional programmes.

SPC and FFA are involved in training observers, especially from scientific aspect and compliance

aspects respectively.

SPC and FFA run an observers coordinating meeting regularly, including training observers to be

debriefers. WCPFC also participates.

The FFA/WCPFC TAG Committee Technical Advisory Group (TAG) discusses the overlap in

administrative/observer issues and resolves any overlaps.

National observers functions during high seas activities. They observe the whole fishing trip including

on the high seas. Nationals cannot be observers on their flag vessels. The data for the high seas is

considered to be WCPFC data, otherwise it is national.

There is a placement process, where responsibilities are explained to captain. Observers carry a form,

including daily activities, information about gear, measurement of fish, etc. There is a compliance

sheet, so the observer may record whether the vessel is complying with the license conditions. There

is also a sightings form. The observer programme includes training in testing electronic equipment to

ensure realtime data is provided.

The FFA MCS observer analyst reviews trip reports on US treaty boats. He highlights serious

violations, compliance issues and other relevant information and refers the analysis to the coastal

State.

The analyst will also look at developing a curriculum for observer training. Caution is taken in

reporting violations, it should be done after the trip because of observer safety issues.

For continuous reporting, there is VMS, inspections and documentation. Guidelines/information are

to be provided by FFA.

For VMS, regional and national requirements must be met. There is port to port reporting on VMS.

Wherever vessel is when they are licensed, they must keep MTU on so FFA is able to see it. There is

an arrangement between Cook Islands and FFA where the latter can see the vessel all the time, and not

just in Cook Islands waters.

Together Jude: FFA/WCPFC VMS cover high seas plus in-zone. Now the work is how each member

is to see the information for all vessels – FFA and WCPFC vessels. There is a difference between the

two organizations regarding release of data.




FFA data comes from the Sydney Data Centre; the data is transmitted from the vessel to the Sydney

Data Centre, and is stored in the latter’s database. Members access the Data Centre remotely. For

example, if a Cook Islands user logs in he will see all authorized data. FFA data is transferred to the

WCPFC VMS, which is a different system.

If a vessel doesn’t have a license to operate in Solomon Islands, Solomon Islands can still see it on the

FFA system if the vessel has good standing on the Regional Register and if it is on the WCPFC

authorized vessel list. If not, Solomon Islands may not see it.

Combining VMS and AIS can give a lot of information, especially concerning transhipment vessels.

The issue was raised about the reported lack of reliable observation coverage where observers are not

embarked due to compensation payments by vessels, and the problems with real time coverage.

In some cases Members may not be able to access the Sydney Data Centre. Updates are hourly. There

may be delays due to internet access/bandwidth problems. There may also be a delay in processing for

some vessels but most of the time it is realtime data.

It was noted that WCPFC in-zone information is quarantined unless members have otherwise agreed

(four or five members have done so). It is a principle of sovereign rights for some countries not to

agree. However Members may see movements in a 100 mile buffer zone on the high seas contiguous

to their outer maritime boundary.

FFA operates the Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre. Discussions were held with Mr. Steve

Masika, Surveillance Operations Assistant and the Surveillance Operations Manager, Commander

Mike Pounder who has been seconded from Australian Navy to manage the Centre.

The Centre provides a risk based picture on vessel activities in the Western and Central Pacific. Two

analysts are looking at all the vessels, the general surveillance picture, AIS, WCPFC data, etc., then

assigning compliance criteria. A compliance index is then assigned to each vessel. Vessels are colour

coded. A surveillance picture is given in the secured bunker. FFA aims to provide alerts to the

coastal State in question, but it can also provide information more broadly for purposes of port State

measures.

RIMF is under development to merge VMS data with surveillance data and other data sets and provide

different ways to access information. It is linked to the Regional Register and other data sets and other

systems are being built around it, to record violations and prosecutions, automated audits for zone

entries, spot entries and suspected transhipments. Development is continuous and being tested by

Members. Delivery is through web interface. The RIMF was inspired by the regional MCS strategy.

Minimal information is currently exchanged on port State measures.

Some countries are now putting licensing information into the RIMF, and talking about including

scientific information from SPC and other information.

The Multilateral Niue Treaty subsidiary agreement is currently open for signatures. An applicable

portal is being developed, covering prior notification, ten different annexes with various notifications,

requirements on zone entry, port access, et. If there is sharing of access, resource people etc. it is all

done through prior notice and can be installed in the database. If a patrol boat is on the high seas and




needs to follow through territorial seas, it can go to database and find contact people and other

information.

Members have a lot of information but need a way to coordinate it. What is required to apply MCS?

Also need to know the level of risk, as part of the programme is to strengthen national capacity.

Collecting, analysing and sharing information at country level should tell us about the level of risk.

Ability to pull this kind of information from members and put into RIMF is important.

For capacity development, they have been building the systems for the countries based on priorities of

countries, e.g. some wish to track transhipment that happens in port, others wish to manage their

licenses. They have covered around 8 or 9 countries, some modules are applicable to all countries.

FFA has been working very closely with SPC in this regard.

Concerning national MCS strategies, countries always request workshops to develop their strategies.

An MRAG study done in FFA members outlines the status of each country regarding its capacity for

MCS. It provides baseline information. Countries are reporting progress based on the study, which

was carried out in the lead-up to the regional strategy. The aim is to implement strategies by 2015.

Training has included evidence/prosecutions workshops run by FFA in coordination with USP/Suva;

AFMA/NOAA have assisted in these. Prosecutions workshops for legal officers, have not beengiven

in the last 3-4 years. FFA dockside boarding inspection and prosecutions workshops are carried out

3-4 times a year for different members. Observer training is given in conjunction with SPC. There is

one training session a year for FFA Members on the monitoring of vessels through VMS

arrangements.

Fellowships are offered for countries at FFA, and a curriculum is being developed for fisheries officers

who want to run through a basic MCS course. FAO also has information on this.

Concerning CMMs, FFA Members believe that licensed vessels are already subject to a range of

requirements. The thinking is that once you have vessels in a management arrangement or scheme,

you may have all bases covered. FFA Members sees them applied not within regional or subregional

arrangements, but as licensed foreign vessels. Another issue is capacity in national administrations.

Relevant WCPFC CMMs include the catch documentation scheme (CDS), transhipment measures,

observer programme, vessel marking, VMS and monitoring of purse seiners.

The regional strategy for observer programme was noted, including the observer manual

recommended by the Gillett report. It covers placement, financial management, data quality and data

management.

FFA assists Members with their compliance reports to WCPFC.

Meeting with FFA Legal Experts

24 July 2013

A meeting took place with Manu Tupou-Rosen, FFA Legal Counsel, and William Edeson, Legal

Advisor. They advised that Marshall Islands and Fiji had recently adopted new legislation, and that

there was reference to port measures in each.




The situation in some countries was reviewed. Interagency cooperation is being sought by Samoa as it

sets up an open registry. The role of the flag State in port State measures should be a focus of

discussion, mindful of the range of countries in the region that operate open registries. Cook Islands

amended its legislation in 2005. There is an enhanced provision for port control. Vanuatu is being

audited by the EU, and this could result in a review of its legislation.

In general, it was thought useful to incorporate a strong port State measures provision in legislation

that covers requirements RFMOs may adopt in addition to existing provisions.

The importance of capacity building was underlined. It was noted that the Compliance Monitoring

Scheme does not have port State measures in it.

The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) was discussed. It is implemented in bilateral agreements, and the

PNA Agreement. It has led to an increase of fees. Total allowable effort is set in the waters of 8

countries as a base level, countries meet, allocations are agreed. There is a formula that some

countries would like to amend. Port inspections should be mindful of this arrangement.

For Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions for Fisheries Access (HMTCs), there is political

commitment but legal implementation is needed. There is currently a comprehensive review of MTCs

underway.

There are two provisions relevant to port State measures.

Section 16. requires a pre-fishing inspections before licenses are issued. But this is not

incorporated by countries into regulatory framework and implemented consistently. It is a

question of human resources. For example, Nauru would like to implement this but don’t

have resources, but PNG could vet the vessel for them.

Section 11. requires the application of MTCs in ports. It is very general and not everybody is

incorporating this into their legislation.

FFC wanted further information on many things, including the FFA Vessel Register which they want

to make into a more effective tool. Once it pays a fee and reports on VMS it gets good standing

automatically, but there should be checks for compliance as well. If it is on IUU Vessel list just for

WCPFC DG can suspend a vessel from the Vessel Register, but that is the only ground for suspension.

It is felt useful to target persons and others as appropriate, so this is under comprehensive review.

The Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement (to implement mother Agreement) was adopted last

November. Seven countries signed, 4 ratifications are needed for it to enter into force.

In the recent 2012 multilateral agreement, there are new initiatives, including separate clause on ports

and port inspections, in Article 16.

Exchange of information is currently being done on an ad hoc basis. Not all countries are willing to

share VMS information with others, and prefer to exchange it on an ad hoc basis or with a few select

countries. There are confidentiality issues.

Last year FFC adopted a confidentiality security policy, and Fisheries Operations is in charge of that

policy. This affects information exchange; information exchange with agencies is provided, and

minimum information which must be shared is set out, including VMS. There are few mandatory

obligations under the Niue Subsidiary Agreement, this is one of them.




Another legal adviser is joining the team specifically for implementation of this Agreement. DAFF is

sending lawyer to raise awareness Philemon, AG for RMI will be coming.

WCPFC If a CMM is adopted in WCPFC, there must be provision relating to SIDs to assist with the

administrative burden. Instead of just receiving reports from developed countries, assistance needs to

be targeted. This has been in play for the past two sessions. Now in-zone data can be received from

the Commission - this was pushed through as a SIDS priority.

Meeting with FFA Management Experts

25 July 2013

A meeting was held with Ian Freeman, Mr. Ian Freeman, Acting Director of Fisheries Management

and Ms. Pamela Maru, Fisheries Management Advisor. Their function is to advise Members on

WCPFC and international issues, work with sub-regional groups, provide advice and assistance,

develop tuna management plans, help implement, sharks, turtle and seabirds plans, and hold

stakeholder consultations. They don’t engage in much MCS work directly but work with the MCS

staff.

They noted the consensus process in WCPFC and the resulting compromises in the content of CMMs.

FFA Members popose around 50% of CMMs or more.

Part of the reason why CMM on port State measures didn’t succeed, is that the Members had bigger

fish to fry. There are small administrations of in many FFA countries. One size fits all isn’t going to

work because of different capacity. There were concerns on interference with national laws.

Members don’t want a blanket measure. They don’t want to apply mandatory measures to all vessels.

They preferred not to exclusively target tuna but wanted the ability to target other issues as well, such

as drug smuggling and transnational crimes, so the measure is vessel-specific. This should enable

members to request inspections to target issues.

It is thought that members may be strong on their refusal to apply PSM to licensed vessels. This may

be influenced by a negative view of the EU, which proposed the measure; there is a perception that the

EU supports Spanish piracy.

Management is keen on getting a handle on IUU fishing but wishes to avoid duplication – i.e. where a

mechanism or CMM is in place this should not be duplicated. Good tools are in place already:

cooperation among members, better integration among datasets, routine exchange of data.

The Members seem to want more port State involvement in issues, and less reliance on flag State

control. There is support for more port State development for CDS. It may be applied to licensed

vessels where there is suspected IUU activity.

Members didn’t want standardized inspection forms. But this is minimum form, not standard form.

Some countries are undermining the VDS. It has evolved to improve benefits to FFA members and

has also given a basis for rights based fisheries in future. It can be a powerful compliance tool if

everyone plays the game. Over time, there may be a better definition the rights and higher value of the

fisheries, this will take a few years.




SPC has been working on TUFFMAN, a catch and effort regional database that has a component for

MCS specifically for port inspection. FFA and SPC are working together on this, national and

regional level information management developments. The aim is reciprocal data sharing between

agencies.




SOLOMON ISLANDS

1 August 2013

1. Background

1.1. Port

There are three designated ports in Solomon Islands: Honiara, Noro in Western Province where a

cannery is located and Tulagi, which is not normally used.

1.2. Number, type and nationality of vessels (licensed, unlicensed)

There are approximately 150-250 purse seine transhipments that take place annually in Solomon

Islands waters. The number of longliners has begun to increase, and Measures are being taken to

discourage longliners from landing catches in Fiji.

There are very few unlicensed vessels reported to be fishing in Solomon Islands waters.

There are 10 to 12 locally registered vessels – i.e. foreign vessels chartered by local companies – and

all must have a pre-fishing vessel inspection. This must occur within the first six weeks of the

licensing period, on their first port visit. There are currently plans to extend this requirements to all

longliners including those fishing under bilateral agreements. The question is whether to extend this

to purse seiners, which have 100 per cent observer coverage. This is the second year pre-fishing

inspections have been implemented.

Some consideration is being given to inspection on the basis of risk – e.g. any time there is a first time

visitor to port or inappropriate activities are suspected.

1.3. Purpose of calls

The purpose of port calls in Solomon Islands is to land fish. In the past, landings used to be by local

vessels (5 purse seine, 3 pole and line), but landing is required for offshore fisheries now and it is done

for purposes of transhipment.

Two or three vessels are coming in a week to offload in Honiara, but the fishing vessels are often

using carrier vessels with an observer on board. In Noro, 50-70 vessels offload every five or six

weeks. There could be 20 longliners offloading at once. This is a change when the only offloading

used to be done by the 8 local vessels. Now there are up to 100 or more vessels.

Solomon Islands provides an economic incentive for vessels to land in SI ports for onshore processing

rather than in Fiji. If they exceed a target for fishing, they must pay an additional levy when they

tranship fish for landing in Fiji. But if they meet the target, they don’t have to pay. In future it is

planned to only allocate access to countries that have invested in onshore processing. License

conditions do not include requirements for landing the fish; offloading is addressed in license

agreements.

1.4. Number of inspections and procedures/reports




All transhipments are supervised. There were two surveillance officers in MFMR, but interviews for

an additional three were planned for the day following the meeting. There is a form for inspection,

and the procedure is to check through the logsheets to see if they are properly filled. There is checklist

of conditions. If the logsheets are not properly filled, prosecutions may be recommended. However,

the minimum information requirements in Annex A and C of the FAO Agreement (entry into port and

results of inspection) are not included on the inspection forms.

1.5. Integration of MCS tools with port inspections

Port Entry: It was noted that FFA has port entry forms, but there is some insecurity in allowing port

entry for unlicensed vessels. For example, an unlicensed longliner requested port entry to disembark 8

crew. There were no procedures to address this situation.

It was noted that the first task would be to check whether there is evidence of IUU fishing, and if so to

turn them away. A reasonable time period should be allowed for checking the vessel’s background

between the time required for a request to enter port and the decision as to whether to authorize entry.

The issue of adopting conditions for unlicensed vessels requesting port entry was considered, and the

need to ascertain where the vessels have been fishing was emphasized, e.g. a longliner coming in to

unload toothfish. The challenge for Solomon Islands Government is to to put in place conditions that

govern entry into port by unlicensed vessels.

Observers: For observers, the normal debrief and reports are carried out. Fishing countries have

noted the timeliness of reporting from observers is appalling. More staff is needed for debriefing, etc.

There is a proposal to have compliance analysts who can link in components of observer reports with

other MCS elements. But it was acknowledged that this would not likely become as real-time as

needed for effective linkages with port State measures.

The timeliness would depend on the system in place. In the original forms, there is a compliance

form, and as soon as the observer comes into port the first thing checked in the debriefing is

compliance, while the vessel is still in port. The debriefer checks the data and yellow form

(compliance form), and identifies the incident. If enforcement authorities are present or available, a

photocopy of the forms is made and sent to them.

The initial debrief should pick up significant things, particularly if the observer disembarks in Honiara

or Noro. However if they disembark in a port outside Solomon Islands and fly back, this could take

some time although there are coordinators in other ports.

FFA is giving simple precoded communicator devices independent of vessel communications,

especially for use in relation to the health and safety of the observer. It is under discussion whether

this could be used for serious compliance issues which could result in an order to come to port.

VMS: Solomon Islands uses the FFA VMS. The FFA system FIMS is useful in finding illegal

fishing. All the vessels have good sanding with the FFA register, wherever they go they can be

monitored except PNG which does not allow Solomon Islands to see the vessels. However, a 100

mile buffer zone is being established where vessels will be visible and soon it will be possible to

monitor transit vessels.




NPOA-IUU: A draft NPOA-IUU has been prepared and is under review. It addresses port State

measures, but needs to be strengthened to take into account the provisions in the draft Fisheries

Amendment Bill.

There is a campaign to “flick a switch”, and also get all information from transiting vessels.

campaign .. if you don’t license to fish in your zone it can transit through vessel right of free passage.

Fishing nations have resisited. Finally last year we’ll be getting all the transit information. In

addition, systems applicable to vessels generally, and not only fishing vessels, such as AIS will be

added by FFA.

1.6. Results of inspections

The results of port inspections are not generally shared in the region.

1.7. IUU fishing problems and detection

There is no standard procedure for detecting IUU fishing and identifying procedures, much of the time

IUU fishing is found in the books after the vessel has left the jurisdiction.

Over the past year less than 10 violations have been recorded. There has been at-sea boarding of

around 40 vessels, which detected around 5 violations.

2. Legal authority and bilateral/regional/international obligations (national laws, access

agreements, WCPFC and international instruments)

A Fisheries Amendment Bill has been prepared and is under review. It is expected that the Bill will be

tabled before Parliament by the end of this year. It has robust provisions in relation to port State

measures.

There are five bilateral agreements: Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan and Vanuatu (for

Taiwanese vessels). These agreements don’t require pre-fishing inspections. Normally negotiations

are with relevant tunaboat associations, and not so much with the flag State authority.

Agreements with local companies include pre-fishing inspections. For agreements to be concluded in

2014, a requirement to cooperate with the Solomon Islands Government in relation to any alleged

offence by the vessel is being considered.

More work is needed on informing flag States of the activities of their vessels.

3. Institutional arrangements

Cooperation with the harbourmaster and police patrols is needed. A preliminary meeting with FFA

and the police had been held. Monthly working group meetings were planned between MFMR, the

police and FFA which would address, among other things, prioritization of risks and coordination of

MCS actions.

4. Information systems

Regional information systems were being used.




5. Human capacity: MCS and Legal (staff, training, information, etc)

More resources were needed. It was noted that 2 staff are tasked with VMS, and there were 4

surveillance officers assisted by licensing and statistics officers, but two of the officers had left. It was

recommended that 2 or 3 additional officers were needed in Noro.

6. Systematic cooperation and sharing of intelligence (interagency, through WCPFC, FFA)

Regional information systems were being used.

7. Implementation of regional agreements, WCPFC resolutions10

Resolutions and agreements not implemented include CMM on sharks (WCPFC), providing for 5%

retention. One option being considered is to ban fishing for sharks.

Implementation of PNA requirements was reported to be largely accomplished. However some of the

requirements, which are also not implemented by others, are outstanding.

8. Pros and cons of adopting port Sate measures

Some “Pros” for adopting port State measures is the prospect of continuing exports to the EU, and that

they can serve as a catalyst to resolve internal issues, including promoting cooperationi between the

port authorities and fisheries.

“Cons” include the additional costs for people and systems, where there are few unlicensed vessels

that call into port in Solomon Islands and it is believed that other MCS tools are adequate to detect

violations by licensed vessels.

9. Specific needs for guidelines, strategies

The cost of port State measures must be addressed, and how to maximize use of existing staff.

Difficulties are envisaged if the existing staff takes on responsibilities for port State measures.

The role of the PNA subgroup and FFC in decision-making, prior to consideration at the Commission,

must be taken into account in forming strategies. Solomon Islands would support the decision of FFC.

Solomon Islands is the current chair of FFC and WCPFC.

10. Conclusions and recommendations

Solomon Islands exports to the EC, needs to retain competence for EU phytosanitary and IUU

Regulations. Last year the EU did a soft edit on Solomon Islands IUU Regulations with a positive

outcome. This year an NPOA-IUU and SOPs are being developed to demonstrate compliance with the

EU Regulations (there is no choice). It makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective.

10

Note: To the extent possible, this should indicate whether all all/many/some agreements/resolutions are fully

implemented in law and practice, identify those that are not and indicate problems with achieving

implementation (e.g. legal, procedural challenges).




Requirements and SOPs are needed in relation to port entry and inspection. Before granting entry,

MFMR should do a full background check. It should not allow vessel to use port for any reason if it is

suspected of IUU fishing activities. If it decides to allow entry, should be fully inspected. The

harbourmaster should not grant entry unless an authorization has been issued by MFMR. The idea of

the harbourmaster undertaking the checks will not work. Part of the SOPs should be to ensure

coordination and cooperation among agencies.

Details of IUU vessels attempting to land fish should be publicized. They need to be covered by

SOPs. Action points should reference appropriate regulations or agreements.

When the Fisheries Amendment Bill is adopted, which will give effect to port State measures, it is

important that the Ports Authority cooperate through a formalized MOU, and that the NPOA-IUU

reflects the requirements of the draft Bill.

11. Contacts

Name Position Ministry/Department Contact

Dr. Chris Ramofifia Permanent Secretary MFMR cramofifia

Ronelle Panda Principal Fisheries

Officer (Policy)

MFMR [email protected]

Charles Tobasala PFO (Compliance) MFMR [email protected]

Selina Lipa PFO (Licensing) MFMR [email protected]

Jonathan Peacey Offshore Fisheries

Advisor (IMSSIF)


Derek Suimae Observer coordinator MFMR [email protected]

Charlyn Golu Tuna Tag Recovery

Officer


FIJI

27 – 31 August 2013

1) Background

The Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd commonly known as ‘Fiji Ports’, is the government owned company

that administers the following designated fishing ports: Suva, Lautoka, and Levuka.




Transhipment is undertaken in port, and at-sea transhipment is allowed in Fiji waters by licensed

domestic-based long-liners to carriers. The carriers must carry observers and the companies must

compensate the Fisheries Department for the observer’s costs.

All foreign vessels transship or land fish in the Fiji designated ports and total transhipment in Fiji ports

amounts to approximately 70% of all transhipment by FFA members in the in the Pacific area.

1.1 Port Calls, type of vessel and number of inspections

The most prevalent type of fishing vessel that usually calls to port in Fiji is the longliner. These are

both foreign vessels and locally based chartered vessels. Their main purposes are to conduct

transhipments and landings plus other use of ports such as provisioning and crew exchange. Purse

seiners rarely call into port in Fiji and such port calls are mostly for crew change, provisioning and

other similar uses of port.

Table 1: Number of port calls

PORT CALLS

COUNTRY Code 2010 2011 2012

QTY % QTY % QTY %

AUSTRALIA Au 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.07

RUSSIA RU 1 0.07 0 0.00 4 0.29

FRENCH POLYNESIA FP 0 0.00 1 0.07 0 0.00

INDONESIA ID 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.14

TONGA TO 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.07

PAPUA NEW GUINEA PN 0 0.00 2 0.14 0 0.00

PANAMA PA 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.07

NEW ZEALAND NZ 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.07

WALLIS & FUTUNA WF 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 28.57

USA USA 0 0.00 2 0.14 3 0.22

TUVALU TV 2 0.14 8 0.55 14 1.01

KIRIBATI KI 2 0.14 1 0.07 3 0.22

PHILLIPINES PH 2 0.14 0 0.00 1 0.07

COOK ISLANDS CI 13 0.93 2 0.14 4 0.29

JAPAN JP 21 1.51 23 1.59 25 1.80

KOREA KR 25 1.80 9 0.62 7 0.51

VANUATU VU 46 3.30 65 4.50 144 10.39

TAIWAN TW 202 14.51 227 15.71 242 17.46

FIJI FJ 302 21.70 319 22.08 295 21.28

CHINA CN 731 52.51 716 49.55 632 45.60

UNKNOWN 44 3.16 68 4.71 4 0.29

TOTAL 1392 1445 1386




Table 2: Number of and type of vessel that makes port calls

TYPE OF VESSEL 2010 2011 2012

QTY % QTY % QTY %

LONG LINERS 1358 97.56 1419 98.20 1374 99.13

PURSE SEINERS 4 0.29 1 0.07 1 0.07

CARRIERS 30 2.16 25 1.73 11 0.79

Table 3: Number of inspection and non inspection

INSPECTION 2010 2011

2012

QTY % QTY % QTY %

BOARDED FOR

INSPECTION 1306 93.75 1415 97.92 1382 99.71

NOT BOARDED 87 6.25 30 2.08 4 0.29

% BOARDED

Fiji tries to target 100% inspection of foreign fishing vessels and locally based charter vessels. An

entry request is required 48 hours before port entry, and they are generally accepted unless a vessel is

on an IUU vessel list. This is followed by inspection by port authorities upon entry into port. The

inspection is routine procedure and it clears the vessel for landing.

Fiji does allow vessels not licensed to fish in Fiji waters to make port calls for transhipment, landing

and other similar activities, on the same conditions as it allows for licensed vessels. Table 4 indicates

the number of unlicensed vessels that called to port during 2010-2012.

Table 4: Percentage unlicensed and licensed vessel that call in Fiji ports

Year 2010 2011 2012

Total no that call to port 292 475 478

Unlicensed vessels 265 404 405

licensed 27 71 73

% unlicensed vessel 90.75 % 85.05 % 85 %

1.2 IUU fishing problems and detection

In the early days after the establishment of the Fisheries Department establishment in 2002, unlicensed

fishing vessels commonly roamed the Fijian waters and fished illegally. This situation gradually

improved over the years as several national and regional measures were put in place.




According to the Greenpeace office in Fiji, illegal transhipment on the high seas, involving carrier

vessels flagged to non-members of WCPFC, is one of the major issues concerning IUU fishing. This

involves such vessels encouraging transhipment from vessels not on the regional fishing registry of the

WCPFC. Such example is the case involving three vessels, one a Cambodian flag carrier vessel Heng

Xing no.1 taking fish from another unknown flag carrier vessel SAL 19, and a Philippines-registered

fishing boat with no name, no call sign and no log book. This took place on the high seas earlier this

year. The illegal transshipment was spotted and inspected by Greenpeace and Paulau fisheries officers,

but cannot take action, except to report those vessel to the WCPFC to be included on the IUU vessel

list.

Other popular types of non-compliance that are detected upon port inspection include;

Non compliance with the WCPFC CMM 2010-07 on sharks;

non-reporting and/or under reporting of catch;

FFA certificate expired or not on board;

logbook not on board.

The above are found in respect of fishing activities in Fiji waters and on the high seas.

2 Framework and implementation of legal authority and bilateral/regional/international

obligations

2.1 Legal Authority

The Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests is the legal Authority for fisheries management.

The management of the offshore fisheries is based under, the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree

78 of 2012, and the Tuna Development and Management guidelines. Part 7 of the Decree takes into

consideration Port Measures, requirement that was previously not addressed in the initial Fisheries

Act, Chapter 158 of 1942.

2.2 Fishing access agreement

A bilateral fisheries access agreement exists with Japan and Fiji is party to the multilateral Treaty on

Fisheries with the USA. In addition, Fiji companies have charter agreements with foreign companies

that originate mostly from Taiwan and China.

2.3 International and regional instruments

Fiji is party to the following international and regional instruments:

The 1982 United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea;

United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement;

The Niue Treaty;

multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the USA

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures

2.4 WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures (CMM)

Fiji complies with some WCPFC CMMs that are related to PSM except for the following:

CMM 2010-07 on sharks whereby some Fijian and foreign vessels have onboard shark fins

with a weight that is above the body mass ratio of 5% at the point of first landing or

transhipment;




partially comply with CMM 2006-08 on boarding and inspection procedures but some serious

violations described in section 37 are identified during at sea boarding and port inspection

and not relayed to the commission or flag state as required by sections 30 and 31 of CMM

2006-08;

CMM 2009-10 on landing by purse seiners is not applicable, because no such activities take

place in the Fiji ports.

In addition to that and where there have been illegal transhipments on the high seas as described in

item 1.2 above, the case of the Russian vessels that have called into port and other cases cited and

confirmed by Greenpeace, with regard to illegal transhipment at sea, that are undetected upon port

inspection.

3 Institutional arrangements

3.1 The Department of Fisheries

At the national level, the Fiji Fisheries Department (a department of the Ministry of Fisheries and

Forests) is the management authority responsible for management and administration of all aspects of

fisheries in Fiji.

The Department has an advisory role to the customary rights’ holders and institutes legislative and

enforcement measures to ensure commercial viability. It also approves licenses for fishing and

administers permits for other activities e.g carrier vessel and transhipment. The EEZ and the territorial

sea are a responsibility of the Department for monitoring, evaluation and proper utilization of tuna

resources.

The Fisheries Department has developed and implemented an MOU with the Port and Maritime Safety

Administration in Fiji (MSAF), but there is need for this to be fully implemented as confirmed by the

MSAF.

3.2 The Fiji Ports

Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd. (Fiji Ports) is the commercial port management company wholly owned by

the Government of Fiji that manages the two major designated ports of Suva and Lautoka and the

secondary designated ports of Levuka, plus other port for commercial purposes.

3.4 The Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji

The MSAF is a new commercial statutory authority that acts as a regulator, and is responsible for

Fiji’s maritime safety, protection of the marine environment, regulation of search and rescue and

hydrographical services.

It is responsible for the registration of fishing vessel and has the power in its Maritime Act, Act No.35

of 1986 - Cap. 182 Rev. 2006, to deregister any of its flag vessels found to have engaged in IUU

fishing.

4 Information systems including VMS




The Department of Fisheries is linked to the WCPFC/SPC TUFFMAN information exchange system

for relaying catch & effort, license and observer information from the WCPFC to the SPC. Similarly

the Department is linked to the FFA with the Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF), for

the purpose of exchanging observer, licensing, scientific (SPC), VMS and AIS information.

Port inspection data is not shared through either of these mechanisms, except if there is a serious

infraction the FFA and WCPFC are notified.

The VMS data are exchanged with countries that have maritime boundaries with Fiji are Vanuatu,

Solomon Island and Tuvalu. Such data are exchanged with all countries during regional fisheries

surveillance missions only.

There was a particular concern with regard to delay of updating vessel information on the VMS

database, Information such as vessel name and call signed after vessels have change name or flag. This

may lead to misinterpretation of fishing vessel identity or fishing-related activity by a vessel whose

data have not been updated; it could be wrongly interpreted as IUU activity.

In the event of non-reporting a mechanism is in place to request polling by FFA and/or submission of

manual reporting for a specific period after which the ALC must have been repaired or replaced.

5 Human capacity: MCS and Legal (staff, training, information, etc)

Presently there is inadequate human capacity with the Department of Fisheries for port inspection.

Other fisheries officers are sometimes used for inspection purposes and part timers are also recruited,

for inspection during peak fishing season when port calls significantly increase. No legal personnel are

employed by the Fisheries Department and assistance is sought from the Attorney General’s Office.

However the personnel in the latter do not have the necessary fisheries knowledge, and the law does

not address the minimum standards of port State measures as provided under the FAO Agreement.

Under Part 7, Port Measures, transshipment and other services, it focuses only on requirements for

port entry, sampling and monitoring and does not include inspection. The Director must authorize use

of port for landing, transhipment, bunkering or provisioning, in accordance with any applicable access

agreement, fisheries management agreement, and any requirement which may be prescribed. but there

is no reference to incorporation of CMMs. However, regulations may be made to elaborate this.

It should be noted that government has recently approved the recruitment of twenty five new staff for

the Department of Fisheries, which will benefit MCS.

No capacity building plan exist nationally, but Fiji MCS personnel benefit from the regional training

courses that are being conducted by FFA and some country specific training that is also being carried

out by FFA.

The level of understanding by MCS personnel of what port State measures involves is rather

intermediary, knowing it has to do with port inspection requirement and needs to be integrated in

national fisheries laws. However it falls short of knowing the detailed minimum requirement for port

entry, refusal of port use before and after inspection, port inspection minimum requirement and

information exchange.

6 Systematic cooperation and sharing of inter-agency intelligence

Apart from the observer reports, there are no major exchanges of information for intelligence

purposes. WCPFC has VMS information of vessels on high seas, that are not shared with member




countries especially at the point of entry in coastal states EEZs, given a particular vessel is not license

in their jurisdiction. For a monitoring and compliance point of view non-licence vessel VMS data

should made available to coastal states without need for official request.

Apart from information exchanged during sub-regional surveillance missions and the quarterly

nationally planned surveillance mission, minimal intelligence information is exchange between Fiji

and the two main regional organizations.

Examples of information that should be shared are:

non FFA and/or WCPFC fishing vessels that request port entry;

immediate siting activity report by observers; and

VMS visibility for all Members.

6.1 Assessment of effectiveness of existing MCS operations to address PSM

MCS operations towards PSM need to be defined in a proper MCS plan/strategy whereby operating

procedures are established and appropriate in line with existing WCPFC CMMs and other

international, regional and sub-regional requirements.

The human capacity may be said to be satisfactory, especially with new recruits that have recently

received approval from government.

One area that will require significant improvement is the recording of data and use of appropriate

database system for better management and analysis of fisheries information.

The new Offshore Fisheries management Decree 78 of 2012, despite shortcomings with regard to the

minimum standards in the FAO Agreement, has been a significant step forward from Fiji’s previous

Fisheries Act.

The inter-agency cooperation is reasonable between the Port and Maritime Authority, but is absent

with other agencies that conduct related port inspections.

7 Pros and cons

Following are pros and cons of implementing the 2009 FAO Agreement as a minimum standard.

7.1 Pros

there are close links between port and maritime authorities generally and a good level of

coordination, with MoU in place;

stakeholders, other port related agencies and NGO fully support the requirements of the FAO

Agreement and welcome a WCPFC CCM on PSM;

currently VMS sharing arrangements are in place with Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands

and opens up zone to participating countries during regional joint fisheries surveillance

operations;

trained observers and good national and regional coordination are in place;

vessels are subject to pre-fishing inspections;

aim to obtain 100% port inspection of foreign fishing vessels;

analysis done on VMS, catch and efforts, weekly report, and port inspection for the purposes

of identifying infraction;




have university level staff employed;

new law in place that take into consideration of international requirement;

an NPOA IUU is in place and being reviewed; and

the necessary institutions are in place for effective PSM.

7.2 Cons

there is lack of a good national fisheries database system that will allow an effective record

keeping and analysis of fisheries data including MCS data;

no inter-agency cooperation between the different agencies that conduct boarding and

inspection on vessel when in port. This causes an unnecessary delay to vessels in port;

most observers are placed on US Treaty purse seiners which offload in Pago Pago, and there is

a delay in obtaining the reports;

a full understanding of the FAO Agreement is lacking;

VMS information is not shared with all WCPFC or FFA members;

port entry requirement not in line with FAO PSMA minimum standards;

inspection form does not meet the FAO PSMA minimum standards;

port inspection data is not shared on a regular basis;

the new Offshore Fisheries Management Decree No. 78 of 2012 has been a great step forward

compared to the previous Fisheries Act but has failed to meet many minimum standards in the

FAO Agreement;

HMTC section 11on port State measures requiring inspection of both license and unlicensed

vessels is not fully implemented;

there is not full compliance with WCPFC PSM-related CMMs; and

under the multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the USA, observers operate only in their own

jurisdiction despite operating under the FFA observer programme.

8 Specific needs for guidelines, strategies

Fiji would require the following to strengthen existing PSM:

develop regulations on PSM to elaborate Decree 78;

develop appropriate database systems for record keeping and analysis;

full compliance with existing WCPFC PSM-related CMMs;

full compliance with HMTC section 11;

sharing of intelligence;

inter-agency coordination on port state inspections, to limit turnaround time of fishing vessels

in port;

investigative capacity building to detect, during port inspection, IUU fishing or related

activities that may have taken place at sea; and

inter-agency capacity building with regard to PSM.

9 Conclusions and recommendations

Fiji is in a developmental process with regard to fisheries MCS. The process includes the new

Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 78 of 2012 that replaced the previous and much less

comprehensive Fisheries Act, improved capacity in the Fisheries Department and with assistance of

FFA is working on a PSM regulation proposed by Fiji Solicitor General’s office, to supplement part 7

of the Decree takes into consideration Port Measures.




Their NPOA-IUU is in the process of being reviewed and new recruitment for MCS functions. In that

context, capacity building will be a must in the coming years to conform to the new measures. In

addition Fiji should seriously review the requirements of existing WCPFC CMMs related to port State

measures and adjust procedures to improve their compliance.

10 Persons met and activities undertaken

Activities undertaken for the ACP FISH II in Fiji includes open discussion meeting with the following

organisation or group of people:

Department of Fisheries, including a group meeting involving personnel from Enforcement,

VMS and fisheries management;

Meeting with the Director Suresh Chand;

Boat owners/companies and vessel agents;

Greenpeace;

World Wild Fund for Nature;

The Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji; and

Office of the Solicitor General.

It was not possible to meet with the Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd due to other commitments by the

company with regard to development plan for the Fiji future port management policy.

Viable new information was gathered on behalf of Fiji’s commitment to improve its fisheries

management perspective to combat IUU fishing, including:

the new Fisheries Decree 78 that takes into consideration PSM;

plans for further regulation of PSM;

approval for recruitment of a further 25 staff of which MCS will largely benefit and

review of the NPOA IUU.

Names Position Organization Contact

Mr. Suresh Chand Director Department of

Fisheries

Ms.Alitia Bainivalu Assistant Fisheries

Officer

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Ph: +679 3301611 ext. 188

Fax: +679 3318769

Ms. Leba

Raketekete

Assistant Fisheries

Officer -VMS

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Mr.Anare Raiwalui Principal Fisheries

Officer

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Mr. Jone Amade Senior Fisheries

Officer

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Duncan Willian Pacific Ocean

Campaigner

Greenpeace [email protected]

Karli Thomas Pacific Ocean

Campaigner

Coordinator

Greenpeace [email protected]

Seni Nabou Pacific Political Greenpeace [email protected]











Advisor Australia Pacific

Jenny Zo Executive Director West& Central

Pacific seafood

[email protected]

John Lee Director Zhong Fei

Shipping

[email protected]

Peichia Shi Director Trans Cold

Marine &

Shipping Services

[email protected]

Julia Koi Trans Cold

Marine &

Shipping Services

[email protected]

John Tunidau Manager standard

and compliance

Maritime Safety

Authority of Fiji

[email protected]

ph; 331 5266

fax: 330 3251/331 3127

CPT Pauliasi

Vakaloloma

Manager

qualification and

licensing

Maritime Safety

Authority of Fiji

[email protected]

ph; 331 5266

fax: 330 3251/331 3127

Alfred Cook WCP Tuna

programme

Manager

WWF [email protected]

Seremiaia Tuquiri Fisheries Policy

officer

WWF [email protected]

Sophina Ali Office Solicitor

General

[email protected]

Ajendra Pratap Office Solicitor

General

[email protected]












TUVALU

1-5 August 2013

2) Background

The Funafuti Port is the designated port for Tuvalu.

The catch from offshore fishing in the Tuvalu EEZ is either delivered by the catching vessels to

foreign ports or transshipped in ports in neighboring Pacific Island country to processing facilities,

mainly in Asia. Only a very small amount of transshipping occurs in Tuvalu and the species are

predominantly two types of tuna - skipjack and yellowfin.

The catch in the offshore fisheries is made entirely by foreign-based industrial fishing vessels. The

purse seine fleet alone contributed 98% to the total reported catch.

1.1 Port Calls, type of vessel and number of inspection

The most prevalent type of fishing vessel that usually calls to port in Funafuti are the seiners for

transshipment and other related activities. No landings takes place in Funafuti.

The port can be regarded as a relatively inactive with regard to fishing activities with less than ten

port calls per year, mostly due to logistical reasons.

All vessels that come into port are licenced vessels in Tuvalu waters and unlicensed vessel are not

allowed into port.

Table 1: Licenced vessels per country that fish in Tuvalu waters

LICENCE VESSEL

COUNTRY Code 2011 2012 Jul-13

QTY % QTY % QTY %

USA US 37 12.67 41 13.53 39 23.21

Panama PA 1 0.34 7 2.31 8 4.76

Kiribati KI 8 2.74 14 4.62 4 2.38

Fiji FJ 13 4.45 21 6.93 8 4.76

Tuvalu TV 6 2.05 9 2.97 5 2.98

Marshall Island MH 8 2.74 6 1.98 2 1.19

Korea KR 80 27.40 90 29.70 47 27.98

Japan JP 49 16.78 23 7.59 3 1.79

Taiwan TW 30 10.27 26 8.58 19 11.31

Spanish ES 7 2.40 5 1.65 2 1.19

Vanuatu VU 19 6.51 30 9.90 27 16.07

New Zealand NZ 6 2.05 4 1.32 3 1.79




China CN 25 8.56 12 3.96 0 0

Cooks Islands CK 0 0.00 2 0.66 0 0

Singapore (B) SG 1 0.34 2 0.66 1 0.60

El Salvador SV 2 0.68 2 0.66 0 0

FSM FM 4 1.37 1 0.33 0 0

Ecuador EC 11 3.77 8 2.64 0 0

TOTAL 292 303 168

Table 2: Number of licenses per type of vessel

TYPE OF VESSEL 2011 2012 Jul-13

QTY % QTY % QTY %

LONG LINNERS 165 56.51 90 29.70 51 30.36

PURSE SEINNER 115 39.38 185 61.06 89 52.98

Bunker Vessel 6 2.05 6 1.98 4 2.38

Pole & line 2 0.68 4 1.32 5 2.98

CARRIER 4 1.37 18 5.94 19 11.31

TOTAL 292 303 168

No concrete port State inspection is carried out on vessels upon port entry. The only inspection is

carried out by fisheries officers or observers that happen to be in the country at the time, and

constitutes recording of fish that are being transshipped.


According to Department of Fisheries records, IUU fishing varies from serious to minor infractions

such as:

Fishing without a licence by both foreign vessels and those of neighboring countries;

Fishing by vessels flying the flag of non-members of the WCPFC;

Non-compliance to the shark CMM 2010-07;

Non reporting and/or under reporting of catch;

Logbook not on board and

Call sign not clearly marked on vessel and fishing gears.


obligations (national laws, access agreements, FFA WCPFC, and international instruments)11

11

Note: To the extent possible, this should indicate whether all all/many/some agreements/resolutions are fully

implemented in law and practice, identify those that are not and indicate problems with achieving

implementation (e.g. legal, procedural challenges).




2.1 Legal Authority

The Marine Resources Act 2006 was reviewed in 2012 and is the main law dealing with fisheries in

Tuvalu. The main features of the Act are:

The principal objective of the Act is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the

living marine resources for the benefit of the people of Tuvalu.

Some important points of the Act that are relevant to PSM are:

The Minister responsible for fisheries has the authority for the conservation, management;

development and sustainable use of the living marine resources in the EEZ of Tuvalu;

The Minister has the power to administer the fisheries and make regulations as he sees fit;

The Minister may appoint in writing a fisheries officer and such other officials as needed to

discharge fisheries related functions. (such as authorised officers;

The Fisheries Officer shall prepare a management plan for each designated fishery.;

All vessel engaged in fishing must have a valid/applicable permit under the Act or a

valid/applicable license under a multilateral access agreement in accordance with the Act;

The transshipment of fish in the Tuvalu EEZ is regulated. and

The requirements for a Tuvalu fishing vessel operating outside of Tuvalu waters are given.

Responsibility for fisheries and marine resource matters is vested in two agencies, the Fisheries

Department and the National Fishing Corporation of Tuvalu (NAFICOT), both of which are divisions

of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Department of Fisheries is responsible for the control,

management and development of fisheries while NAFICOT is responsible for commercial fisheries

development.

The National Coordinating Centre monitors foreign fishing vessel activity within Tuvalu's EEZ. The

Centre provides the main contact point between the foreign fleets and the Fisheries Department.

2.2 Fisheries access agreements

Fisheries access agreements exist with a Taiwanese company, and Tuvalu is party to the multilateral

Agreement on Fishing with the USA.

2.3 International and regional organizations and instruments

Tuvalu is party and/ or signatory to only to the following organizations and instrument;

South Pacific Commission (SPC), the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) the Treaty

on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of

the United States of America;

the Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific;

the Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South

Pacific Region;

the Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common

Concern( which addresses the management of tuna purse-seine fishing);

the Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery

the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and

United Nation Fish Stocks Agreement.





Tuvalu complies partially with most of the WCPFC CMMs that are related to PSM as specified in the

WCPFC and FFA compliance records. With regard to CMM 2006-08 on boarding and inspection

procedures Tuvalu have come across Some serious violations as stipulated in section 37, during at

sea inspection and are not relayed to the Commission or flag State as required by sections 30 and 31 of

sub-heading inspection report of the CMM


3.1 The Department of Fisheries

At the national level, the Funafuti Fisheries Department is the management authority responsible for

management and administration of all aspects of fisheries in Tuvalu

The Department has an advisory role to the customary rights’ holders and institutes legislative and

enforcement measures to ensure commercial viability. It also approves foreign fishing licenses. The

EEZ and the territorial sea are a responsibility of the Department for monitoring, evaluation and

proper utilization of tuna resources.

No MOUs exists between the department of Fisheries, the Ministry of Communication and Transport,

and the Port Authrority, but there is some understanding among the three agencies that strengthened

cooperation is needed based on MOUs or other arrangements.

3.2 The Tuvalu Port

The Funafuti Port in Tuvalu is the main port for all port to port to port calls and fishing activities.

Most foodstuffs, building materials and manufactured products are transported to the islands by ship

and also use for inter-island services.

Transport is limited to small inter-islands ships. Tuvalu has two passenger/cargo ferries, and a limited

number of other vessels can be used for other purposes, such as emergency evacuations.

Fishing activities are minimal in the port due to the very low level of port calls from foreign fishing

vessels.

3.3 Ministry of Communication and Transport

The Ministry of Communication and Transport is responsible for the management of the port and

registration of fishing vessel under the Tuvalu flag.


The Department of Fisheries is linked to the WCPFC/SPC TUFFMAN information exchange system

for relaying catch and effort, license and observer information to the SPC. Similarly the /Department

is linked to the FFA with the Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF), for the purpose of

exchanging observer, licensing, Scientific (SPC), VMS and Automatic Information System (AIS)

There are no Port inspection data to be shared through the two above mention mechanisms.

The VMS data are exchanged with all FFA Members. The slow internet connection is a particular

concern with regard to delay receiving and analyzing the VMS details In the event of non-reporting




mechanism is in place to request polling by FFA and or submission of manual reporting for a specific

period by which the ALC must have been repaired or replaced.

5 Human capacity: MCS and Legal (staff, training, information, etc)

A basic issue for MCS human capacity requirements is the extent of the need for such capacity due to

the insignificant number of fishing activities in the port of Funafuti.

Nevertheless Tuvalu is actively involved in regional fisheries surveillance and observer programmes.

For a very small Island Tuvalu have a patrol vessel and a surveillance plan of 100 hours annually.

Twenty five trained observers’ take part in the FFA regional observer programme.

The level of understanding by fisheries officers of what port State measures involve is rather poor,

Tuvalu does not conduct port inspection and the knowledge of PSM requirements is low.


Observer reports and VMS are the major exchange of information. For the purpose of intelligent

sharing Tuvalu allows it VMS information of its registered vessel and other vessel activities in its

waters to be available to all Member countries of the FFA.

Apart from VMS and observer report and information exchange during surveillance mission no other

information are exchange between Tuvalu and the two main regional organizations.

Information such as the below should be shared:

Non FFA and/or WCPFC vessel caught fishing in its waters;

Immediate siting activity report by observers; and

Report of infraction to FFA for good standing list update.


There is no MCS operation geared towards Port State Measures in Tuvalu. There is a need for the

Fisheries department to consider implementing PSM, including inspection of their flagged vessels

when they call into regional ports.

7 Pros and cons

7.1 Pros

Good link between fisheries and Marine and Port & Services;

Shares VMS info with all other countries;

Trained observers;

Analysis done on VMS, catch and efforts, weekly report;

Has the necessary institution in place for effective PSM and

Satisfactory access database for record keeping of fisheries data.

7.2 Cons

Most observers placed on US Treaty purse seiners, which offload in Pago Pago, and delay to

obtain report;

No pre fishing licence inspection;

No MCS related port inspection;




Lacks full understanding of the FAO PSMA;

Port entry requirement not in line with FAO PSMA minimum standards requirement

No inspection therefore no inspection format;

Under the USA Multilateral Agreement observers operate only in their jurisdiction despite

being FFA or WCPFC observers;

Non reporting of IUU activities to FFA and WCPFC and Fines are too lenient.


Tuvalu would require the following needs to strengthen PSM

Capacity building for Port inspection;

Full compliance to existing WCPFC related PSM CMMs;

Sharing of intelligence;

Investigative capacity building to detect IUU fishing that may have taken place at sea, during

port inspection and

Inter-agency capacity building with regard to PSM.

9 Conclusions and recommendations

Although Tuvalu has limited port activities compared to other well establish ports in the region, it is

pertinent that the necessary port state inspection when vessel do come into port is carried out, in line

with existing WCPFC CMMs.

As a port and flag state, Tuvalu will required technical MCS assistance for proper implementation of

port inspection, and inspection of their flag vessels at the point of registration to ensure compliance.

10 Description of activities and persons met

Activities undertaken for the ACP FISH II in Tuvalu included open discussion meeting with the

following organisation or group of people.


Mr. Sam Finikaso Director Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Mr. Simon Kofe Legal Officer Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Mr. Siloua Ave Director of Marine

and Port & Services

Ministry of

Communication

and Transport

[email protected]

Talafou Esekia Maritime

Commander

Maritime Police [email protected]

Elinta Taula Executive Officer Maritime Police [email protected]

Seleganiu Fusi Commanding

Officer

Maritime Police [email protected]

Selomia Ionatana Fisheries Licencing

Officer

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]











Onusai Takataka Fisheries Observer Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

Laifailiu Seono Fisheries

Surveillance Officer

Department of

Fisheries

[email protected]

REPUBLIC OF MARSHALL ISLANDS

07-08 August 2013

3) Background

Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) is the authority mandated to manage fisheries

in the Republic of the Marshall Island (RMI). MIMRA has in place policies and regulations that

specifically relate to transshipment and the tuna industry. A circular on these regulations is distributed

to shipmasters on all vessels that come into port for fish transshipment, provisioning and other related

purposes.

The circular reminds the shipmasters of the conditions attached to their licences. In particular, it states

that transfer of bunkers, helicopter fuel and lube oil from one ship to another is prohibited unless

specific permission to do so is obtained.

.

1.1 Port Calls, type of vessel and number of inspection

The RMI has, over the recent years witnessed growth in the tuna industry, mostly through foreign fleet

involvement.

Majuro is a major transshipment port, with distant water fishing nations (DWFNs) regularly coming in

for purposes such as transshipment, fuelling, and crew offloading and loading.

DWFNs currently operating within RMI’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are Japan, Taiwan, South

Korea, China and the United States. Vessel from neighboring pacific countries such as the FSM and

Vanuatu also takes licenses in the RMI.

The RMI target one hundred percent inspection of all license vessels, but do not target inspection of

un-licence vessel. Therefore no record of un-license vessel is kept by MIMRA.

Table : Number of licenses per type of vessel

TYPE OF VESSEL

2010 2011 2012

QTY % QTY % QTY %

LONG LINNERS 60 19.4 109 25.2 55 24.4

PURSE SEINNER 126 40.8 140 32.4 55 24.4

BUNKER VESSEL 13 4.2 23 5.4 13 5.8

POLE & LINE 50 16.2 55 12.7 27 12.1

CARRIER 60 19.4 105 24.3 75 33.3

TOTAL 309 432 225






No concrete MCS orientated port State inspection in line with the FAO standards, is being undertaken,

except for the scientific base inspection for South Pacific Commission (SPC), and Western and

Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).


According to MIMRA and the Australian Navy locally based advisor to the RMI coastguard, IUU

fishing varies from serious to minor infractions such as:

Fishing without a license by vessels of neighboring countries;

Non-compliance to the shark CMM 2010-07; and

Non reporting and/or under reporting of catch.


obligations (national laws, access agreements, FFA WCPFC, and international instruments)12

2.1 Legal Authority

Fisheries legal framework in the RMI is composed of;

the Marshall Islands Marine Authority Act 1988 (revised 1997);

the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (Amendment) Act 1989

the fishing access and licencing Act 1997 ;

the fisheries enforcement act 1997; and

RMI Ports Authority Act 2003.

These laws are supplemented by Maritime Administrations Act, Documentation and Identification of

Vessels Act, RMI Ports Authority Act, the Ports of Entry Act and Control of Shipping Act.

The national government's mandate to develop the fisheries sector, both oceanic and coastal, is vested

in the (MIMRA), an agency established under Chapter 51 of the Code of the Marshall Islands which

codifies the Marine Resources Act, 1997.

2.2 Fisheries access agreements

MIMRA manages several fishing access agreements, both bilateral and multilateral. These agreements

comprised the US treaty, the Federated States of Micronesia Arrangement (FSMA), Japan Far Seas

Purse Seine Fishing Association, Taiwan Deep Sea Boat Owners and Exporters Association, Amalatal

Fishing Co. Ltd, Fong Seong Fisheries Group and the Distant Water Fishing Association of China

Fisheries Association.23

2.3 International and regional organizations and instruments

RMI is party and/ or signatory to the following organizations and instrument;

South Pacific Commission (SPC), the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) the Treaty

on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of

the United States of America;

the Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific;




the Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South

Pacific Region;

the Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common

Concern( which addresses the management of tuna purse-seine fishing);

the Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery

the FSM arrangement mechanism for domestic vessels of the PNA to access the fishing

resources of other parties

the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea; and

United Nation Fish Stocks Agreement.


As a flag, port and coastal states RMI has a lot of obligation to conform to the existing CMMs, and

satisfactorily engaged to implement those CMMs. With regards to PSM related CMMs improvement

need to be undertaken to report infraction as recommended in the CCMM2006-08 boarding and

inspection procedure on the high seas. .


3.1 MIMRA

Administratively, MIMRA is organized into two major divisions. The Oceanic and Industrial Division

is responsible for the oceanic fishery, whilst the Coastal and Community Affairs Division looks after

the coastal aspect of fisheries.

The oceanic fisheries sector in RMI is still dominated by purse seine fishing by Distant Water Fishing

Nations (DWFNs), largely targeting skipjack tuna. The fleet is comprised of foreign flagged purse

seines, pole‐and‐line, and longline vessels, as well as RMI flagged purse seine, and longline vessels.

3.2 The Port of Majuro

RMI Ports Authority, whose main functions are, to establish, maintain and operate port facilities at its

ports, to provide facilities and services at its ports.

The port authorize entry in line with the Ports Authority Act 2003. The Act designates official ports of

entry and prohibits vessels from entering the Republic without first gaining clearance at the official

ports of entry.

3.4 The Maritime Administrations

The Maritime Administrations Is responsible for flag State registration of fishing vessel and

administer all matters pertaining to vessels of the Republic that are subject to the provisions of the

Maritime Act., that ensure the seaworthiness and proper manning conditions of such ships, yachts and

fishing vessels registered under the laws of the RMI


The MIMRA is linked to the WCPFC/SPC TUFFMAN information exchange system for relaying

catch and effort, license and observer information to the SPC. Similarly the /Department is linked to

the FFA with the Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF), for the purpose of exchanging

observer, licensing, Scientific (SPC), VMS and Automatic Information System (AIS)




The VMS data are exchanged with other FFA Members. In the event of non-reporting mechanism is

in place to request polling by FFA and or submission of manual reporting for a specific period

5 Human capacity

The Human capacity for port inspection and support staff is limited if an FAO base PSM scheme is to

be implemented, Most capacity building that take that are undertaken are the regional base training

by FFA for observers, database system, at sea boarding and inspection etc..

On the legal side MIMRA has recently appointed a legal officer take takes care of all legal matters,

especially facilitating the preparation of fisheries cases that was previously done by the Attorney

General’s office.


Apart from VMS and observer report and information exchange during surveillance mission, no other

information are exchange between RMI and the two main regional organizations or flag states of

licenced fishing vesells.

Information such as the below should be shared;

Immediate siting activity report by observers; and

Report of infraction to FFA for good standing list update.


7 Pros and cons

7.1 Pros

Good link between fisheries and Marine and the Port of Majuro;

Shares VMS info with other countries;

Trained observers;

Analysis done on VMS, catch and efforts, weekly report;

Has the necessary institution in place for effective PSM and

7.2 Cons

Most observers placed on US Treaty purse seiners, which offload in Pago Pago, and delay to

obtain report;

No pre fishing license inspection;

Lacks full understanding of the FAO PSMA;

Port entry and inspection requirement not in line with FAO PSMA minimum standards

requirement

Under the USA Multilateral Agreement observers operate only in their jurisdiction despite

being FFA or WCPFC observers;

Non reporting of infraction to FFA and WCPFC.


RMI would require the following needs to strengthen PSM;




Capacity building for Port inspection;

SOPs taking into consideration PSM minimum standards.

Incorporate PSM requirement in the fisheries laws

Full compliance to existing WCPFC related PSM CMMs;

Sharing of intelligence;

Investigative capacity building to detect IUU fishing that may have taken place at sea, during

port inspection; and

Inter-agency capacity building with regard to PSM.

9 Conclusion and recommendation

Being one of the major transshipment port in the pacific RMI should be playing a leading role in MCS

related PSM. In doing so the cons in cons and needs should be addressed for effective PSM

implementation.

With the existing Authority Entry Act, implementation of a that has the mandate to authorize port

entry, any PSM scheme implementation should ensure good inter-agency coordinated between the

Port Authority and MIMRA.

10 Description of activities and Persons met

Activities undertaken for the ACP FISH II in Tuvalu included open discussion meeting with the

following organisation or group of people.


Mr. Glen Joseph Director MIMRA [email protected]

Mr. Jacob

Apelbaum

MIMRA [email protected]

Mr. Dike

Poznank

Enforcement Manager MIMRA [email protected]

Mr. Gary Bithel Chief Petty officer

Technical Advisor to

RMI

Royal Australian

Navy

[email protected]

[email protected]

Commander

Peter Metcalf

Maritime Surveillance

Technical Advisor to

RMI

Royal Australian

Navy

[email protected]

Mr. Bernard

Fiubala

Observer Programme

Advisor

MIMRA [email protected]

Mr. Tion Nabau Legal Advisor MIMRA [email protected]

Mr. James M

Myazoe

Deputy Commissioner

of Maritime Affairs

Office of the

Maritime

Administrator

[email protected]

Mr. Maurice

Brownjohn

Commercial Manager PNA Secretariat [email protected]














PAPUA NEW GUINEA

7 August 2013

1. Background

1.1. Port

PNG designated ports include Wewak, Madang, Lae and Rabaul, which are used by fleets fishing

under domestic licenses and bilateral agreements. Previously, longliners used to call into Port

Moresby but this does not currently happen very much.


This information was not available. Unlicensed vessels don’t call into port.


Transhipment, processing (loining plants in Wewak and Lae), pre-licensing inspections.


Information on the number of inspections was not available.

Inspections are normally not done in port, unless non-compliance was indicated in observer de-

briefings or by VMS.

Inward and outward clearance is given, but there are no written documents for entry and inspection.


As noted in section 1.4, VMS and observer reports may form the basis of port inspections.


Compulsory inspections are conducted annually under prelicensing requirements. Normally the

inspection report is submitted to the licensing section, with a recommendation on license issuance.

Records of these inspections re maintained.

A recommendation not to issue a license will be made where an offence has been committed or if there

is a certification issue.

Detention orders may be given to unflagged or unlicensed vessels.


Violation rates are more or less 80% for licensed vessels (e.g. for observer, VMS requirements), 20%

for unlicensed vessels. There is a great personal risk for observers if they report the location where an

offence committed at the time it is committed. This can only be reported after disembarkation and

debriefing when his data is validated. Enforcement may then follow up debriefing.




There is monitoring in port only where there is transhipment, for purposes of catch certification. If

one of the carriers sails out and takes fish from unlicensed vessels, they cannot be caught.

At-sea transhipments are prohibited, and if they occur VMS will pick them up. Carrier vessels may go

direct to Japan, Chinese, Korean, Taiwan.

There is 100% observer coverage on purse seiners and longliners. Carrier vessels come to load, but

don’t have observers on board. It is felt that they should carry observers.

Information on violation of another country’s law is not available. There should be a checklist within

the licensing system to consult other countries/the FFA database for such violations.



PNG has bilateral agreements with China, Korea, Philippines and Taiway. It is party to the

multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the USA and a Member of WCPFC.


The National Fisheries Authority (NFA) delegates certain responsibilities to Provincial governments

including inspections.

Some activities are not coordinated among agencies, e.g. port clearance and inspection. Officers must

be on ground to inspect the vessel. After activities for outward clearance. If the boat is coming in the

permission to notify authority. We are prepared to receive them.

The NFA hasn’t worked with customs in terms of procedures for clearing. An MoA is being

developed between NFA and customs. There is an MOA with police (Royal PNG Constabulary) and

the maritime element/Navy. Cooperation exists with the quarantine services and the Maritime

Authority in relation to cross-cutting issues. NFA has no jurisdiction to inspect work permits, etc and

liaise with immigration.

There is a problem with other divisions in following up enforcement after inspection, in terms of

ensuring that charges will be laid and imposing a penalty that fits the offence and serves to deter

vessels from future IUU fishing. There is no standard for penalties to be levied, e.g. for first, serious

or multiple offences. It was suggested that these should be made clear, published, informed to

operators and enforced by the authorities. (FSM has published such a standard.)

Most offences are determined through administrative procedures. The process involves a record of

interview with the master. If there any offences are found, they will be identified and be negotiated

with the owner of the fishing vessel for a settlement out of court. Upon payment, a violation notice

will be issued, and if ratified by the NFA Legal Counsel it is transmitted to the NFA Managing

Director who is the only person that authorizes the settlement. As soon as the fine is paid the vessel

normally leaves. Legally there is supposed to be a panel to determine administrative penalties, but

because there is too much of a delay in assembling the panel the foregoing procedure has been put in

practice.

If the offence is not settled administratively it may be prosecuted.





Technical aspects about the information systems were not discussed.

Databases that provide expert problem-solving advice were suggested, possibly run by FFA and

WCPFC.


There are 3 inspectors in Lae, 4 in Wewak, 3 in Madang, 3 in Rabaul and 2 in Port Moresby.

There are two inspectors in each of the 14 maritime provinces, but there is not much activity in many

of the provinces. There are 8 inspectors at NFA who are doing other work but assist as needed.

Training is needed for enforcement officers in the major ports; there are problems every day. Training

and capacity will assist in minimizing the problems, but not solving them.


The VMS system was thought to be a key form of intelligence sharing. Reports are direct through

email, but there can be a big interval between the time the offence was committed and when the report

is received. There are good communications with FFA.

7. Implementation of regional agreements, WCPFC resolutions

This item was not addressed.


The benefits of adopting port State measures were described as follows:

the legislation would be updated and detection of infringements facilitated;

training and other cross cutting issues, including for customs and other agencies;

proper records of all the fishing fleets that enter and leave ports with this database can be kept;

information-sharing among countries; and

enhance flag State responsibilities.

Regarding flag State responsibilities, port State measures could serve to identify illegal practices

where vessels are very old and the owners are prepared to abandon the vessels if caught – but in the

meantime continue illegal activities until caught.

The “cons” were described as:

possible economic loss if legitimate operators are afraid of measures that are too strict for

them and opt to go elsewhere;

unavailability of proper training for inspectors and other relevant officials, including legal

experts.





There should be uniform guidelines for Members, and national legislation should be updated.

A system should be adopted in the region to ensure that port authorities can address non-compliance

with license conditions. For example, where non-compliance is identified during inspection in one

port (e.g. with vessel marking requirements), and the vessel has been ordered to remedy this, and no

action is taken, the non-compliance should be detected and addressed at the next port.

This can be done by recording the order for compliance in the logbook or by serving a document on

the vessel and requiring that the proof of service remain in the wheelhouse until the non-compliance is

remedied. Procedures for port inspections should include identifying whether the non-compliance has

been remedied.


PNG has an active inspection service, but it is focused on transhipment monitoring and no other

inspections are carried out unless information from observer reports or VMS indicates they are

needed. There is support for a inclusion of port State measures in legislation, strengthening of

information systems and a clear need for training.

11. Contacts


Mr Mark Bangkoma

acting Team Leader

Enforcement, NFA

Acting Team

Leader

Enforcement

National Fisheries

Authority

[email protected]

Mr Steven

Klembassa

Enforcement

Officer

National Fisheries

Authority

[email protected]

Mr Alois Kinol Coordinator – Audit

and Certification

National Fisheries

Authority

[email protected]




FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

10-17 August

1. Background

1.1. Port

Under FSM fisheries legislation, each of the four States is authorized to designate a port for

transhipment, and the designated ports are in Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap, with Pohnpei being the

busiest. (The only activity at the other ports relates to vessel calls for reasons such as medical care and

search and rescue.) Port control is also a State matter.


The focus for inspections is unlicensed vessels; prior to Pohnpei receiving the status of an open port,

only licensed vessels called at port. All the ships coming in are registered under WCPFC.

Now all vessels must have an entry permit and be subject to inspection. However, the Port Authority

does not know which vessels are licensed or unlicensed. The Maritime Wing does not allow

unlicensed vessels to come to port unless they are entering for purposes of applying for a fishing

licence, and sometimes NORMA advises the port authority to deny entry based on IUU listings or

unlicensed status.

Normally inspection Maritime Wing for both port and at sea inspection– rather than port authorities -

identifies violations by licensed vessels.


The main purposes of port calls by fishing vessels is for supplies, net repair, transhipment and

processing (loining for longliners).


Last year there were 460 dockside boardings. The number of annual dockside inspections for purposes

of transhipment varies from 350 to 600, usually carried out by one officer.

Immigration gives the entry permit, and NORMA gives an entry permit for carrier vessels. Where

NORMA has not issued a license, clearance for transhipment is not given. Clearance procedures are

said to run smoothly.

There are no set procedures for inspection of fishing vessels, apart from the inspection form. Priority is

given for insection for carrier vessels, purse seiners and then longliners. The Maritime Wing responds

to requests from NORMA and the Attorney-General’s Office to inspect vessels.

Inspections are focused on pre-fishing and transhipment. Ships agents claim that port calls run

smoothly in terms of inspection, customs and quarantine, and the process is similar to that in PNG and

Marshall Islands.





There is currently no integration of other MCS tools with port inspections, but there are plans to put

everything on a website. IMS will have module where they can view fishing vessels within 12 miles.


Annual reports are made to WCPFC on all vessels that are boarded, at sea, both licensed and

unlicensed. The number of transhipment inspections is also reported to WCPFC annually. There is no

standard for reporting transhipments, so the data is not used by the Commission. The EU wants

reports within 24 hours and this is seen to be unrealistic.

However, there are no inspections at port other than transhipment inspections, so there are no results

for transmission. Therefore, there is normally no problem for the Ports Authority to clear vessels for

departure unless NORMA advises there is a problem where the agent does not pay the dues, or

observers do not show up on time (especially when this involves citizens of RMI, which are placed on

RMI flag vessels).


As noted above, IUU fishing detections are carried out on licensed vessels by patrol boats, not at port.

Last year there were 225 days of enforcement activities. National at-sea patrols last two weeks. There

are also regional patrol missions with Palau, Marshall Islands and Nauru under the multilateral Treaty

on Fisheries with the USA.

The patrols focus on breach of licence conditions; they rarely come across a vessel that is not licensed.

After at-sea inspection by patrol boats and where an offence is found, a form is given to violators to

choose to accept to compound the offence without having to leave the fishing ground, or if they want

to contest it they will be arrested and brought to port. The boats are encouraged to settle because once

they are in port they will be charged with everything possible. Forms have been drawn up showing

penalty ranges for specific offences, which reflect serious offences as defined under international

standards. However, this practice does not extend to port inspections.

Maritime Wing has a Working Group on marine surveillance, which since last year has taken a very

aggressive approach to boarding and inspection at sea. Vessels can be taken to port for not having their

logbook filled out. Concern has been expressed that the enforcement authorities should focus on the

more serious offences, and not make a large case out of minor infractions. Some countries are

complaining about such aggressive boarding and inspection (e.g. Japan has sent a diplomatic note).

However, the Attorney-General’s Office reminds that there must be compliance with the law.

A related issue is seen to be by some the impact of fines on the presence of vessels; if the fines cause

vessels to move to another jurisdiction, the fees are lost. This has been a perennial issue in the Pacific,

but in the end the vessels will likely follow the fish.

Flag States do not normally take action against their offending vessels, except for the EU. Flag States

of vessels fishing under the FSM Arrangement are notified, in the case of a Taiwanese vessel, it

simply fled the jurisdiction.




The fisheries legislation does not allow landings in FSM of fish caught illegally in from another

member’s waters. There is no evidence that this requirement has ever been used.



There are bilateral fisheries access agreements with Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China. FSM is party to

the multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the USA. FSM is a Member of WCPFC and party to the UN

1982 Convention and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.


There is a quarterly meeting of an MCS working group, which is comprised of relevant agencies

including NORMA, the Maritime Wing and the Attorney-General’s Office.

There is a good relationship between NORMA and the Maritime Wing, and the Attorney-General is

highly active in fisheries matters. NORMA does not inspect, it just issue licenses and enforces

inspections.

Funding requests have been made to a number of sources to install AIS, because currently the

Maritime Wing relies on the Port Authority for information about when vessels are coming and going,

but they have no way of knowing how many actually come and go. They can’t correlate actual entries

with those reported by the Port Authority.

The agents request entry to the Port Authority, but are not obligated to notify the Maritime Wing.

Immigration is related to the Department of Justice and they are notified the day before clearance is

required as noted above.

The Attorney-General’s Office and Pohnpei Port Authority have recently met, and the latter agreed to

work with the A-G’s office on safety and improved regulation and coordination.


An MOU is being discussed regarding information exchange. NORMA has an Information

Management System (IMS); the Port Authority would have access to log in information on details of

vessels and port entry. An aim is to provide logins to others such as surveillance and State registry

(under the Department of Transportation and Communications and Infastructure) so the information

would be collective and shared by all concerned.

The IMS is linked with FFA, including lists hosted under FFA servers, so for example the FFA

violation database can be imported into the national database. If it shows is a history of violations in

another FFA Member, FSM needs to verify this with that country before allowing entry.

FSM is leading the push for the WCPFC TUFFMAN database in terms of collecting information, it is

operating as a stand-alone database for now, while FFA to sorts out the networking issues.


There is a reciprocal training programme between the fisheries enforcement officers and the Attorney-

General’s Office. The attorneys train the officers first in the law and evidence, and then are trained in




fisheries operations. They had recently participated in a two day overnight exercise on two patrol

boats, including observing the boardings. The US Navy assisted. The President visited the

participants to better understand the issues. The Attorney-General had gone out on a patrol boat for

two weeks. Congress has been invited to observe.


Some other countries in the region don’t want to share information that is important for MCS. The

information made available through PNA and FFA is helpful. It was noted that FSM flagged boats are

operating out of other countries in the region including Cook Islands and Marshall Islands.

7. Implementation of regional agreements, WCPFC resolutions

It is a challenge for national officials, including those in the Attorney-General’s Office, to understand

all the treaties, agreements and arrangements that impact fisheries. They are being consolidated in a

book form.


Reasons were given to support the adoption of port State measures. The Port Authority said it was

time for such measures for fishing vessels, as there is a need to understand when there is a problem so

it can be denied entry as appropriate. There would need to be improved interagency coordination.

Port State measures could serve as an effective deterrent to IUU fishing, but it must be demonstrated

across the board that other countries will implement it as well.

“Cons” include the following:

where there is denial of use, vessels will go to another port;

there is a capacity issue for working in port;

the region already has harmonized tools;

interpretation will be an added cost;

not enough boarding officers; and

without AIS, Maritime Wing has no way of knowing how many vessels actually come and go.


Officials are not clear on requirements for prohibition of entry for tankers (a recent case); it was not

clear to them whether the tanker could be considered a fishing vessel. Bunkering must take place only

in 200 mile EEZ under FSM regulations.

Training would be important; unless port State measures are enforced, there is thought to be no sense

in developing the measures.

WCPFC measures deal with dockside and boarding, and not those described in the FAO Agreement.

It was felt that a balance must be kept between management and MCS, including conservation,

maximization of revenue and catching serious violators.





FSM has a robust approach towards interagency cooperation and information database/exchange.

Although there is concern about not driving the vessels out of their waters (and losing fees) through

port State measures and MCS activities involving minor offences, they terminated the bilateral

Agreement with the EU.

However, there needs to be a better understanding of the difference between port State measures as set

out in the FAO Agreement, and those currently used to monitor transhipments. Greater emphasis on

MCS in port would complement the at-sea operations (currently the main tool for detecting violations)

is recommended, together with training, awareness raising and improvements to information databases

and exchange.

11. Contacts


Patrick MacKenzie Executive Director NORMA [email protected]

Eugene Pangelinan Deputy Executive

Director

NORMA [email protected]

Rhea Moss

Christian

Chief of Statistics,

Compliance, and

Technical Projects

NORMA rhea.moss-

[email protected]

Pius Roby Manager Pohnpei Port Authority [email protected]

Alfred Lebehn Statistic and IT

manager

FSM NORMA [email protected]

Justino Helgen Manager VMS and

Compliance

FSM NORMA [email protected]

Nicholas Raifbrai Dockside Inspector Maritime Wing

Peter Syeward Commander Maritime Wing

Johnny M Santos Chief of Police Department of Justice

April Dawn M

Skilling

Secretary Of Justice Department of Justice [email protected]

Tel+320-2608

Marko Kamber Assistant Manager Caroline Fisheries

Corporation.INC

[email protected]

Tel+ 691 320 5791

Peter Sitan President and CEO National Fisheries

Organisation

[email protected]

John Tiegnai Manager Maritime

Safety and

Inspection

TC&I [email protected]






WCPFC

16 August 2013

WCPFC staff drew attention to practical concerns of Pacific Island members in implementing port

State measures. They included the perception that countries already have port State measures in place,

and the disproportionate cost for countries involved in transhipment, the need to monitor same and to

fund the monitors.

WCPFC is trying to resolve issues with its VMS system, which only covers the high seas. If they

received information relating to port State measures, it would not be possible to verify.

In general, there are a number of MCS areas which are considered to be work in progress. As

compliance measures are developed, necessary tools would be developed through WCPFC for

monitoring.

Existing compliance measures, prepared by the Commission, are in Annex 1. Those that could

potentially have some interface with port State measures include:

Annual Management and Compliance Reports (although this is directed at scientific data);

Rules and Procedures for the Protection, Access to and Dissemination of High Seas Non-

Public Domain Data and Information compiled by the Commission for the Purpose of

Monitoring, Control or Surveillance (MCS) Activities and the Access to and Dissemination of

High Seas VMS Data for Scientific Purposes;

Regional Observer Programme;

Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish;

Regulation of Transhipment;

Vessels without Nationality.

The issue of access to high seas data is important for WCPFC Pacific Island Members, and this can be

done applying the procedures referenced above. In-zone data is given under independent

arrangements with each country. Relevant data may therefore not be freely available for purposes of

prioritizing vessels for port State inspection or for inspecting them.

If a vessel is put on the WCPFC IUU vessel list, it generally leaves the area, so port State measures

would not be used by Pacific Island countries. However, all of the vessels are Asian so they could be

imposed by Asian members other than the flag State, or interregionally.

There is not much practical interregional interaction with other tuna bodies on a regular basis, but IUU

Vessel Lists are exchanged as an outcome of the Kobe process. In the WCPFC, approximately 290

purse seiners take a large proportion of the catch, and if there is a problem with this fleet it is

underreporting of catch. This might be picked up through marketing measures.

Longliners take around 10 per cent of the catch, worth 30 per cent of the value.

It was emphasized that the nature of IUU fishing has changed from the late 1990s, when the term

“IUU” was coined in CCAMLR. The situation is dissimilar to the fishery for Patagonian Toothfish in

those days, which was prosecuted illegally on a large scale. With the current controls in the Western

and Central Pacific, including VMS and the ROP, it is important to understand better what constitutes

IUU fishing.




Management tools are available to limit fishing if VMS and vessel registration are working properly,

but it is difficult to effectively work out the level of underreporting. An issue for the longline fleet is

whether all the necessary vessels are on the registry.

A major problem exists with the catch from archipelagic waters. The value of illegal catch from these

waters ranges from 15 million to 4 billion US dollars.

Port State measures could be a useful compliance tool, they have been adopted by other RFMOs

including IOTC and IATTC. The consistency of approaches taken by Pacific Island countries in

WCPFC, through FFA and FFC, was noted, and it was considered that an approach on port State

measures could be taken in this manner.

Concerning the pros and cons of adopting PSM in the region, it would give better control over

monitoring catches and transhipment, allows conditions on vessels to be checked and monitor what is

happening in a real sense. A benefits of checking the loadings, transhipment documents etc is that

data can be sent to SPC, and this can be compared with market data to evaluate reporting and

compliance.

A disadvantage is the cost. WCPFC is developing an initiative for WCPFC-employed port

coordinators in the eight major ports of the region. Consideration could also be given to having port

monitors in Bangkok and key Indonesian ports. The concept is still new and ToRs have not been

developed. A paper will be prepared that describes gaps and the needs of the Commission. This could

be seen as signalling the failure by countries to undertake adequate port inspections, but countries have

to decide whether to

For observers, WCPFC coordinates data and countries do everything else. It is the responsibility of

countries to ensure the observers are on board.

WCPFC is working hard with large fleets of lower grade vessels, including those from Indonesia and

Philippines, to improve their catch data; this impacts on stock assessment. This work will continue as

they are in the second stage of a GEF project.

Surveillance activities have identified a bloc of vessels that included some on the WCPFC vessel

record and some not. Longline vessels are more likely to be engagined in IUU fishing, as WCPFC

knows where the purse seiners are. Fishing is not allowed in the Area except for CMMs of the

Commission. For this reason countries such as Senegal have joined the Commission because their

flagged vessels (e.g. carrier vessels) are active in the region. Cooperating non-members pay half the

membership cost to the Commission. It was reported that not many vessels were flagged to non-

CMMs such as Cambodia.

However it was noted that three Russian vessels had recently called into port in Fiji, so there is highly

likely to be some IUU fishing taking place in the region.

In separate discussions with WCPFC members, it was noted how the gap in WCPFC was closed. As

noted above, there are 1,000 longliners fishing on the high seas on the WCPFC VMS system, but they

were only seen by the Commission. For example, a vessel could be fishing in the. Western High Seas

pocket, then head back to FSM but while it is in FSM nobody sees it.

The gap was closed through creation of a buffer zone 100 miles into the high seas that countries can

see from the outer limit of their 200 mile zone.




Last year it was decided in WCPFC that coastal States could get VMS data for vessels only reporting

to the Commission when the vessels passed through their waters. To do this, countries must write a

letter to the commission requesting to unquarantine the data (i.e. not cover the waters of the country).

This was called “Flick the switch”; the request was for the Commission to flick the switch on so it

doesn’t run against a firewall.

Countries do not see this as the Commission shifting its VMS to countries’ zones; they are very clear

about not submitting to the Commission’s jurisdiction in this regard. Countries are looking carefully

at the WCPFC operation of VMS. The vessels must be subject to national laws, and the Commission

should not take over VMS in national waters. National requirements must apply to implement the

Commission’s rules.

There is one system covering the entire Pacific; the country’s national VMS is run by FFA, and the

Commission pays FFA for VMS service. The systems were set up to be compatible. WCPFC can see

vessels that countries might not license because they are on the FFA Regional Register.

A problem area was seen recently in the high seas pockets, where the Philippines fleet was active, and

the in-country switch was flicked off. The Commission saw that they had 24 catcher vessels, but then

afterwards 118 carriers were reported in this group, including dozens of light boats. They were not on

VMS, on manual position reports. The Commission is managing/coordinating observer replacements

for these vessels, and even the Commission is only seeing the catcher vessels, and receiving manual

reports from others.


Glenn Hurry Executive Director WCPFC [email protected]

Lara Manarangi-Trott Compliance Manager WCPFC lara.manarangi-

[email protected]

Rhea Moss-Christian Chairperson WCPFC

TCC

FSM NORMA see under FSM country

report






ANNEX 1 to WCPFC in-country report

WCPFC EXISTING COMPLIANCE TOOLS

Summary Status of WCPFC Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement Framework

as at March 2013

Spec Markings & Id. of Vessels (CMM 04-03)

FAO Marking Specifications; Identification of Fishing Vessels

WCPFC Boarding & Inspection Procedures (CMM 06-08, Operational from July 08.

Only CCMs who have notified the Commission of their authorised inspection vessels and

inspectors may board and inspect on the high seas.

At present only New Zealand, France, United States of America, Chinese Taipei, Papua

New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Cook Islands, Japan, Canada, Australia, Federated States

of Micronesia and Tuvalu have vessels on the Inspection Register.

Fisheries Data and annual reporting requirements

Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission in the Annual Report to the

Commission:

o Part I. National Fishery Report (due 7 July);

o Part II. Management and Compliance (due 1 July).

Online interface for electronic submission of Part II reports will be available in 2013

Rules and Procedures for Access to WCPFC data, Developed by the Ad Hoc Task Group [data]

Rules and Procedures for the Protection, Access to and Dissemination of data compiled by

the Commission (2007)

Rules and Procedures for the Protection, Access to and Dissemination of High Seas Non-

Public Domain Data and Information compiled by the Commission for the Purpose of

Monitoring, Control or Surveillance (MCS) Activities and the Access to and

Dissemination of High Seas VMS Data for Scientific Purposes (2009)

Regional Observer Programme (CMM 06-07 and 07-01, 12-03), for high seas and when fishing

outside home waters.

Includes national and subregional observer programmes of many members.

Each national programme can interpret minimum vessel size for an observer, and

circumstances when a vessel is operating principally in coastal waters but occasionally

venturing onto the high seas to determine whether a national observer may be used in

place of a ROP observer.

Delayed implementation N of 20N for some vessels (31 Dec 2014).

ROP Technical Advisory Group (ROP-TAG) is tasked with operational aspects of ROP (2012

until March 2014).

Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 09-01), Replaces CMM 2004-01.




Non-CCM carrier and bunker concerns were addressed through establishing an interim

register (2010 – 30 June 2013).

Only vessels on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels or on WCPFC Interim Register of

non-member carriers and bunkers, are authorized to fish in the WCPF Convention Area.

Vessels can only be placed by a WCPFC member or Cooperating non-member flag State.

Regulation of Transhipment (CMM 09-06)

Applies to all transhipment in the Convention Area and catches transhipped outside the

Convention Area.

Purse seine transhipment outside of port is prohibited, except existing group seine

operations in PNG, PhP and NZ domestic purse seine vessels in NZ waters may apply for

annual exemption (application due 1 July each year) – public list developed.

Transhipment by purse seine in high seas is banned.

No transhipment allowed to vessels not on WCPFC Record or WCPFC Interim Register

of Non-CCM carriers and bunkers.

Non-purse seine vessels (longline, pole and line, troll) transhipment in national waters in

accordance with domestic laws.

No transhipment in high seas, unless flag State determines to be impracticable to operate

without transhipping on high seas, prior notification and reporting obligations required.

100% Observer monitoring required where transhipment at sea is allowed (delayed

implementation to 2013 for troll and pole-and-line caught fish).

Reporting prior notification, declarations sent to WCPFC for high seas transhipment

activities.

ED to prepare draft guidelines for determination of where it is impracticable for certain vessels

(other than purse seine) to tranship in port or in waters under national jurisdiction.

Vessels without Nationality (CMM09-09)

Declares vessels without nationality (no flag or flying more than 1 flag) to be deemed to

have undermined Convention and CMMs

CCMs encouraged to take all necessary measures to prevent vessels from undermining

CMMs.




ANNEX B

FOR SUBMISSION BY 15 AUGUST 2013

TO: [email protected]


9-13 September 2013

Nadi, Fiji

QUESTIONNAIRE

COUNTRY:

NAME AND POSITION:

EMAIL CONTACT:

DATE:

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to better understand the current practices, procedures and laws of countries in the region concerning port State

measures. Responses from all countries will be combined and analysed at the Workshop to provide a clear foundation for recommendations on the way

forward at regional level.

Instructions: Countries with ports used by foreign fishing vessels are requested to complete Part A (pages 2-5). The parts are:


II. INSPECTIONS

III. LEGAL (Note this mainly consists of “yes/no” responses; where there is uncertainty, general reference to the relevant law will suffice.)

IV. OPERATIONAL

Countries that do not have ports used by foreign fishing vessels are requested to complete Part B (page 6).




PART A

COUNTRIES WITH PORTS USED BY FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS

“Fishing vessels” include vessels used for fishing or fishing related activities.

“Fishing related activities” means any operation in support of, or in preparation for, fishing, including the packaging, processing, transhipping or

transporting of fish that have not previously been landed at a port, as well as the provisioning of personnel, fuel, gear and other supplies at sea.

“Foreign fishing vessels” means fishing vessels that are not registered in your country/do not fly your country’s flag.


20. Please identify any port/ports in your country that is used by foreign

fishing vessels.

21. Approximately how many foreign fishing vessels call into port

annually (average over past 2 years)?

a. Approximately how many of these vessels do not hold, or

have not applied for, fishing licenses issued by your country?

b. Approximately how many of these vessels do not hold

authorizations to operate in the WCPFC Convention Area?

22. What types of fishing vessels make port calls (approximate

percentage if available)?

Purse seiners __________

Longliners __________

Vessels used for

related activities __________




23. What is the purpose of their port calls (check all relevant activities)?

Landing __________

Transhipment __________

Packaging, processing __________

Refuelling __________

Resupplying __________

Maintenance __________

Drydocking __________

Other (please describe) __________

24. Have any foreign fishing vessels been denied entry into your port

over the past two years?

Yes__________ No_________


25. Have any foreign fishing vessels that have entered your port been

denied the use of your port over the past two years (e.g. for landings,

transhipment, packaging, processing, etc)?

Yes__________ No_________


II. INSPECTIONS

26. Approximately how many foreign fishing vessels are inspected

annually in port (average over past 2 years)?

a. Approximately how many of these were pre-fishing

inspections (over past 2 years)?

b. Approximately how many inspections resulted in evidence of

IUU fishing (over past 2 years)?

27. Has your country set levels and priorities or other criteria for

selecting vessels to inspect?




a. If yes, please describe briefly

28. Are there standard operating procedures for port inspections?

29. Is there a standard format for inspection reports?

30. Where are the port inspection reports usually transmitted?

Flag State of vessel __________

Relevant coastal State __________

Relevant RFMO __________

Master’s national State __________

FAO __________

Other __________

31. Please describe briefly any main strengths in your country of

effective port inspections.

32. Please indicate any main constraints in your country for effective port

measures (please check all relevant areas)?

Human capacity __________

Legal authority __________

Interagency cooperation (e.g. with port authorities) __________

Inadequate information exchange __________

Inadequate integration of other MCS tools (e.g. VMS) __________

Other (please describe) __________

III. LEGAL

33. Do your laws and regulations require:

a. an advance request for permission to enter port? Yes__________ No_________

b. authorization for port entry? Yes__________ No_________

34. Do your laws and regulations empower national authorities to:

a. deny a vessel entry into port? Yes__________ No_________




b. prohibit landings and transhipments where it has been

established that the catch has been taken in a manner which

undermines the effectiveness of RFMO management

measures?

Yes__________ No_________

c. deny use of port for landing, transhipping, packaging and

processing of fish that have not previously been landed and

for other port services, including refuelling and resupplying,

maintenance and drydocking?

Yes__________ No_________

35. Do your laws and regulations provide for denial of use of port in the

following circumstances ?

a. the vessel does not have a valid and applicable authorization

for fishing and related activities required by:

i. its flag State? Yes__________ No_________

ii. another coastal State in respect of its areas under


Yes__________ No_________

b. there is clear evidence that the fish on board was taken in

contravention of coastal State requirements in areas under its


Yes__________ No_________

c. the flag State does not confirm, on request and in a

reasonable time, that the fish on board was taken in

accordance with requirements of a relevant RFMO?

Yes__________ No_________

d. there are reasonable grounds to believe that the vessel was

otherwise engaged in IUU fishing or fishing related

activities?

Yes__________ No_________

e. following inspection, there are clear grounds for believing

that the vessel has engaged in IUU fishing?

Yes__________ No_________




36. How are your country’s laws relating to port State measures

implemented (comment optional)?

Fully _________


Weakly _________

37. How would you describe the implementation of WCPFC binding

resolutions by your country (comment optional)?

Fully _________


Weakly _________

IV. OPERATIONAL

38. If applicable, please describe any operational or other procedures that

are not addressed above in relation to:

a. port entry d. denial of use of port

b. inspection e. information exchange

c. approvals f. other

PART B

COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE PORTS USED BY FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS

8. Is your country a member of the Western and Central Pacific

Fisheries Commission?

Yes__________ No_________

9. How are the provisions of WCPFC binding resolutions implemented

by your country (comment optional)?

Fully _________


Weakly _________




10. Does your country cooperate in the implementation of regional MCS

tools that support port State measures, such as a regional observer

programme, surveillance activities and VMS?

Yes__________ No_________


11. Does your country have any bilateral MCS arrangement to undertake

port measures on their licensed foreign fishing, eg. pre-licensing

inspection, with neighboring port States?

Yes__________ No_________


12. What do you consider to be the main strengths of adopting port State

measures through WCPFC?

13. What do you consider to be the main constraints for adopting port

State measures through WCPFC?

14. Please describe solutions to the constraints.




ANNEX C




PROGRAMME AND TIMETABLE


I. INTRODUCTION


09.00-10.00

Opening

Call to order

Opening of the Workshop ACP Fish II, FAO, FFA, Government of Fiji

Election of Chair








Mr Masanami Izumi, FAO



Workshop photo





IPOA-IUU



Workshop discussion













Workshop discussion

Mr Terje Lobach, FAO Consultant

12.30-13.30 Lunch

III. REGIONAL FOCUS





FFA

13.45-14.15 MCS




FFA Mr Noan Pakop, Monitoring Control Surveillance Policy Advisor




Resolution

FFA





15.30-16.00 The process of considering port State measures in the WCPFC

Ms. Rhea Moss-Christian, Chair, TCC

16.00-16.30 Case study: Port inspections in Fiji

To be announced


Process and priorities of implementing port State measures, potential support

for implementation

Key inspection and reporting requirements


Mr. Jude Talma, ACP Fish II Expert





09.00-09.30





Key elements of inspection operations: evidence, communications, decision-

making, information systems and political considerations.

Mr Terje Lobach

09.30-10.00

Introduction and assessment of key national laws relevant to port State measures.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan, ACP Fish II Expert, Commentary by FFA

10.00-10.30




Workshop discussion



11.00-11.30 Introduction and assessment of national and regional MCS strategies, operations and

human capacity relevant to port State measures.

Workshop discussion


11.30-12.00 Pros and cons of existing port State measures and related MCS tools at national and

regional level

Workshop discussion

Mr Jude Talma

12.00-12.30 Pros and cons of implementing key provisions of the FAO Agreement in the region as

a minimum standard.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.15 Guidelines and possible priorities for implementing port State measures: legal, policy,

institutional at regional and national levels.

Workshop discussion


14.15-15.00 Guidelines and possible priorities for implementing port State measures: operational,

information, capacity development at regional and national levels.

Workshop discussion





Increasing understanding among colleagues and politicians on the needs and

priorities of port State measures

Workshop discussion

Mr Terje Lobach

16.00-17.00 Proposed strategy on measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM on port

State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper

management of the regional tuna fisheries and maximizes benefits to the peoples of

the Pacific.

Workshop discussion

Ms Judith Swan, Mr Jude Talma






V. WORKING GROUPS

0900-10.30

Working Group Task 1: Participants will be formed into three working groups and

given a fictitious situation featuring IUU fishing, port State measures, RFMO, coastal

and flag State issues.





2. Advise on the pros and cons, and benefits and implications of adopting port State

measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard, taking into account

documentation distributed prior to the Workshop.




12.30-13.30 Lunch


Commentary on the working group reports: Lobach/FFA/Erikstein


implementation of port State measures in the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard,

taking into account the draft Guidelines for implementation to be distributed prior to

the Workshop.

Legal and policy – Advisers Terje Lobach, Karine Erikstein

Institutional and capacity development – Advisers FFA, Matthew Camilleri

Operational – Advisers FFA, Jude Talma, Masanaminami Izumi

Purpose: Each group is tasked to identify, at (1) national and (2) regional levels:

(k) strengths in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

(l) constraints in implementing the FAO Agreement as a minimum standard;

(m) how the constraints might be addressed;

(n) how the Guidelines might be strengthened; and

(o) priorities for moving forward.



15.30-17.00

Continuation of working groups.








Commentary on the working group reports: Talma/FFA/Camilleri


11.00-12.30 Working Group Task 3: The following three working groups, with advisers noted

above, will undertake this task:

Legal and policy


Operational


proposed strategy on the measures and actions to undertake to ensure that a CMM on

port State measures to be considered for adoption by the WCPFC enhances proper


the Pacific. They will take into consideration the:

(i) outcomes of Task 1 (pros and cons – to be summarized and provided);

(j) outcomes of Task 2 (priorities – to be summarized and provided);

(k) tuna fisheries management and compliance by foreign fleets in the region;

and

(l) document distributed prior to the workshop on proposed strategy and

measures.

12.30-13.30 Lunch




Commentary on the working group reports: Lobach/FFA/Izumi




09.00-10.30 Identification and adoption by plenary of recommendations on priority steps to be

taken nationally and regionally in relation to port State measures to enhance proper


the Pacific.

A framework for discussion will be prepared, based on the key outcomes of Tasks 2

and 3 of the Working Groups.



11.00-11.30


Ms Judith Swan







12.30 Lunch




6.6 Technical outputs

6.6.1 Pros and Cons

PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS

1.Introduction

The objective of this document is to consider the pros and cons of whether countries in the

region should implement the 2009 FAO PSMA as a minimum standard. It takes into account

the “pros” of the standards described in the Agreement, existing MCS measures, tools and

programmes at regional, subregional and national levels, the implications of the “cons” and

possible alternatives.

Port State controls have been effectively implemented worldwide for merchant vessels since

1982. The measures for fishing vessels were negotiated at FAO in four sessions over two and

a half years by around 100 countries, recognizing that it is a cost-effective way of ensuring

compliance with national laws and regional or sub-regional conservation and management

measures. It was also seen as a tool to fill the “compliance gap” left by flag States which

were unable or unwilling to exercise their international responsibility to control their fishing

vessels.

The 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) was designed to be an effective tool

to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, through a

systematic methodology to ensure that vessels which carry illegally-caught fish are

sanctioned through denying entry and/or use of port. The uses of port to be denied include:

landing, transhipping, packaging and processing of fish that have not been previously landed

and other port services, including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and dry-

docking.

Effective and harmonized port State measures are designed to ensure the long term

conservation and sustainable use of marine resources and the marine ecosystem. The

approach is MCS-based, and involves collection and verification/analysis of MCS




information and data, and integration with other MCS tools to establish whether the fish on

board a vessel was caught legally and in conformity with applicable international, regional

and national requirements. Exchange of information, priorities and conduct of inspections,

denial of use of port and harmonization of measures with other countries are key activities

that support port State measures.

It is recognized that IUU fishing in the Western and Central Pacific region is carried out by

vessels flagged by Pacific countries and those of distant waters fishing nations. Cross border

fishing from one country to another is common, and a case of IUU fishing took place in

Tuvalu waters in 2011, when a Fiji flag vessel was fined $2,000.000. Other cases include

fishing or related activities by vessels flying flags of countries that are not Members or

Cooperating Non-members (CCMs) of WCPFC. In addition, Vessels of WCPFC non-CCMs

call into ports in the region.13

IUU fishing activities in the region include unlicensed

fishing and illegal transhipments at sea by vessels flagged to non-CCMs of WCPFC.14

Port State measures in the FAO Agreement focus on the following:

Agreement on level and priority for inspections;15

Minimum information needed for a request to enter port;16

Authorization to enter port required to be issued and presented upon arrival;17

Criteria for mandatory denial of use of port without inspection (e.g. if the vessel does not

have an authorization to fish);18

Conduct and reports of inspections;19

Denial of use of port after inspection;20

Notification and exchange of information21

Duty of flag States;22

Requirements of developing States.23

13

For example, there is evidence that Russian fishing vessels have been calling into port in the region, hence

raising suspicion of their fishing activities. Recently, in 2012, such flag vessels have been fined in a Pacific

Island country for fishing without a license and not reported for IUU listing. 14

For example, there is evidence that Cambodian and Philippines flagged vessels have been involved in such

activities. 15

PSMA Article 12: Priority for inspections to be given to:

(a) vessels that have been denied entry or use of a port in accordance with this Agreement;

(b) requests from other relevant Parties, States or regional fisheries management organizations that particular

vessels be inspected, particularly where such requests are supported by evidence of IUU fishing or fishing

related activities in support of such fishing by the vessel in question; and

(c) other vessels for which there are clear grounds for suspecting that they have engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities in support of such fishing. 16

PMSA Article 8 and Annex A. 17

PSMA Article 9. 18

PSMA Article 11. 19

PSMA Article 13 and 14 and Annexes B and C. 20

PSMA Article 18. 21

PSMA Articles 6 and 15. 22

PSMA Article 20. 23

PSMA Article 21.




The uses for which port may or must be denied are: landing, transhipping, packaging and

processing of fish that have not been previously landed and for other port services, including, inter

alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and dry-docking.

2. Existing regional MCS tools and measures

The countries of the Western and Central Pacific region have cooperated through the Pacific Islands

Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

to develop a number of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools to address the situation.

The key tools are listed below.

In addition, countries have cooperated to establish three fisheries management arrangements which

allocate fishing opportunities and bring economic benefit to countries, but do not focus on MCS.

They are the Palau and FSM Arrangements and the Nauru Agreement; a secretariat for the latter has

been established in Marshall Islands.

2.1 FFA tools and programmes

2.1.1 Minimum Harmonised Terms and Condition of Fisheries Access

The Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions of Fisheries Access (HMTCs) were originally

adopted by the South Pacific Forum in 1982. Recognizing the dynamic nature of tuna fisheries in the

region, FFA member countries reviewed the MTCs in 1990 and the last amendment were made in

May 2011. They are currently under further review and members are encouraged to implement them

in national legislation, but many MTCs remain unimplemented.

The HMTCs include:

General definitions;

Common regional licence form;

Requirements and procedures for good standing on the FFA Regional Register;

Control and monitoring of transhipment;

Maintenance and submission of catch logs in zones and on the high seas;

Vessel reporting requirements;

Observers;

Observer coverage;

Appointment of an agent;

Foreign fishing vessels in transit;

Application of HMTCs in Port;

Flag State or fishermens’ associations responsibility;

Vessel monitoring system;

Identification etc. of fish aggregating devices; and

Pre-fishing inspections.

2.1.2 FFA Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels




The Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels (FFA Regional Register) is a compliance

mechanism. It constitutes a database of details for foreign fishing vessels that are able to apply for

licences to fish in the South Pacific region. Each vessel is given a unique regional registration number

that is a pre-requisite to apply for fishing licence in an FFA Member’s jurisdiction. The database

holds information on vessel owners, operators, masters and the physical characteristics of the vessels,

and provides a history of any changes in that information over time.

For a vessel to be registered on the FFA Regional Register it must first be on the WCPFC Record of

Authorized Fishing Vessels. The registration may be withdrawn based on serious violations of the

laws of any FFA Member and a specified procedure requiring agreement among at least three FFA

Members and no objections.

2.1.3 FFA observer program

The FFA Observer Program was established in 1986, after the multilateral Treaty on Fisheries

between Pacific Island countries and the USA was signed. It has placed observers on US fishing

vessels under the US Treaty Observer Program since 1988 and on vessels fishing under the Federated

States of Micronesia (FSM) Arrangement since 1995.

The Observer Programme has extended over the years and covers all vessels. The HMTCs provide

“Each licensing member must make every effort to achieve twenty per cent observer coverage of all

fishing trips by foreign fishing vessels in the zone of a licensing member.”

2.1.4 FFA Regional MCS Strategy

The objective of the Regional MCS strategy is to support compliance with fisheries management

frameworks and associated measures at national, sub-regional, regional and WCPFC Commission

levels to ensure the long term sustainability of oceanic fish stocks and associated economic benefits

flowing from them to Pacific Island Countries.

The Strategy has two main goals and their strategic objectives are:

enhanced MCS, integrated with fisheries management planning and implementation; and

contribute to other strategic objectives as described in the Regional Tuna and Management

Development Strategy.

2.1.5 FFA Regional Fisheries Coordination Centre (RFCC)

The RFCC plays a vital role to enhance fisheries MCS for its members through establish regional

programmes by:

providing MCS services that are best delivered at a regional level;

identifying and facilitating opportunities to strengthen MCS arrangements across the region;

and

enhancing cooperation amongst the FFA membership; strengthening regional MCS

arrangements by assisting members to optimise MCS arrangements at the national level,

through several capacity building programmes.




In doing so the RFCC has achieved improved MCS outcomes for FFA members by coordinating and

combining national MCS assets and other resources at a regional level, this has resulted In increased

regional MCS capability by:

achieving a streamlined and transparent information flow between members allowing for

improved coordination and targeting of national surveillance and enforcement assets at the

regional level;

improving response times and provide support for national and regional MCS operations; and

increasing the number and effectiveness of regional MCS responses, thereby substantially

improving the capability to combat IUU fishing.

2.1.5.1 FFA Regional Vessel Monitoring System

The VMS allows FFA members to track and monitor licenced fishing vessels from port to port across

the region. Based at FFA's regional headquarters and accessible to all FFA member countries, this

satellite-based system monitors the position, speed and direction of registered fishing vessels.

The system is interlinked with the WCPFC VMS and used in parallel with the Automatic Information

System (AIS) to improve monitoring.

2.1.5.2 Regional Surveillance Operation

The RFCC, principally through the position of Surveillance Operations Manager, liaises with

Maritime Surveillance personnel based on patrol boats in FFA Members and with FFA’s Surveillance

Contacts in each member country to plan and coordinate regional fisheries surveillance missions.

These missions provide the possibility for inspection of fishing vessels on fishing grounds and

sighting of several fishing activities with the region. In this way illegal activities are detected and

communicated to the FFA and its Members for legal action and as appropriate for consideration of

removal of good standing on the FFA vessel register.

With intelligence from VMS, observer reports, AIS and historical fishing patterns, the FFA is well

placed to identify areas of primary interest for aerial surveillance. This has been used to good effect in

the last few years resulting in several significant settlements for infringements reported during aerial

surveillance flights.

2.1.5.3 Regional Information Management Facility

The RIMF is an information sharing tool that has been developed to complement the VMS and

its ‘SmartTrack’ software. It works through a mechanism that:

Accepts data extracts from VMS at regular intervals;

Accept Automatic Information System data and WCPFC VMS data and integrate with FFA

VMS on a google earth interface;

Applies processes that extract and collect data from various other sources;

Creates specific files that provide display of vessel positional data using Google Earth;

Displays other relevant information on an individual vessel;




Allows for a ‘user-evaluated’ vessel compliance index to be recorded and displayed; and

Links with other regional and national databases such as those at WCPFC and SPC.

In the ‘Surveillance Picture’ system, the data on each individual vessel is organised into several

‘sections’:

Analysis – displays the Vessel Compliance Index and also allows for this index to be updated

by user (this is the only piece of information that can be updated);

FFA Vessel Details – displays vessel details as recorded in the FFA Vessel Register;

Licenses – displays all known vessel licences (as compiled from various sources);

Possible Matching Licenses – displays instances of vessel records in sources other than the

FFA Vessel Register that possibly represent this same vessel (given the content, the more

appropriate name for this section would be ‘Possible Matching Vessels’);

Boardings – displays any records of boarding events, that is if the vessel was

boarded/inspected in port or at sea;

Contacts – displays details of people and organisations relevant to the vessel (e.g. the names

of the Captain, Vessel Owner, etc);

Possible Matching Vessels of Interest – displays any vessels found in various ‘vessel of

interest’ lists (IUU and other VOI lists) that potentially represent this same vessel;

Vessel Images – displays any recorded vessel photographs;

Observer Trips – displays data on observer trips on board of the vessel (limited to trips taken

as part of the US Treaty or the FSM Arrangement licences);

Vessel infraction- displays list of infraction of vessel; and

Port inspection – Module for port state measures information recently develop and training

FFA Members’ personnel are currently being undertaken.

2.1.6 Treaties and agreements

2.1.6.1 Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the USA

FFA administers and provides support for the implementation of the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries

with the USA. This Treaty entered into force in 1987 and it has been renewed on two occasions, with

the last renewal in 2003 for a period of 10 years until 2013. It enables US purse seine fishing vessels

to fish in the waters of the 16 Pacific Island Parties. This Treaty has a specifically agreed minute on

cooperation on surveillance and enforcement that requires observers to be on board and has facilitated

MCS and information exchange to combat IUU fishing.

2.1.6.2 The Niue Treaty

FFA Members signed the Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in

Honiara July 1992. The Treaty entered into force in May 1993, after the deposit of the fourth

instrument of ratification. To date, all FFA member countries and Tokelau have signed the Treaty,

while all but three of these have ratified it. This treaty provides a framework that enables the FFA to

cooperate closely in fisheries surveillance and enforcement through sharing of enforcement assets,

equipment and personnel.




The Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement was adopted in November, 2010 and provides inter alia that

the Parties may cooperate to enable port inspections and other MCS activities … at the request of

another party and may permit personnel of another Party to conduct port inspections. It reflects

reciprocal cooperation in port inspections.

2.2 WCPFC measures and tools

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was established by the Convention

for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central

Pacific Ocean (WCPF Convention) which entered into force on 19 June 2004.

The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term

conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific

Ocean in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995

UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

The WCPFC has adopted a series of conservation and management measures (CMMs) that to address

the conservation and management of the highly migratory species listed in Annex I of the UN Fish

Stocks Agreement, except sauries.

2.2.1 Conservation and management measures relevant to MCS

WCPFC Members have adopted several CMMs that are relevant to MCS and serve as compliance

tools. They include vessel marking, a Regional Observer Programme (ROP), Vessel Monitoring

System (VMS), boarding and inspection procedures, regulation of transshipment, record of fishing

vessels and authorisation to fish, IUU vessel list and vessels without nationality.

They have also adopted Fisheries Data and annual reporting requirements and Rules and Procedures

for Access to WCPFC data.

There is only one CMM relating directly to port State measures; it is CMM 2010-06 to establish a list

of IUU vessels. Members are required to prohibit landings and transhipments by vessels on the IUU

vessel list, and to inspect them should they enter port. There is no provision that bars their entry into

port.

A number of other CMMs deal with the regulation of fishing activity, including fishing for sharks.

Contraventions of this CMM are believed to occur, and are largely undetected by existing compliance

tools. It is believed that port State measures could enhance existing tools in enforcing this

requirement.

As shown in the Pros and Cons List in Annex 1, the WCPFC MCS tools cannot by themselves

provide complete detection of violations of CMMs concerning fishing and related activities. Port

State measures may be integrated with them to enhance existing measures and activities.

2.2.1.1 CMM-2004-03 Specifications for the Marking and Identification of fishing

vessels




These specifications are intended to implement the FAO Standard Specifications for the Marking and

Identification of Fishing Vessels for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish

Stocks in the WCPFC Convention Area.

These specifications must be applied to the operation of all fishing vessels of Commission Members

authorized to fish in the Convention Area beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

2.2.1.2 CMM-2007-01 Regional Observer Programme

The objective of the WCPFC ROP is to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional

information related to fisheries in the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the

conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission.

The ROP applies to the below category of vessel.

vessels fishing exclusively on the high seas in the Convention Area; and

vessels fishing on the high seas and in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more coastal

States and vessels fishing in the waters under the national jurisdiction of two or more coastal

States.

It also Includes national and subregional observer programmes of many members. Each national

programme can interpret the minimum vessel size for an observer, and circumstances when a vessel is

operating principally in coastal waters but occasionally venturing onto the high seas to determine

whether a national observer may be used in place of a ROP observer. There is delayed

implementation N of 20N for some vessels (31 Dec 2014).

2.2.1.3 CMM-2007-02 Commission Vessel Monitoring System

All vessels fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas within the areas of the

Convention, including vessel involve in related fishing activities, must provide it vessel VMS

location to the Commission in accordance with this Conservation and Management Measure.

Any CCM may request, for the Commission’s consideration and approval, that waters under its

national jurisdiction be included within the area covered by the Commission VMS to enable have

VMS access to non-licensed vessel entering its jurisdiction.

2.2.1.4 CCM- 2006-08 Boarding and inspection procedure

This CMM gives each Member, subject to its provisions and procedures, the authority to carry out

boarding and inspection of fishing vessels engaged in fishing on the high seas. Each Member must

ensure that its flag vessels accepts and facilitates boarding and inspection by authorized officers in

conformity with the set procedure of the CMM.

2.2.1.5 CMM 2009-06 Regulation of transhipment

This measure applies to all transhipment of highly migratory fish stocks, both within or outside the

Convention Area. It sets out the areas where transhipment may take place and by which type of

vessel. Its key requirements are shown below.




Purse seine transhipment outside of port is prohibited, except existing group seine operations

in PNG, Philippines and New Zealand domestic purse seine vessels in NZ waters may apply

for annual exemption (application due 1 July each year) – public list developed.

Transhipment by purse seiners in the high seas is prohibited.

Transhipment prohibited unless vessels are on the WCPFC Record of Authorized Vessels or

WCPFC Interim Register of Non-CCM Carriers and Bunkers.

Non-purse seine vessels (longline, pole and line, troll) must carry out transhipment in national

waters in accordance with domestic laws.

Prohibition on transhipment in high seas does not apply where the flag State determines it to

be impracticable to operate without transhipping on the high seas, in which case prior

notification and reporting obligations are required.

100% Observer monitoring is required where transhipment at sea is allowed (delayed

implementation to 2013 for troll and pole-and-line caught fish).

Reporting prior notification, declarations sent to WCPFC for high seas transhipment

activities.

2.2.1.6 CMM 2009-01 Record of fishing vessels and authorisation to fish

Pursuant to Article 24 of the WCPFC Convention, each Member of the Commission must maintain a

record of vessels flying its flag and authorized to fish in the Convention Area beyond its area of

national jurisdiction.

It also makes provision for WCPFC to establish and maintain its own record of fishing vessels

authorized to fish in the Convention Area beyond the national jurisdiction of the member of the

WCPFC whose flag the vessel is flying. Such record is known as the WCPFC Record of Fishing

Vessels.

Members must not license vessel that are not on the WCPFC Record of Authorized Fishing Vessels.

Non-CCM carrier and bunker concerns were addressed through establishing an interim

register (2010 – 30 June 2013).

Only vessels on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels or on WCPFC Interim Register of

non-member carriers and bunkers, are authorized to fish in the WCPF Convention Area.

Vessels can only be placed by a WCPFC Member or Cooperating Non-member flag

State.

2.2.1.7 CMM 2010-06 Establish a list of IUU vessels

Sets out requirements for the Commission to identify vessel that have been engaged in IUU fishing

activities and related IUU activities in the Convention Area of the WCPFC to be listed on the

established IUU vessel list, and, as necessary, amend in subsequent years in accordance with

procedures and criteria set out the CMM. It provides in section 22:

“CCMs shall take all necessary non-discriminatory measures under their applicable legislation,

international law and each CCMs’ international obligations, and pursuant to paras 56 and 66 of

the IPOA-IUU to:…b. ensure that vessels on the WCPFC IUU Vessel List that enter ports

voluntarily are not authorized to land, tranship, refuel or re-supply therein but are inspected upon

entry;”




2.2.1.8 CMM09-09 Vessels without nationality

This CMM declares that vessels without nationality (no flag or flying more than 1 flag) are deemed to

have undermined the Convention and CMMs. CCMs are encouraged to take all necessary measures

to prevent vessels from undermining CMMs.

2.2.1.9 Fisheries Data and annual reporting requirements

Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission in the Annual Report to the Commission, and

online interface for electronic submission of Part II reports will be available in 2013

2.2.1.10 Rules and Procedures for Access to WCPFC data

These rules and procedures were developed by the Ad Hoc Task Group on data.

Rules and Procedures for the Protection, Access to and Dissemination of data compiled by the

Commission (2007)

Rules and Procedures for the Protection, Access to and Dissemination of High Seas Non-Public

Domain Data and Information compiled by the Commission for the Purpose of Monitoring,

Control or Surveillance (MCS) Activities and the Access to and Dissemination of High Seas VMS

Data for Scientific Purposes (2009)

2.2.1.11 CMM 2010-07 on Sharks

The CMM on sharks is not a compliance tool, as noted above. It is set out as an example of a

management requirement adopted by the Commission that would benefit from the implementation of

port State measures.

CCMs should establish and implement an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and

Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks);

Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing, any part or whole

carcass of the following shark species: oceanic white-tip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) . All

discards of these species should be recorded as dead or alive;

Vessels cannot have onboard fins that total more than 5 percent of the weight of sharks. Vessels

are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing fins harvested in contravention of

the CMM;

CCMs must annually report data to the Commission, which specifically includes some key shark

species;

Catch of sharks is to be fully utilized (all parts are to be retained except head, guts, and skins);

and

CCMs shall support research for avoidance of unwanted shark captures.

2.2.2 Tuna Fisheries Database Management (TUFMAN) system

The TUFMAN system is a database tool administered by WCPFC and was developed by the SPC for

the Pacific Island countries to manage their tuna fishery data. It provides for data entry, data

management, data quality control, administration, and reporting.




The System comprise of three sub-systems;

TUBS, the tuna observer data system;

TUF-ART, is a database for entering data collected from the local artisanal fleet that

commonly target tuna; and

MCS-TUFMAN is based on TUFMAN, but currently is a separate system. In the future it is

likely to be web-based.

The system is the same throughout the region but is highly customizable and setup specifically for the

needs of each of the individual countries. It has been developed over many years and has evolved

from a simple system to one that is becoming a comprehensive tuna data management tool.

TUFMAN supports many types of tuna fisheries data and supports the major gears (longline, purse

seine, pole-and-line) as well as artisanal vessels. The types of data supported include:

Licensing;

National fleet;

Port sampling;

Logsheets;

Vessel Activity Reports

Observer trips;

Port sampling;

Unloadings;

Vessel Position Reports; and

VDS Management

Presently there is no interface specific for port inspection, but the possibility to further develop the

MCS TUFMMAN module for PSM exists, since the system is a customized database with on-going

support and continuously updates ensuring they are always up to the regional requirements and data

standards,

3. Port monitoring measures – vs – port State measures

It highly necessary to understand the distinction between use of:

port monitoring for scientific purposes - that is being practiced efficiently in the Pacific

region; and

port State measures for MCS purposes.

Scientific port monitoring is usually carried out by fisheries officers that do not necessarily have

enforcement powers, whereas port State measures require fisheries officers and inspectors with the

necessary training and authorization to carry out full inspections for purposes of law enforcement.

The port monitoring measures in the region are oriented towards the scientific data collection and are

shared with SPC and WCPFC to manage fisheries data, which may then form the basis for the best

management advice. Data collected relates mostly to details regarding the vessel, master and catch

(species and size composition), including fishing authorization and licenses. In this process, two of




the most common infractions identified in most ports in the region are noncompliance with the CMM

2010-07 on Sharks and underreporting.

Inspection forms used by port monitors in countries with active ports are often quite brief – one page -

and focus on a minimum of information of vessel, owners and captain, and the catch.

In comparison, the port State measures developed by FAO Members are geared toward an MCS

approach for port inspection. Harmonized standards for information to be included in the results of

inspection not only include information recorded by port monitors, but also require an evaluation of

what have been transshipped at sea, the offloaded catch and catch retained on board by:

Species;

Product form;

Catch area(s);

Quantity declared;

Quantity retained; and

Difference between quantity declared and quantity determined, if any.

Reports must also include the type of gear, gear examined and compliance with catch documentation

requirements and trade information schemes.

Most importantly, the FAO minimum standard requires the inspector to state:

the findings;

apparent infringements including reference to relevant legal instruments; and

action taken.

Therefore, the port State measures inspection is investigation-oriented, with the objective of

determining the legality of the fishing and related activities that took place.

4 MCS tools Interface between FFA and WCPFC

4.1 VMS

At the policy level, the Commission VMS is a stand-alone system; however, technically it is

integrated with the FFA VMS system (the Pacific VMS). The FFA VMS applies to coastal States,

whereas the Commission VMS monitors vessels on the high seas. The development of Commission

VMS through the FFA VMS, means technically, they are one in the same with different sets of rules

and area of application.

As mentioned in section 2.2.1.3, any WCPFC CCM may request that waters under its national

jurisdiction be included within the area covered by the Commission VMS, in order that it may see

unlicensed vessel entering their jurisdiction.

Both set of VMS data are integrated with the Automatic Information System (AIS) that further

enhances analysis of fishing activities in the Convention Area.

4.2. Record of Fishing Vessels




The WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisations to fish (CMM 2009-01), and the FFA

Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels operate in parallel. For a vessel to be on the FFA

Regional Register, it first needs to be on the WCPFC Record. Vessels are issued with a unique FFA

registration number upon payment of a fee and submission of required information. FFA Members

issue fishing licenses only to vessels that are on the Register.

4.3 Regional Observer Programmes

The FFA ROP is tied in to the USA multilateral treaty as illustrated in 2.1.7.1, and covers observers

coverage in the zone of the licensing member of the FFA. On the other hand the WCPFC ROP

covers exclusively the high seas areas, as specified in 2.2.1.2. These two programmes are well

coordinated by maximizing use of available human capacity.

4.4 Information exchange

The FFA RIMF database is the core tool for information exchange in the Pacific and has links to

tnational licensing systems and the WCPFC system including the fishing vessel registry and the

TUFMAN. This creates a vast network of information exchange, with a possibility of additional

interfaces. This scenario would be the ideal tool for information exchange in the Pacific in relation to

port State measures.

5. National MCS tools and measures of FFA Members

The regional MCS tools are significantly better developed than those at national level, and would be

able to integrate agreed standards on port State measures without much difficulty. At national level,

relevant MCS tools and capacity vary from country to country, ranging from no inspection to

monitoring of transhipment only. Few countries have a satisfactory inspection format.

Most of the relevant national efforts are based on regional standards or mechanisms, including the

vessel licensing Systems (‘TUFMAN’ / other Licensing systems), the catch and effort system

(‘logbook data’), the unloading monitoring in port, port sampling vessel reports of zone entry/exit,

catch and efforts and weekly report, the observer collected data exchanged through the ‘TUBS’, VMS

and national surveillance plans.

Most countries carry out fisheries surveillance missions at national and regional level At sea patrols

tend to detect more serious offenses, such has fishing in restricted zone, illegal transshipment and

FADS fishing during closure. On the other hands these types of illegal activities are never detected

during port inspection and monitoring. Common infractions detected in port are under reporting,

expired licences, violations relating to shark fishing and fins and various offences of a less serious

nature.

The current inspection mechanism, which is aimed only at gathering information for scientific

purposes, makes it impossible to identify serious infractions committed at sea. . In comparison to at

sea fisheries patrols, the cost of PSM is relatively low and benefits high, and at sea violations can be

detected without deploying expensive patrol vessels. The region should, for obvious cost-benefit

reasons, adopt a regional PSM program empowers authorized officers to conduct port inspection and

investigation to detect serious infractions.




A number of challenges face the FFA members to implement effective port State measures, including

human capacity (operational and legal), institutional capacity (interagency cooperation), legislation

and lack of a clear MCS plan and /or strategy.

In balancing the pros and cons at national level it is evident that most strengthening needs to take

place at the national level. Doing so will improve the PSM condition nationally and regionally.

6. National legislation

As shown in the Strategy document, countries have not, for the most part, implemented the

minimum standards of the FAO Agreement in their laws. Of the six key provisions required

for implementation, and the 14 countries surveyed, around 60% showed no implementation.

At the other end, .04% showed full implementation – and this was in a draft Amendment Bill

in respect of four of the six model provisions.

In general, national legislation needs strengthening to implement the HMTCs, CMMs, NTSA

and other regional obligations. Inclusion of minimum port State measures standards would

complement and strengthen such initiatives further.

7. Capacity development

One of the most pressing needs expressed during the Experts’ country missions and in the

Workshop was capacity development – both human for inspections and institutional for

interagency cooperation. This applies to legal and operational personnel.

Iit is important not to adopt binding port State measures until such capacity has been

strengthened, or countries will be unable to implement their obligations. This is a strong

view in the region and is shared by the Experts. At the very least, a two-track system should

be established which has a phased approach towards implementing PSM and at the same time

provides for capacity building and legal implementation.

8. “ Pros and cons” methodology and analysis

Evaluating the pros and cons of of whether countries in the region should implement the

PSMA as a minimum standard is a complex task due to the wide range of existing MCS tools

in the region. It is essential to understand the effectiveness of those tools, as well as the gaps

and their implications. Port State measures should serve to fill gaps and to be integrated into

relevant tools.

The analysis was carried out at regional and national levels from two perspectives: (a)

whether the existing MCS tools support the implementation of minimum standards in the

FAO Agreement, indicating gaps and strengths (in Annex 1), and (b) the key port State

measures in the 2009 FAO Agreement, and the pros and cons of implementing them as

minimum standards, as well as implications of the cons (Annex 2).




In Annex 1, with a focus on existing MCS tools, just listing and counting the number of pros

and cons was not considered to be a useful measure; some of the factors were considered

trivial while others are more crucial.

To address this, each pro and con was assigned a weight in order to provide a better sense of

where the balance really lies. A three point scale combined with a color scheme, for visual

purpose, was used in this study. The highest number means it’s an extremely affirmative

factor for the pros analysis and the lowest number signifies a deficient factor in the cons

analysis.

The total weight of the pros and cons were added and indicates the strength and areas of

priority for action. A significant result is that the existing MCS tools have a number of gaps

which can be filled by port State measures.

For the pros analysis, on a scale of 1-3, with 3 being the highest beneficial tools, the

regional MCS tools and measures were identified as the strength for integration with port

State measures.

For the cons analysis, on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the more deficient PSM factor, the

national MCS tools and PSM conditions were found to be the lacking for effective PSM with

a difference in points of 11 and 10 respectively, favoring the CONs.

In Annex 2, a table shows 10 key port State measures with minimum standards contained in

the FAO Agreement. For each, the following is assessed: pros, cons, relevant FFA/WCPFC

measures, whether it is already implemented by FFA Members, and options for

implementation.

Significantly, 8 of the 10 key measures are not implemented by FFA Members, and two were

just partially implemented.

The “cons” described related mainly to the need for capacity development and training,

strengthened legislation, procedures and databases, need to amend national regulations,

procedures and databases, loss of profits for locally based industries (but this is offset by the

continuing loss of the resource without enforcement, and the loss of export opportunities if

the country is considered to be a “port of convenience”), setting a level of inspections that it

too high for available capacity, reporting routine inspections to a common database and the

risks of agreeing to unrealistic timelines for this.

9 Conclusions

Both the WCPFC Convention and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (to which almost all FFA

Members are party) affirm a port State’s rights and duties to promote the effectiveness of

CMMs, and to prohibit landings and transhipments where this is undermined. This is a start,

and has been further elaborated under the HMTCs, Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement and

CMMs in the region, and the FAO Agreement internationally.




The Agreement was based on a FAO Model Scheme developed by countries in a Technical

Consultation and endorsed by COFI in 2005. It was negotiated by over 90 countries over 2.5

years, and reflects minimum standards that many countries consider to be a “pro” in

harmonized efforts to combat IUU fishing.

In the WCPO region, a number of effective MCS tools operate at the regional level but there

are still gaps that can be filled by port State measures. The challenge is twofold: to identify

the measures best suited to the region as a minimum standard – they could be more or less

stringent than those that appear in the FAO Agreement – and to ensure that Pacific Island

countries are well placed to implement the measures.

To meet these challenges, a process to develop the measures needs to be identified – and the

pros and cons of proceeding incrementally through existing instruments and fora.




ANNEX 1

PROS AND CONS

WHETHER EXISTING REGIONAL HMTC TOOLS SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARDS IN THE FAO

AGREEMENT:

GAPS AND STRENGTHS

PRO

Point scale where the highest number means it’s an extremely beneficial PSM tool for the “Pros analysis”, and one important

factor, but it does not necessarily link directly to implementation of PSM or directly link but not being implemented.

CON

Point scale where the highest number means it’s a more deficient PSM factor for the “Cons” analysis”, and if not solved

and/or implemented may have serious implications for an effective PSM

1 2 3

1 2 3




Tools /

Measures

Pros

( Benefits)

Weigh

t

Cons

(Disadvantages) Weight

Implications

of Cons

REGIONAL CONDITIONS

FFA Regional

Register of

Foreign

Fishing

Vessels

Member States know

vessel licensed in other

states plus a priority

based system (good

Standing criteria) link

to compliance for

issuance of licenses.

Vessel must first be on

WCPFC Authorized

Vessel List.

3

FFA VMS

systems

o Good regional

participation all

member states are

involved

o Capability of

securely

transferring vessel

positions to each FFA

member country, as

required, enabling

individual FFA member

countries to track the

movements of vessels in

their EEZs.

o Interlink with

WCPFC system

with objective to allow

for monitoring in the

whole Convention Area

of the commission.

3

Does not always

provide real-time

updates to countries in

whose waters vessels

are fishing. one hour

delay to obtain data

from a Sydney due to

main server base in

Sydney and data are

transferred to FFA by

batch system on a set

frequency.

1

Has minimal impact

on PSM since

historical data is

required prior to

inspection, but it

may provide late

information for

surveillance

activities.

All countries take part

In the sharing of VMS

data but not all

countries shares data

to others.

2

Full coverage is not

available to all

parties because, for

WCPFC VMS

parties have to

request

authorization to see

vessel in their EEZ,

and involve a cost.

o New policy on

confidentiality

being drafted

1

This will guarantee

confidence among

member and improve

sharing of VMS data

among members.




FFA

Observer

programme

All FFA member

countries have observers,

who are trained by FFA

o Observers are duly

trained by FFA base on

the Certification and

training policy manual.

o Technical

Advice Group

(TAG)has the

responsibility to

coordination efforts

between FFA and

WCPFC programmes

o Set standards for

national, Sub

regional and regional

observer

o Have observer

Certification

and training policy

(manual) In process

3

Absorbed most

dockside observers

and created a lack of

human capacity for

port inspection

3

Inadequate port

inspectors put

pressure on existing

workforce and may

hinder the quality of

inspection

Provides MCS related

information from sighted

activities at sea.

2

Reporting of activities

upon arrival into port

(Ok for Scientific

Observers but not for

compliance purposes)

2

Possible IUU

activities may go by

un-punished.

Regional

Fisheries

Surveillance

Coordination

Centre

o Takes into

consideration the

FAO PSM as tool to

fight IUU fishing, since

provides a legal

framework to enable a

multilateral approach to

port State enforcement.

o Under take

monitoring

and surveillance

Activities. Merge FFA

and WCPFC VMS, AIS,

observer sharing

o Provide an at

hand/visual info

on good standing vessels

(color coded)

Information.

o Has develop

training needs

for

dockside inspection

3

Similar concerns as

with the VMS system.

1

Has minimal impact

on PSM, but may

provide late info for

surveillance

activities.

All countries takes

part In the sharing of

VMS data but not all

countries shares data

to others

3

Full coverage not

available to all

parties.




FFA

Regional

Information

Management

Facility

(RIMF)

Brought

about by the

regional

strategy.

A good system of

information exchange

aim to capture fisheries

data

o Data being exchange are;

o Observer

o catch & effort

o licensing

o Scientific (SPC)

o VMS

o AIS

o port inspection

data

o plus option for

other fisheries

data available

o

o Assistance in the

strengthening capacity at

national level, build

database system to

exchange such data. To

date nine countries have

been assisted, others to

be followed.

3

Presently Port

enforcement data not

being shared through

the system.

3

deficiency of

regional PSM info

and credibility of

good standing order

list may be

undermined

FFA

regional

MCS

strategy

o Broad spectrum

approach for

guidelines to develop

national MCS strategies,

with a good focus on

regional requirement

with regard to existing

CMMs, agreement

arrangement and treaty

3

National

strategies/plan has not

been define and

implemented in most

pacific countrie

resulting in a

lack of commitment

to PSM despite some

PSM requirement

being address.

3

Weak PSM create a

gap in MCS and

may be a loophole

for trade of IUU

fish

HMTCs

Fishing

access

o Presently 16

MTCs has been agreed

upon of which PSM has

been taken into

consideration..

o

o The HMTC on

PSM states that FFA

members shall take

measures through

legislation or

regulations and in

accordance with

international law to

exercise powers of port

State over fishing

vessels in their ports. Hence no distinction

3

Not all the MTCs are

being implemented by

the member countries,

i.e..the pre-license

inspection.

More regional action

is required to ensure

that the HMTC on

PSM is effectively

implemented as per

international laws.

2

Weak PSM create a

gap in MCS and

may be a loophole

for trade of IUU

fish




between license and un-

license vessels

CMM 2007-

02 on the

Commission

VMS

o CMM for the

Commission

VMS that includes the

requirement for vessels

in the Convention area to

maintain VMS

transmission

3

Covers vessels on the

high seas and 12

coastal States

jurisdiction.

Nevertheless it

depends on the

individual state who

decides for its

Jurisdiction to be

covered by the

commission.

2

Does not involve

complete

Convention Area,

Only 12 Members

who have requested

to receive in zone

data from the

commission VMS,

in respect of

unlicensed vessels

transiting national

waters.

(Australia, USA,

Cooks island, Niue,

New Zealand,

France Tokelau,

NIUE, FSM, New

Caledonian, FR

Polynesian,

Wallis&Futuna

CMM 2007-

01 on the

regional

observer

programme

o The ROP is

based on the

use of existing regional,

sub-regional and national

observer programmes

already in place when the

‘CMM for the

o ROP CMM

2007-01 entered

into force on 15 February

2008. Hence has

strengthened existing

program.

o Provides MCS

related

information from sighted

activities at sea.

3

2

Information received

after observer

mission, may be late

for enforcement

action, but in some

cases follow up action

are taken.

2

Possible IUU


un-punished.




CMM 2009-

01 on

records of

fishing

vessels and

authorization

to fish

All vessel that

fish in the Convention

Area are listed on the

record of fishing vessel

Has a web

interface that allows

users to search, filter,

sort and browse data

directly.

TUFMAN system in place for

vessel licensing system

Vessel Photos can also

be linked

3

No particular cons in

this fishing vessel

registry that

undergoes continued

improvement with

time and new

requirement.

N/A

CMM 2009-

10 Landings

by purse

seinners

-Monitoring landings of

purse seine vessels at

ports so as to ensure

reliable catch data by

species

2

An scientific

observation measures

not necessarily targets

enforcement matters

1

Obtain data for

scientific purposes

not for MCS use.

CMM 2009-

06 on the

regulation of

transhipment

Applies to all

transhipment in the

Convention Area and

catches transshipped

outside the Convention

Area

o Purse seine

transhipment is

banned at sea

o No transhipment

allowed to

vessels not on WCPFC

Record or WCPFC

Interim Register of Non-

CCM carriers and

bunkers

o longline, pole

and line, troll

transhipment in national

waters in accordance

with domestic laws. No

transhipment in high

seas, unless flag State

determines to be

impracticable to operate

without transshipping on

high seas,

o 100% Observer

monitoring

required where

transhipment at sea is

allowed

3

Does not cover all

categories of fishing

vessel. Exemption is

permitted under the

CMM.

Such as existing

group seine

operations in PNG

and NZ domestic

purse seine vessels in

NZ waters may apply

for annual exemption

(application due 1

July each year) –

public list developed.

(delayed

implementation to

2013 for troll and

pole-and-line caught

fish)

1

No particular

negative

implications as long

as the CCM makes

provision and the

transhipment are

properly controlled.

CMM 2004- o Provide No particular cons Insufficient clear




03 Specification

s for the

Marking and

Identificatio

n of Fishing

Vessels1

requirement for

vessel

marking base on the

FAO recommendation.

o Important

inspection

criteria for

PSM

3

marking will

require PSM action.

CMM 2010-

06 To establish

a list of IUU

vessel

presume to

have carried

out IUU

fishing in

the WCPO

o vessels fishing

for species

covered by the WCPFC

Convention are

presumed to have carried

out IUU fishing

activities, as described in

the IPOA on IUU

fishing, in the

Convention

o Provide

countries with a

primary information to

deny vessel port use

3

No particular cons

N/A

CMM09-09

Vessels

without

Nationality

o Provision to

declares vessels

without nationality (no

flag or flying more than

1 flag) to be deemed to

have undermined

Convention and CMMs,

and CCMs must take all

necessary measures to

prevent vessels from

undermining CMMs

3

No particular cons

N/A

SPC’c

Information

Management

System

(IMS) for its

member

o TUFFMAN

system in place,

mostly used for observer

and license vessel

information to SPC

3

No particular cons

N/A

52 27




Tools /

Measures

Pros

(Benefits)

Weight Cons

(Disadvantages)

Weight Implications

of Cons

NATIONAL CONDITIONS

Designated

port & Port

Inspection

procedure

and results

o All Countries

that have port,

have designated

their ports to the

commission.

Some states

target 100%

inspection of

foreign vessels.

o Particular

countries decline

use

of port by non-license

vessels (i.e..Tuvalu and

Solomon Island)

3

o No

specifically

define and

establish procedure

and /or plan for port

state inspection with

an investigative

approach

2

No procedures in

place will lead to

complacency, and

transhipment,

landings and trade

of illegal fish will

most likely take

place.

2

o No specific

criteria to

choose which vessel

to be inspected on a

basis of compliance.

Some country target

license vessel only

and some target un-

license or foreign

vessel only.

Inspection form does

not address PSM

needs.

3

o Inspection are

informative

base, rather tha006E

investigative.

Unless a case of

serious offense

inspection report are

not passed on to

RFMO and flag state

2

VMS o Some countries

shared VMS

Data in their waters fully

to all FFA member

states.

o Mechanism in

place in event of

Non-reporting. Certain

countries recommend

manual reporting for a

period of time, by which

the ALC must be fixed

and others request for

2

o Some share

only to

neighboring countries

and exchange fully

only during a regional

surveillance mission is

taking place.

2

Limited VMS info

of vessel activity in

the region for use as

a PSM or catch

certification

scheme.

2

o Boundary

limitation

resulting in conflict

between some states

and need to be

finalized

3

Unclear origin of

fish, and undermine

the VDS scheme




vessel to come in port to

rectify the technical

problem.

o One official

VMS

personnel. Inadequate

monitoring of system

especially when the

VMS officer is on

leave or abroad

mission.

1

Day to day

monitoring is

compromise

Observer

programme

o Countries have

their national

observer program plus

taking part in the

regional plan. Well

trained by

FFA/WCPFC/SPC

programme. Information

sharing with through

established regional

mechanism to SPC and

SPC. Observers Provides

MCS related information

from sighted activities at

sea.

3

o Information

received after

observer mission, may

be late for

enforcement action,

but in some cases

follow up action are

taken.

2

Possible IUU


un-punished

Fisheries

patrol

plan/progra

mme

o Most countries

do have their

own asset have national

plan with an annual plan

for national patrol. Some

small island states don’t

have the necessary assets

to conduct national patrol

but do take part in

regional surveillance

programme that covers

their EEZ

2

o High cost of

patrol limits

the number of patrol

days. No National

patrol in some small

island.

2

Jurisdiction may

become prone to

illegal activities,

especially with

neighboring states.

MCS

plan/strategy

o NPOA IUU

exists and

partially

being implemented in

few countries.

1

o National

strategies/plan

has

not been define and

implemented in most

pacific countries

3

Without an MCS

strategy/plan MCS

actions remains

inconsistence and

the goals set out in

the regional

Strategy may not be

effectively

implemented.

Fisheries

Information

exchange

including

VMS

o All countries

have access to

the

established regional

information

exchange/sharing

establish by FFA and

WCPFC/SPC., with

ongoing capacity

3

o Proper IT

equipment is

lacking in some states

Internet connection

capacity may cause

delays in data

delivery.

2

Delays in

information

exchange




building o Lack of

proper, if any,

database system for

fisheries management

and MCS purposes, to

record and analyze

data

3

Inaccurate data plus

difficulty to

research these data

for management

and dissemination

Human

capacity for

Port

inspection

o Human

personnel for

MCS are

in place in all Pacific

state depending on the

level of MCS and port

activities requirement

and regional obligation.

1

o It’s clear that

capacity is

inadequate in most

countries plus limited

capacity building with

regard to PSM

3

Possible IUU

fishing will

continue to be

undetected by

existing port state

compliance/enforce

ment inspection

procedure.

Institutional

Capacity &

arrangement

o Institutions for

MCS are in

place in all Pacific state

depending on the level of

MCS requirement with

regard to fisheries

management and

regional obligation.

Most involve and

MCS/enforcement unit

and the Coastguard

undertaking MCS

activities.

3

o The

institution

requires the

necessary human

capacity to effectively

implement their

objectives

2

The institutional

capacity and

arrangement can

only be effective of

its human resources

available to drive

the institution

forward.

Intelligence

exchange

o Information is

obtained

nationally from different

sources, such as

surveillance mission,

observer VMS etc...

2

o Except for

serious

offense

port inspection

information’s are not

always shared

regionally. Other

information is

exchange, but more

for a scientific

purposes rather than

MCS.

3

Good standing not

update as should be.

Countries lacking

info for priority for

PSM inspection

Implementati

on of

regional

agreement /

treaty /

WCPFC

CMMs

o Where

appropriate.

Agree with

the different agreement,

arrangement and treaty,

and to a certain degree

implement the WCPFC

CMMs.

2

o Implementatio

n of related

surveillance

agreement are

promoted by

developed states and

the developing states

and the SIDs barely

have the means and

funds for effective

implementation

between themselves

2

Limited national

funds and capacity

undermined the

needs of regional

efforts hence result

in low compliance.




Interagency

cooperation

o Some decree of

interagency

cooperation exist

nationally

1

o Absence of

Concrete

established

interagency

cooperation such as

MOUs/agreement to

maximize MCS effort.

3

Lack of strong

interagency

cooperation result

in unnecessary

delays for port

inspection and

turnaround time for

the vessels.

Affect flow of

information

27 38




Tools /

measures

Pros

(Benefits)

Weigh

ts

Cons

(Disadvantages)

Weight

s

Implications

of cons

PSM CONDITIONS

Entry

requests –

minimum

standard of

information

required and

reasonable

time in

advance

o Exist in most

country and time

of 48hrs prior to entry

but not necessarily up to

the PSM standard

2

o Not

necessarily

meet

Information

requirements for port

entry. Need

improvement and

standardized as MTCs

2

Inspecting officer

will not have the

necessary info on

vessel or intended

activities to be

carried out in port,

plus to decide if to

allow vessel in port

or not.

Decision to

deny entry

o Some countries

deny vessel

into their port, mostly

related to unlicensed

vessel. But all countries

would deny access to

vessels that have been

black listed.

2

o No procedure

is in place

for denial of entry in

port. In one country

vessels not on

WCPFC list are allow

into port without

proper investigation to

determine possible

fishing or related

activity in the

Convention Area.

3

Loss of business

for suppliers port

dues, etc…

CMM 2010-06

To establish a list

of IUU vessels

being undermined

Decision to

allow entry

for

inspection

o Most country

ensures that the

vessel is on the regional

vessel list of the WCPFC

and FFA, and not on

IUU list,.

3

o No establish

criteria are

used to decide vessel

entry for inspection.

Decision are solely

base if vessel are

license or not or on

the regional list.

3

Creates gaps and

existing regional

tools not used to

the maximum, to

determine the level

of inspection on

vessels that are

allowed in port.

Minimum

inspection

procedures

o Countries have

their own

specific criteria for

inspection

1

o Boarding and

inspection

procedure CCM exist

for at sea in section

but not port inspection

or other establish

regional requirement.

3

No uniform

procedure for PSM,

compared to at sea

surveillance and

observer

programmes.

Minimum

standards for

results of

inspection

o Inspection

results are

generally

kept for national use

except in event of what

may be considered as

serious IUU activities

transmitted to the FFA.

1

o Full result of

inspection not

being transmitted to

regional organization

of flag state of vessel

or FAO.

3

No requirement to

report to WCPFC

and/or existing

PSM or boarding

and inspection

procedure in port,

similar to CMM

for the high seas,

creates a gap in

information




exchange and

possible listing of

IUU vessel.

Denial of

port use

where

reasonable

grounds to

believe there

was IUU

fishing

o Applicable

where vessel

have

been listed on IUU list.

2

o No such

action have

ever

been taken in the

region based on

reasonable grounds to

believe there was IUU

fishing after port

inspection. Despite

some cases whereby

NGOs have provided

information of

Possible IUU

activities.

3

Possible indication

of weak PSM given

reports and concern

of illegal

transshipment and

possible illegal

fishing

Exchange of

information

o Databases for

results of port

inspections are being

developed by FFA as

part of their existing

regional databases for


Specific training being

currently undertaken.

Data on infraction use to

determine good standing

vessel list.. but not all

infraction are transmitted

to the FFA.

3

o No obligation

to exchange

port state inspection

information to

WCPFC.

No information are

being exchange with

flag state

3

No requirement to

report to WCPFC

and/or existing

PSM or boarding

and inspection

procedure in port,

similar to such

CMM for the high

seas, creates a gap

in information

exchange and

possible listing of

IUU vessel

10 20




ANNEX 2

PROS AND CONS

WHETHER COUNTRIES IN THE REGION SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE 2009 FAO AGREEMENT AS A MINIMUM STANDARD

It is considered that wholesale importation of the FAO Agreement into a CMM measure would not be useful for the region to consider – and would be

counterproductive in view of consideration over the past three years of the possibility of such action in the WCPFC, TCC and 2010 FFA Workshop. There are

a number of reasons for this, referenced in the text to this document. One of the most important reasons is the importance of ensuring traction and

implementation by assuring adequate human and institutional capacity and integration with existing MCS tools.

Key measures for initial consideration, as noted in the text, are shown below.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

(a) (a)

Agreement

on level and

priority for

inspections24

Ensure the inspection of

vessels suspected of IUU

fishing or that have not act in

compliance with CMMs.

Would apply to both licensed

and unlicensed vessels. The

following minimum standards

(PSMA Article 12.3) are

straightforward and can serve

as a priority for inspections:

vessels already denied

entry or use of a port by a

WCPFC Member;

requests from other

WCPFC Members or

WCPFC;

where there are clear

grounds for suspecting

that the vessel has

engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities.

A level should be set that

A level for inspections

may be too high for

available capacity in

Pacific Island

developing States.

Initiative to

develop dock

side inspection

training but

does not

address these

requirement

fully.

1.Monitor

landings of p/s

at non-

CCMPorts

(CMM09-10)

2. List of IUU

Vessels

(CMM 10-06);

No

Could include as priorities the

criteria in Article 12.3 of the

Agreement as well as :

inspection of vessels that are

in violation of CMMs (e.g.

use of VMS);

vessels not in good standing

on the FFA Regional Register

that have been allowed entry

into port.

Levels of inspection may be

reviewed periodically and be

expanded as human (trained

inspectors) and institutional

(cooperation among agencies)

capacity increases.

To ensure adequate human

capacity, a study should be carried

out to estimate the needs, make

recommendations, set out a cost-

benefit analysis and identify

funding.

24

PSMA Article 13.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

correlates with the capacity for

inspection in countries and the

region.

This could be similar to the

approach used for observers,

e.g. the HMTCs provide in

section 8 that “Each licensing

member shall make every

effort to achieve twenty (20)

per cent observer

coverage….”

Each WCPFC member could be

required to make every effort to

achieve a certain level of

inspections of vessels (licensed

and unlicensed).

(b) (b)

Minimum

harmonized

information

needed for a

request to

enter port25

Port entry information

requirements exist but are not

currently harmonized in the

region, except only partially

for pre-fishing inspections.

The information already

required may be quite weak

for purposes of regional MCS

and compliance.

Harmonized minimum

information standards could

be adapted to relevant regional

requirements, e.g. FFA and

National requirements

vary; may need to

amend national

legislation, procedures

and databases to

implement regional

standards.

HMTC

Section 16,

Annex 6, para

1 requires

information at

least 24 hours

before

entering port,

on --

authorization

to fish,

details of

fishing trip,

quantities of

fish on board.

Partially.

HMTCs

provided

for pre-

fishing

inspection

and

members

must

ensure

vessels

comply.

Implement

As a start, the HMTCs could be

expanded, building upon existing

provisions and Annex A of the

PSMA for basic port entry

information.

Countries could use this as a basis

for their decision to allow entry

and/or require inspection upon

entry.

As appropriate, the port State

could pass relevant information to

FIMS as its port database is

developed.

25

PMSA Article 8 and Annex A.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

WCPFC VMS and observer

requirements, and provide

fuller data to existing systems.

Minimum standards would

give inspecting officer the

necessary information on

vessels and intended activities

to be carried out in port, plus

allow authorities to decide if

vessels should be allowed into

port and/or the use of port.

ation of

actual

complianc

e in law

and

practice is

not

assessed.

.

(c) (c)

Authoriza-

tion to enter

port required

to be issued

and

presented

upon

arrival26

This would reinforce the

practice of most countries to

authorize the vessel to enter

port. However, it is not

always the fisheries agency

that is responsible for the

authorization.

It would require cooperation

among authorities (e.g.

fisheries authority, ports

authority) so that an IUU

vessel is not let in to port

inadvertently by an agency not

Would need to amend

national legislation,

procedures and

databases, and ensure

interagency

cooperation.

N/A N/A

Partially at

national

level

No

standards

or

harmoni-

zation, no

criteria to

deny

authoriza-

tion

Systems and mechanisms for

authorizing vessel entry into port

vary among countries, so there

should be some flexibility for this.

At national level, offences could

be created for vessels that enter

port without an authorization (if

this is not already the case) and

for any person who supplies such

vessels, assists with landings and

transhipment etc.

At regional level, requirements to

26

PSMA Article 9.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

familiar with fisheries.

This is related to a PSM

requiring denial of entry into

port where there is sufficient

proof of IUU fishing; such a

vessel should not be allowed

to enter port or, if so, solely

for purposes of inspection.

In the region, decisions to

allow a vessel to enter port are

often solely based on whether

the vessel has a license and on

the FFA Regional Register.

Requirements for the issuance

and production of an

authorization by the vessel

upon entry would benefit the

coastal State by deterring

authorization of vessels that

may be associated with IUU

fishing or related activities.

notify FFA and/or WCPFC of a

vessel’s unauthorized entry into

port could be required and trigger

sanctions to be agreed.

This measure is linked to criteria

for denial of entry and use of port.

(d) (d) Criteria

for (manda-

tory) denial

of use of port

Criteria for denial of use of

port to a vessel that has

entered port, but not yet been

inspected, include the

Would need to amend

national regulations,

procedures and

databases.

WCPFC

Convention

Article 27 (3):

Members...

No

Consideration should be given to

denial of use of port generally

(e.g. mandatory, discretionary

under certain circumstances where




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

without

inspection27

following under the FAO

Agreement. For reasons

described below they may be

beneficial to FFA Members.

Use of port may be denied

where:

the vessel does not have

an authorization required

by the flag State or

coastal State;

there is clear evidence

that the vessel

contravened requirements

of another coastal State

(or WCPFC Member);

the flag State does not

confirm within a

reasonable time that the

fish on board was caught

legally;

there are reasonable

grounds to believe that

the vessel was otherwise

engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities

Denial of use of port

would not be profitable

for locally-based

industries involved in

transhipping, landing

and servicing vessels.

may adopt

regulations …

to prohibit

landings and

transhipments

where…the

catch has been

taken in a

manner which

undermines

the

effectiveness

of CMMs…

other sanctions may apply etc) and

to the specific port services to be

denied.

27

PSMA Article 11.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

This will deter vessels from

fishing without a license or

authorization and violating the

laws of one coastal State and

hoping to avoid consequences

by calling into a port of

another.

It would be a financial

constraint for shore-based

industries that supply the

vessels and are involved in

transhipment and landings, but

harmonization would level the

playing field.

It will also support flag State

responsibility and deter IUU

activity for fishing or related

activities generally.

(e) (e) Conduct

of

inspections28

The PSMA minimum

standards include the use of

qualified inspectors and

describe procedures that

should be undertaken. This

Training and capacity

development are

needed.

FFA

recently

develop a

dockside

inspection

WCPFC

Convention

Art. 27(2).

Whenever a

fishing vessel

No

Inspections

at national

It is clear that the WCPFC

Convention recognizes the right to

inspect as well as the sovereignty

of coastal States.

28

PSMA Article 13 and Annex B.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

ensures the consistency and

professionalism of

inspections.

There is currently no

harmonized procedure for

inspection, compared to at-sea

boarding and inspection

(WCPFC) and observer

programmes.

Practice in countries diverges

widely and this would likely

raise the standard in most

countries.

Port inspections are different

from dockside monitoring, but

this is not widely recognized.

Consequently, there is a

mistaken sense among many

that monitoring programmes

are sufficient.

Harmonized standards would

ensure an appreciation of the

different nature of each, and

implementation of a strong

compliance tool.

module for

port

inspection and

training of

FFA member

personnel will

be undertaken

of a

Member…

voluntarily

enters a port…

of another

member, the

port State

may, inter alia,

inspect

documents,

fishing gear

and catch on

board such

fishing vessel.

27(4) 4.

Nothing in this

article affects

the exercise by

Contracting

Parties of their

sovereignty

over ports in

their territory

in accordance

with

international

law.

level, in

some

countries

no written

procedures

or

standards.

Harmoniz-

ed inspec-

tion

procedures

with

minimum

standards

have not

been

considered.

Procedures for strengthening and

harmonizing inspection could be

considered, taking into account

the minimum standards in the

PSMA.

This would not have legal

implications, so should not be in

the form of a CMM.

Procedures to meet the needs of

the region could be developed

through a technical workshop.

Training courses could be

developed, along the lines of those

for observers.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

All vessel will undergo same

harmonized inspection format,

and inspection will no longer

be a deterent for vessel to use

a particular port for

transhipment. Or other

purposes.

(f) (f) Reports

of

inspections29

A harmonized reporting

system with minimum

standards gives better control

over monitoring catches and

transhipment, allows WCPFC

to check conditions on boats,

monitor who is on board and

what is happening, in a real

sense.

The PSMA minimum

standards include information

regarding authorizations for

fishing, transhipment,

evaluation of offloaded catch,

catch retained onboard,

logbooks, trade information

schemes and gear.

Although information

on reports of

inspections could be

sent to a common

database, this could be

a disadvantage for the

inspecting State at least

in initial stages of the

system.

In addition, a timeline

for reporting would be

unrealistic.

It would result in

information overload

for countries and a

regional database, and

subject an in-country

Measures for

ROP and High

seas

transhipment

requires

information to

be shared

through the

existing

system. Same

can be use for

PSM

inspection

report.

No A harmonized form for reports of

inspections could be developed,

through FFA and/or WCPFC, and

criteria agreed for requirements

for provision of the reports to a

central database, including the

time requirements. These should

be introduced at a practical level

and as appropriate reviewed in

future for further development.

29

PSMA Article 14 and Annex C.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

It is beneficial to countries to

check, at a minimum, the

loadings, transhipment and

catch documentation for

purposes of analysis, e.g. by

SPC and others.

process to external

scrutiny and pressures

that it would be

unlikely to fulfil.

(g) (g) Denial of

port use after

inspection30

The PSMA requires denial of

port use where, after

inspection, there are clear

grounds for believing that

IUU fishing or related

activities have taken place.

There are notification

requirements, e.g. to the flag

State, relevant coastal State,

RFMO etc.

No such action has ever

been taken in the region based

on reasonable grounds, despite

some cases where NGOs have

provided information of

possible IUU fishing

activities.

Denial of use of port

would not be profitable

for locally-based

industries involved in

transhipping, landing

and servicing vessels.

WCPFC

Convention

Article 27 (3):

Members...

may adopt

regulations …

to prohibit

landings and

transhipments

where…the

catch has been

taken in a

manner which

undermines

the

effectiveness

of CMMs…

No

Consideration could be given to

denial of use of port as a

mandatory or discretionary power

and to the specific port services to

be denied.

In addition to denial of port to

vessels, legislation could create an

offence for persons who supply

and otherwise support vessels that

have been denied the use of port.

(h) (h)

Notification

Existing regional information

systems at FFA and WCPFC

FFA is

working on

The

TUFMAN No

WCPFC may consider developing

a database to cater to information

30

PSMA Article 18.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

and exchange

of

information31

do not include information or

data on port inspections,

which would be useful in

combating IUU fishing.

The standards in the PSMA

include general cooperation

and exchange of information

(Article 6) and establishment

of information systems

(Article 16 addresses

electronic exchange of

information, and Annex D

refers to computerized

communication, websites to

publicize designated ports and

actions taken and

identification of each

inspection report by a unique

reference number and using a

certain international coding

system).

including

information on

port

inspections in

the RIMF.

This will be

useful for

future PSM

information

exchange

needs.

format in

place can be

used for

information

exchange

requirements Members may agree

through adoption of a CMM.

(i) (i) Duty of

flag States32

No

(j) (j)

Assistance to

The PSMA requires

establishment of a fund to

Funds? WCPFC Partially

Efforts could be made through

FFA and WCPFC to identify

31

PSMA Articles 6 and 15. 32

PSMA Article 20.




PRO

CON

RELEVANT MEASURE

IMPLEMENTATION

FFA WCPFC

NOW

IMPLE-

MENT-

ED

OPTIONS

developing

States33

assist developing State parties

implement the agreement,

including in developing PSM,

capacity, MCS activities and

settlement of disputes.

However countries must be

party to access the funds.

Regional funds may be

available.

Convention

Article 30(3),

funding for specified needs – e.g.

capacity development, legislative

and procedural review,

information systems.

33

PSMA Article 21.




6.6.2 Guidelines for implementing port State measures in the region

There are few national legal or policy documents that establish port State measures to be implemented,

and of those only a few of the key measures in the PSMA are addressed. An analysis of national laws

in the Strategy paper shows in the matrix that countries generally have port entry notification

requirements and some procedures for inspection, but the latter is geared towards inspection for

scientific purposes and not necessarily to detect IUU fishing. This latter fact is supported by the one-

page inspection forms used by some countries and the fact that there is no or little capacity at port to

conduct thorough inspections.

Regional fisheries instruments also do not generally address port State measures, except for IUU

vessels in the case of WCPFC and a general duty to take measures under the HMTCs. A table is set

out below, showing that the regional instruments only partially address key measures in the PSMA.

Similarly, regional MCS tools such as databases and information exchange systems do not include

information about port State inspections and measures. It is noted that the database under the Asia-

PacificTokyo MOU for merchant vessels includes information on the inspections in the last ten ports

to which the vessel called, but there is nothing similar for fisheries.

To fill this gap, and permit a better understanding of what is needed to implement port State measures,

a checklist of operational actions to take is included below. It elaborates the list prepared by Judith

Swan for a FAO publication.34

Other checklists in that publication relate to guidelines for

institutional and legal/policy measures and actions, and are applicable to theWCPO region.

The ToRs did not ask for guidelines for agreeing on port State measures. This is equally important,

and should be done through a regional process involving, for example, development by FFA and

endorsement by FFC. Various existing instruments and national legislation could be strengthened as

indicated in the Strategy paper, as well as databases and information systems. Once this is achieved,

Standard Operating Procedures should be developed, and capacity of people and institutions

strengthened. Interagency cooperation should be put on a strong foundation, such as an MOU and

donor assistance should be identified for the foregoing.

34

Doulman, D.J. and Swan, J., A guide to the background and implementation of the 2009 FAO Agreement on

Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO. 2012. 165 pp.






REGIONAL AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS

PORT STATE MEASURES REQUIREMENTS

Measure

Applicability

Port entry

Designation -

Requirements

Denial of use of port Inspection

Transmittal of

inspection

results

Implementation Other

HMTCs Tuna fishing

and tuna fishing

support vessels

Authorized or

unauthorized to

fish in EEZs

Boarding and

inspection of

documentation

Members shall

take measures

through national

legislation to

exercise powers

of port State over

fishing vessels in

their ports

Other

measures

necessary for

conservation

and

management

of fish stocks




Measure

Applicability

Port entry

Designation -

Requirements


Transmittal of

inspection

results


WCPFC

Convention

(Article 27)

Fishing,

landings and

transhipment

Fishing vessels

(“fishing

vessel” means

any vessel used

or intended for

use for the

purpose of

fishing,

including

support ships,

carrier vessels

and any other

vessel directly

involved in

such fishing

operations.)

3. Members of the

Commission may

adopt regulations

empowering the

relevant national

authorities

to prohibit landings

and transhipments

where it has been

established that the

catch has been taken

in a manner which

undermines the

effectiveness of

CMMs adopted by the

Commission.

2. Whenever a

fishing vessel of

a member of the

Commission

voluntarily enters

a port or offshore

terminal of

another member,

the port State

may, inter alia,

inspect

documents,

fishing gear and

catch on board

such

fishing vessel.

1. Port States

have the right

and duty to take

measures… to

promote the

effectiveness of

subregional,

regional and

global CMMs.

4. Nothing in this

article affects the

exercise by

Contracting

Parties of their

sovereignty over

ports in

their territory in

accordance with

international law.

WCPFC

CMM 2010-

06

to establish a

List of

Vessels

Fishing vessels,

support vessels,

mother ships or

cargo vessels,

and vessels on

the WCPFC

22. CCMs shall take

all necessary non-

discriminatory

measures under their

applicable legislation,

international law and




Measure

Applicability

Port entry

Designation -

Requirements


Transmittal of

inspection

results


presumed to

have carried

out IUU

fishing

activities in

the WCPO

IUU Vessel List each CCMs’

international

obligations, and

pursuant to paras 56

and 66 of the IPOA-

IUU to:

a. ensure that fishing

vessels, support

vessels, mother ships

or cargo vessels flying

their flag do not

participate in any

transshipment or joint

fishing operations

with, support or re-

supply vessels on the

WCPFC IUU Vessel

List;

b. ensure that vessels

on the WCPFC IUU

Vessel List that enter

ports voluntarily are

not authorized to land,

tranship, refuel or re-

supply therein but are

inspected upon entry;

WCPFC 5. A CCM may




Measure

Applicability

Port entry

Designation -

Requirements


Transmittal of

inspection

results


CMM 2009-

06

Regulation of

Transhipment

notify the

Executive

Director of its

designated port

or ports for

transhipment.

The Executive

Director shall

circulate

periodically to

all members a

list of such

designated

ports. “Port”

includes

offshore

terminals and

other

installations for

landing,

transhipping,

processing,

refuelling or

resupplying.




CHECKLISTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PORT STATE MEASURES AGREEMENT

OPERATIONAL CHECKLIST

Introduction

This checklist describes procedures that should be established for the effective operational implementation of PSMA minimum standards. The procedures for

subregional or regional organizations and countries will depend, to a great extent, on the regional requirements and those in each country’s law, policy,

institutional arrangements and human capacity. The checklist is presented as a framework of procedures that should be considered and details can be tailored

to meet the situation of each country.

Article Title

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1 Use of Terms Ensure operational understanding of key terms defined in the law.

3 Application Establish procedures to:

determine whether vessels flagged by other Parties are authorized by the relevant Party to fish beyond areas of

national jurisdiction;

establish whether container vessels are not carrying fish, or, if carrying fish, are carrying only fish that have

previously been landed; and

establish whether fishing have taken place in accordance with existing relevant RFMO’s CMMs

establish whether IUU fishing or related activities have been conducted in marine areas.

Establish procedures and responsibility for:

ensuring that the Agreement is applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, consistent with

international law; and

encouraging all other entities to apply measures consistent with the provisions of the Agreement.




Article Title

5 Integration

and

coordination

at the

national level

Establish procedures:

that specify the roles, responsibilities, coordination and communication among government agencies, taking into

account legal requirements; and

for inter-agency collection, maintenance and dissemination of information and data, taking into account the need to

promote the exchange of information.

Establish and maintain up-to-date integrated databases, as appropriate.

6 Cooperation

and

exchange of

information

Establish procedures that will support conservation and management measures taken by other States and international

organizations, including:

exchange of information with relevant States/FAO/international organizations/RFMOs, including information on

such measures; and

procedures for cooperation through regional, sub-regional and international organizations.

PART 2 ENTRY INTO PORT

7 Designation

of ports

Ensure that procedures are in place for:

the provision of a list of designated ports to FAO; and

providing for sufficient capacity to conduct inspections at all designated ports e.g., through deployment of trained

workers.

8 Advance

request for

port entry

Ensure that procedures are in place:

so that, once the vessel provides the required advance information, it can be processed and a decision can be made

prior to the vessel’s arrival;

in case of denial of entry into port, to prevent the vessel from entering port or, if it does enter port, to take the

necessary action against the vessel;

to address situations where a vessel is permitted entry-

for the purpose of rendering assistance to a vessel or person in danger for reasons of force majeure or distress;




Article Title

o to allow, where appropriate, for the scrapping of the vessel; or

o for inspection or other enforcement action;

to notify a decision to deny entry to the flag State and, as appropriate, to relevant coastal States, RFMOs and other

international organizations.

9 Port entry,

authoriza-

tion and

denial

Ensure that procedures are in place, prior to the entry of a vessel into port, to:

authorize a vessel to enter port;

communicate to the vessel or its representative the decision to authorize entry into port;

issue an authorization for the vessel to present upon entry into port;

receive and review the authorization once the vessel enters port, and notify authorities of any irregularities or

illegalities;

communicate the denial of entry into port to the vessel or its representative;

communicate the decision to deny entry to the flag State of the vessel and, as appropriate and to the extent possible,

relevant coastal States, regional fisheries management organizations and other international organizations;

where a vessel that has been denied entry into port, or has been permitted to enter only for purposes of inspection-

o as directed, take actions at least as effective as denial of port entry in combating IUU fishing and related

activities;

o deny the use of the port for landing, transshipping, packaging, and processing of fish and for other port

services including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking;

communicate the decision to deny the use of port to relevant persons (natural or legal) and/or organizations in order

that they do not allow or participate in such use; and

take enforcement action against vessels, persons or organizations that use, or allow to be used, ports where such use

has been denied.

10 Force

majeure or

distress

Ensure that procedures are in place for:

decision-making and communication of a decision to allow vessels to enter port for reasons of force majeure or

distress;

communication to relevant persons (natural or legal) and/or organizations that such vessels may only receive the




Article Title

relevant assistance and are not allowed other uses of the port; and

ensuring that the vessel does not use the port except to receive the relevant assistance.

PART 3 USE OF PORTS

11 Use of ports Ensure that procedures are in place, after a vessel has entered port, to:

decide on the denial of the use of the port for landing, transshipping, packaging, and processing of fish and for other

port services including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking;

communicate the decision to deny the use of port to relevant persons (natural or legal) and/or organizations in order

that they do not allow or participate in such use;

take enforcement action against vessels, persons or organizations that use, or allow to be used, ports where such use

has been denied; and

notify the denial of port services (and if relevant the subsequent withdrawal of such denial) to the flag State and, as

appropriate, relevant coastal States, RFMOs and international organizations;

PART 4 INSPECTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

12 Levels and

priorities for

inspection

Procedures should operationalize decisions taken regarding the level of, and priorities for, inspections.

13 Conduct of

inspections

Procedures should ensure that, as a minimum standard:

inspectors carry out the functions set out in Annex B of the Agreement;

inspections are carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 13(2) of the Agreement;

inspections ensure that the fish on board has been caught in accordance with relevant RFMO CMMs; and

inspections are carried out in conformity with other relevant national and regional requirements.

14 Results of

inspections

Procedures should ensure that information set out in Annex C of the Agreement is included in the written report of the

results of each inspection, and/or any other requirement of regional organizations or national authorities.




Article Title

15 Transmittal

of inspection

results

Procedures should ensure that the results of an inspection are transmitted to the flag State of the inspected vessel and as

appropriate to:

relevant Parties and States, including relevant coastal States where IUU fishing or related activities may have

occurred and the State of which the vessel’s master is a national;

relevant RFMOs and regional organizations; and

FAO and other relevant international organizations.

16 Electronic

exchange of

information

A communication mechanism should be established that allows for direct electronic exchange of information, with due

regard to appropriate confidentiality requirements.

A contact point for the exchange of information under the Agreement should be operationalized, and an official list

drawn up of contacts in other government agencies, States, RFMOs and FAO.

Develop a protocol for the direct exchange of information, taking into account the need to:

handle information to be transmitted through the communication mechanism that is consistent with Annex D of the

Agreement; and

facilitate the exchange of information with existing databases relevant to the Agreement at national, regional and

international levels.

17 Training of

inspectors

The Guidelines for the training of inspectors in Annex E of the Agreement should be taken into account in relation to

training.

Cooperation among States and with RFMOs should be encouraged to promote the training of inspectors.

18 Port State

actions

following

inspections

Procedures should include:

the action to be taken under the law where it is believed that the vessel has engaged in IUU fishing sufficient

grounds have been established;




Article Title

notification of the flag State, and, as appropriate, relevant coastal States, RFMOs and other international

organizations, and the nation of which the vessel’s master is national;

as appropriate, requesting the flag State to consent to specified enforcement measures; and

denial of the use of port services.

PART 5 ROLE OF FLAG STATES

19 Role of flag

States

Procedures should be developed in respect of flag State Parties for:

requesting the port State to inspect flag vessels where there are clear grounds to believe that IUU fishing or related

activities had taken place;

encouraging flag vessels to use ports that act in accordance with or in a manner consistent with the Agreement;

the immediate and full investigation of port inspection reports of flag vessels showing clear grounds to believe IUU

fishing or related activities had taken place, and upon sufficient evidence the taking of enforcement action without

delay in accordance with applicable laws;

reporting to Parties and others on actions it has taken in respect of its vessels determined to have engaged in IUU

fishing or related activities.

PART 8 NON-PARTIES

Article

23

Non-parties

to this

Agreement

Procedures could be developed to implement measures specified by law or policy that are fair, non-discriminatory and

transparent consistent with the Agreement and other applicable international law to deter the activities of non-Parties

which undermine the effective implementation of the Agreement.




LEGAL CHECKLIST

Implementation of the Agreement under national law may be done in different ways, including by adoption of a new law, or amendment of existing fisheries

laws and regulations. This checklist may be used for either of these options as appropriate, but is based on the requirements for a complete new law to

implement the 2009 Port State Measures Agreement.

The checklist shows “required” and “optional” provisions that should be considered for implementation. Required provisions are mandatory obligations under

the Agreement. Optional provisions are those which are discretionary, or those which could be covered by official procedures.

The checklist has two sections.

The first section describes the relevant Article/provision of the Agreement and the obligations that are required to be implemented in national law. In

addition, it describes provisions that are optional – they may or may not be appropriate to include in the law, depending on existing national laws,

procedures, practices or arrangements.

The second section describes general provisions that do not appear as obligations in the Agreement, but should be considered if a separate implementing

law is enacted or if they do not appear in national legislation. These provisions would be necessary for administering or enforcing the Agreement.

The designation of an official authority with responsibilities to implement the law varies from country to country, for example, Permanent Secretary,

Secretary, Deputy Minister or some functions could be at the Ministerial level. The checklist refers generically in this context to “official authority”.

ARTICLE TITLE REQUIRED OPTIONAL

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1 Use of

Terms

Ensure conformity between legal definitions in national law and

Agreement and the definition of key terms used in implementation but

not defined in the Agreement, in particular for the following terms:

conservation and management measures

FAO 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures

fish





fishing related activities

foreign vessel

illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

landing

listed IUU fishing vessel

Party

port

processing

regional fisheries management organization

vessel

2 Objective Ensure that the purpose of the law reflects the objective of the

Agreement, for example by defining that the purpose of the law is to

implement the Agreement.

3 Application Ensure that the law applies to:

vessels, other than vessels of (country), seeking entry into, or in, a

port subject to the jurisdiction of (country) except for container

vessels that are not carrying fish or, if carrying fish, are carrying only

fish that have previously been landed provided that the (designation of

responsible authority/official) has no clear grounds for suspecting that

such container vessel has been engaged in IUU fishing or fishing

related activities in support of such fishing;

vessels of the (country) seeking entry into, or in, a port subject to the

jurisdiction of another Party to the Agreement; and

persons subject to the jurisdiction of (country).

Should ensure that national vessels are

required by law to hold authorizations

to fish beyond areas of national

jurisdiction.

May exclude vessels of a

neighbouring State that are engaged in

artisanal fishing for subsistence,

provided that the port State and the

flag State cooperate to ensure that

such vessels do not engage in IUU

fishing or fishing related activities in

support of such fishing.

May decide not to apply this

Agreement to vessels chartered by its





nationals exclusively for fishing in

areas under its national jurisdiction

and operating under its authority

therein. Such vessels must be subject

to measures which are as effective as

measures applied in relation to vessels

entitled to fly its flag.

5 Integration

and

coordinatio

n at the

national

level

Depending on national integration and

coordination arrangements:

cross-authorization of inspecting

officers may be required in the law,

e.g. authorizing as fisheries inspectors

persons who are authorized to carry

out similar functions in respect of

other sectors;

MoUs or other formal arrangement

between government agencies may be

concluded;

Protocols establishing inter-agency

systems for information collection,

maintenance and dissemination,

including confidentiality, may be

established.

6 Cooperatio

n and

exchange of

information

Ensure that the law:

underpins confidentiality requirements, as appropriate, for

information obtained pursuant to the law;

Establish legal measures that support

conservation and management

measures adopted by other States and

relevant international organizations





designates an official authority responsible for making determinations

and notifications to countries and international organizations

necessary to carry out the purposes of the Agreement and the law.

(e.g. Lacey Act).

PART 2 ENTRY INTO PORT

7 Designation

of ports

Ensure that:

the law designates the ports that may be used by foreign vessels, or

provide a mechanism for designation (e.g. by Order, by Notice in the

Gazette, by designating an official authority with power to designate

and publicize the ports);

an official authority is identified who is required to provide a list of

designated ports to FAO;

deterrent penalty levels apply to vessels that use a non-designated

port.

8 Advance

request for

port entry


requires each vessel to provide, as a minimum, operating information

required under Annex A of the Agreement no less than xx hours prior

to entry into port;

designates an authority with decision-making power to deny or permit

entry;

requires denial of port entry for listed IUU vessels and any vessel

where there are reasonable grounds to believe it has engaged in IUU

fishing or fishing related activities in support of such fishing;

Empower official authorities (e.g.

Secretary of fisheries in consultation with

other specified government enforcement

agencies) to promulgate regulations to

establish a procedure for requiring, at a

minimum, advance information required

under the Agreement, in order to

sufficiently consider such information in

advance of the vessel’s arrival.





Notwithstanding the above, gives discretion to the authority to allow a

vessel entry into port:

o for the purpose of rendering assistance to a vessel or person in

danger or distress;

o to allow, where appropriate, for the scrapping of the vessel; or

o for inspection or other enforcement action;

requires an official authority to notify a decision to deny entry to the

flag State and, as appropriate, to relevant coastal States, RFMOs and

other international organizations.

9 Port entry,

authoriza-

tion and

denial

The law should ensure that the master of the vessel or the vessel’s

representative is required to present the authorization for entry to the

competent authorities upon the vessel’s arrival at port.

Provide a process for authorizing a vessel

to enter port and issuing an authorization

for the vessel to present upon entry into

port.

10 Force

majeure or

distress

The law should designate an authority with the power to decide whether

to allow vessels to enter port for reasons of force majeure or distress and

a requirement that such entry is exclusively for rendering assistance.

PART 3 USE OF PORTS

11 Use of

ports


requires the denial of port services (the use of the port for landing,

transhipment, packaging and processing of fish, refuelling,

resupplying, maintenance and drydocking) to vessels:

o where the vessel has entered without authorization required

pursuant to (Article 9); and

o for reasons set out in Article 11 (1)(a)–(e) of the Agreement;

Empowers the authority to allow the use of port services for reasons





described in Article 11(2) of the Agreement;

Requires the authority to provide notification of a decision to deny the

use of port services to the flag State and, as appropriate, relevant

coastal States, RFMOs and international organizations;

Requires that denial must be withdrawn only if there is a

determination by a designated authority that there was sufficient proof

that the grounds on which the use of port services were denied were

inadequate, erroneous or no longer apply. The authority must

promptly provide notification of such withdrawal to all persons

notified of the denial.

PART 4 INSPECTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

12 Levels and

priorities

for

inspection

Ensure that the legislation empowers the relevant official

authority/authorities (e.g. Secretaries of fisheries and Coast Guard) to:

conduct such inspections as are necessary to achieve the purposes of

the Agreement and the law;

prioritize inspections in accordance with Article 12(3) of the

Agreement, including giving priority to:

o vessels that have been denied entry or use of a port in

accordance with the Agreement;

o requests from other relevant Parties, States or RFMOs that

particular vessels be inspected, particularly where such requests

are supported by evidence of IUU fishing or fishing related

activities in support of such fishing by the vessel in question;

and

o other vessels for which there are clear grounds for suspecting

that they have engaged in IUU fishing or fishing related

activities in support of such fishing.





13 Conduct of

inspections

The law may require that the procedures

for the conduct of inspections shall have

regard to the requirements of Article 13

of the Agreement.

14 Results of

inspections The law should, as a minimum standard, require that information set

out in Annex C of the Agreement is included in the written report of

the results of each inspection.

15 Transmittal

of

inspection

results

The law should require the official authority to transmit the results of an

inspection carried out pursuant to the law to the flag State of the

inspected vessel and as appropriate to:

relevant Parties and States, including relevant coastal States and the

State of which the vessel’s master is a national’;

relevant RFMOs, including FFA and WCPFC; and

FAO and other relevant international organizations.

16 Electronic

exchange of

information

The law should:

authorize the official authority to designate a contact point for the

exchange of information under the Agreement, and notify FAO of

such designation; and

empower the official authority to cooperate in efforts to establish an

information-sharing mechanism and facilitate the exchange of

information with existing databases relevant to the Agreement.

The law may require that information to

be transmitted through any mechanism

established under 16 (1) should be

handled consistently with Annex D of the

Agreement.

17 Training of

inspectors

The law may require that, in setting

requirements for the training of

inspectors, the Guidelines in Annex E of

the Agreement should be taken into

account.

18 Port State

actions

The law should provide that:

The law may provide that other measures

may be taken in conformity with





following

inspections if, following an inspection, the official authority has reasonable/clear

grounds to believe that a foreign vessel has engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities in support of such fishing, the Secretary may

take enforcement action under this law or other applicable law and

shall:

o acting through (foreign affairs authority), promptly notify the

flag State and, as appropriate, relevant coastal States, RFMOs

and other international organizations, and the nation of which

the vessel’s master is national; and

o deny the vessel the use of port services, in accordance with the

provision of Law that implements Article 11.

international law, including those

requested or consented to by a flag State,

and may specify (inter alia) certain

measures.

PART 5 ROLE OF FLAG STATES

19 Role of flag

States

The law should require:

their flag vessels to cooperate with the port State authorities of

another Party in inspections carried out pursuant to the Agreement;

that measures applied to its flag vessels are at least as effective as

those applied to foreign vessels.

The law may require procedures to be

developed and published for :

requesting the port State to inspect

flag vessels where there are clear

grounds to believe that IUU fishing or

related activities had taken place;

encouraging flag vessels to use ports

that act in accordance with or in a

manner consistent with the

Agreement;

the immediate and full investigation of

port inspection reports of their vessels

showing clear grounds to believe IUU





fishing or related activities had taken

place, and upon sufficient evidence the

taking of enforcement action without

delay in accordance with applicable

laws;

reporting to Parties and others on

actions it has taken in respect of its

vessels determined to have engaged in

IUU fishing or related activities.

PART 8 NON-PARTIES

Article 23 Non-parties

to this

Agreement

Identify fair, non-discriminatory and

transparent measures consistent

with the Agreement and other applicable

international law that may be taken to

deter the activities of non-Parties which

undermine the effective implementation

of the Agreement.




6.6.3 Strategies


PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PORT STATE MEASURES

1. Introduction

The object of this document is to provide guidance to Pacific ACP States on measures and actions to

undertake to ensure that port State measures are developed taking into account existing regional and

sub-regional instruments and institutions, needs for strengthening national legislation,

information/databases, capacity and training, available assistance, and the development of a WCPFC

port State measures scheme, and that the measures enhance proper management of the regional tuna

fisheries and maximizes benefits to the peoples of the Pacific.

A strategic approach to considering and adopting minimum standards for port State measures in the

region is set out below. It is structured to address:

sovereignty issues

legal considerations

MCS considerations

interagency cooperation at national and regional levels;

human and institutional capacity

training

assistance

development of a WCPFC port State measures scheme

The 85th Session of the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC) held in May, 2013 agreed that the subject of

port State measures was a priority issue that should be discussed at the next Session of WCPFC. A

CMM had been proposed by the EU in each of the past three Sessions, but not accepted by the Pacific

Island countries for a range of reasons, including the complexity, need for a gaps analysis and more

recently the inadequate lead time for consideration.

Countries are reluctant to agree to a CMM before they either have the understanding, legal authority,

tools and capacity to comply with it, or are able to adopt a strategy to ensure these outcomes. This

was clear from the Experts country missions, as well as the outcomes of the 2010 FFA Regional Port

States Workshop.

In addition to noting the concerns regarding matters listed above, the FFA workshop identified some

positive considerations, including the mechanisms for support in Article 21 of the FAO Agreement,

the need to strengthen national programmes and institutions, standardised reporting forms that make it

easier for national authorities to satisfy obligations and such forms that may be part of the Harmonized

Minimum Terms and Conditions for Fisheries Access (HMTCs).

There are perceptions in the region that existing laws and MCS procedures and arrangements already

address port State measures, and – despite agreement to the contrary in the HMTCs - that licensed

vessels should not be subject to any measures other than the existing dockside inspection. However,

as noted in the “pros and cons” document and below, the existing regional legal measures such as the

HMTCs are generally not implemented and MCS procedures are mainly directed at monitoring (e.g.




dockside inspection for scientific purposes) and do not include minimum standards for reporting and

information. There are no minimum standards agreed in the region.

The strategies proposed take into account the existing situation, and identify gaps and measures that

can be considered for strengthening in the various areas.

2. Sovereignty issues

2.1. Existing concerns

Some concerns about port State sovereignty have been expressed as follows:

Port States have full sovereignty over their ports, and this should not be prejudiced by

obligations to deny entry or use of port to vessels;

Decisions to allow or deny entry to port, or uses of port should be taken according to the

interests of the coastal State, mindful of the impact of denial to the economic benefits of

the port State;

WCPFC focuses on high seas fishing, and application of port State measures to fishing in-

zone and to unlicensed vessels could affect a State’s sovereignty.

Considerations relating to law and practice are presented below that address these concerns.

2.2. Considerations

The following are considered below.

The exercise of sovereignty by a port State has been a consistent and clear concern of the

international community, as shown under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, WCPFC

Convention and FAO Agreement on Port State Measures.

Relevant regional instruments and measures where countries have acknowledged the need

for port State measures include the HMTCs, Niue Agreement and WCPFC CMM 2010-06.

There is international precedent for acceptance of port State measures for merchant vessels,

and cooperation in port enforcement for transnational crime.

2.2.1 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, WCPFC Convention, FAO Agreement

The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and WCPFC Convention each provide for double protection of State

sovereignty. Generally, Article 4 in each provides that nothing in the instrument will prejudice the




rights, jurisdiction and duties of States. More specifically, each provides in another Article35

that a

port State has the right and duty to take measures to promote the effectiveness of CMMs, and that

nothing in the Article affects the exercise by States of the sovereignty over ports in their territory in

accordance with international law.

All Pacific Island Members of WCPFC are party to the Fish Stocks Agreement, except Vanuatu.

The FAO Agreement went further:

1. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of

Parties under international law. In particular, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed

to affect:

(a) the sovereignty of Parties over their internal, archipelagic and territorial

waters or their sovereign rights over their continental shelf and in their

exclusive economic zones;

(b) the exercise by Parties of their sovereignty over ports in their territory in

accordance with international law, including their right to deny entry thereto

as well as to adopt more stringent port State measures than those provided for

in this Agreement, including such measures adopted pursuant to a decision of

a regional fisheries management organization…

4. This Agreement shall be interpreted and applied in conformity with international

law taking into account applicable international rules and standards, including those

established through the International Maritime Organization, as well as other international

instruments.

There is always a balance between preservation of sovereignty and agreement among States on

measures to combat illegal activity. By making an agreement to undertake certain actions, the States

are not affecting their sovereignty.

Should port State measures apply to the entire WCPFC Convention Area, or just high seas? Members

have agreed in Article 3.3 of the Convention that it “applies to all stocks of highly migratory fish

within the Convention Area except sauries. Conservation and management measures under this

Convention must be applied throughout the range of the stocks, or to specific areas within the

Convention Area, as determined by the Commission.” The Convention Area comprises all waters

within specified outer boundaries.

The above show that the exercise of port State measures, which may be harmonized by agreeing on

minimum standards, is in fact an exercise of sovereignty.

35

Article 23 Fish Stocks Agreement, Article 27 WCPFC Convention.




2.2.2 Regional instruments related to port State measures

Countries have already agreed on port State measures in the HMTCs.

Section 11, Application of MTCs in Port, provides that “FFA members shall take measures through

legislation or regulations and in accordance with international law to exercise powers of port State

over fishing vessels in their ports, whether or not they are authorised to fish in those members’ EEZs.

Such measures shall include the power to board fishing vessels and inspect their documentation, and

carry out such other measures necessary for the conservation and management of fish stocks.

Section 16, Pre-Fishing Inspections, requires that “foreign fishing vessels shall not be issued with a

fishing licence unless compulsory pre-fishing inspections are carried out by the licensing member for

purpose of: (a) verifying the catch on board the vessel; and (b) ensuring that the vessel complies with

accepted international pre-fishing practices as described in Annex 6.

Annex 6 contains vessel requirements relating to notification of port entry and prior clearance for

entry. It also introduces criteria directed at inspection by the port State by providing that:

“any fishing vessel that enters the ports of an FFA member country can, and will be subjected to a full

inspection of the vessel, documents, fishing gear, catch and fish in storage prior to it being permitted

to conduct any activities in the ports” and

“In the exercise of their right to inspect fishing vessels that enter their ports, FFA members should

collect the following information and remit it to the flag State and, where appropriate, the relevant

regional fisheries management organization:

(i) the flag State of the vessel and identification details;

(ii) name, nationality, and qualifications of the master and fishing master;

(iii) fishing gear;

(iv) catch on board, including origin, species, form, and quantity; and

(v) where appropriate, other information required by relevant regional fisheries

management organizations or other international agreements; and

(vi) total landed and transshipped catch.”

The above could be used as the basis for elaboration of minimum standards, taking into account the

FAO Agreement.

The Niue Treaty SubsidiaryAgreement (NTSA) was adopted in November, 2012. Seven countries

have signed, and 4 ratifications are needed for it to enter into force. New initiatives were agreed,

including Article 16 on ports and port inspections. It provides that:

1. The Parties may cooperate to enable port inspections and other MCS activities with

respect to fishing to be carried out in their ports, including but not limited to:




(a) a port State carrying out port inspections, monitoring landing or transhipment

operations or undertaking other enforcement activities with respect to fishing vessels

in their ports, at the request of another Party; and

(b) a port State permitting personnel of another Party to conduct port inspections or

monitor landing or transhipment operations of fishing vessels in their ports.

2. To the greatest extent possible, Parties are encouraged to cooperate with respect to

immigration issues relating to personnel on authorised assets of other Parties when such assets

are using their ports or airports to refuel, resupply or conduct repairs related to cooperative

surveillance and enforcement activities under this Agreement.

Exchange of information is currently being done on an ad hoc basis. Not all countries are willing to

share VMS information with others, and prefer to exchange it on an ad hoc basis or with a few select

countries. There are confidentiality issues.

Last year FFC adopted a confidentiality security policy, and FFA Fisheries Operations is in charge of

that policy. Information exchange with agencies is provided, and minimum information which must

be shared is set out, including VMS. There are few mandatory obligations under the Niue Subsidiary

Agreement, this is one of them.

WCPFC CMM 2010-06 to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out IUU fishing

activities in the WCPO provides in section 22 that:

“CCMs shall take all necessary non-discriminatory measures under their applicable

legislation, international law and each CCMs’ international obligations, and pursuant to paras

56 and 66 of the IPOA-IUU to:…b. ensure that vessels on the WCPFC IUU Vessel List that

enter ports voluntarily are not authorized to land, tranship, refuel or re-supply therein but are

inspected upon entry;”

No such measures have been taken to date.

2.2.3 International precedent: merchant vessels, transnational crime

There is longstanding international precedent for taking port State measures for merchant vessels,

including the 1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control and the

regional MOUs established with encouragement of the International Maritime Organization to

promote maritime safety, protect the marine environment and safeguard working and living conditions

on board ships. A number of WCPFC CCMs are party to the Tokyo regional MOU that covers the

Asia-Pacific region.36

36

Parties include Australia, Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New

Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam; Cooperating member

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Australia

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Fiji

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#HongKongChina

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Indonesia

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Japan

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#RepublicofKorea

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#NewZealand

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#NewZealand

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#PapuaNewGuinea

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Philippines

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Thailand

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#Vanuatu

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#VietNam




Another area where international agreement on port control is important relates to combating

transnational crime. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime provides

a tool that facilitates criminal investigations on illegal fishing. Complementing this, INTERPOL has

developed an initiative, Project Scale, to detect, supress and combat fisheries crime, and information

from port State measures would be able to support its objectives. Some of its targets are:

flags of non-compliance (FNOC) and flag brokers;

renaming of vessels;

front companies;

transhipment/fish laundering;

document fraud;

corruption;

disabling VMS/AIS.

A network of national authorities working together at port (e.g. customs. navy, police, fisheries, tax)

can coordinate efforts against IUU fishing on issues such as money laundering, tax evasion, customs,

fraud and other criminal activities associated with illegal fishing.

3. Legal considerations

3.1. Existing regional requirements and gaps

As noted in section 2.2.2 above, the HMTCs and Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement form the basis for

specific requirements for port State measures. There are gaps in many respects.

Gaps in regional agreements and measures

Provision Gaps

HMTC Article 11 FFA Members shall take

measures through legislation or regulations and in

accordance with international law to exercise

powers of port State over fishing vessels in their

ports, whether or not they are authorised to fish in

those members’ EEZs.

This focuses on implementation by

legislation and does not acknowledge that

measures may be taken through

establishment of minimum standards for

procedures, as well as legislation. For

example, the conduct of inspections and


There are no minimum standards for

measures to be taken through legislation or

regulations, such as information requirements

and procedures where there is reason to

suspect IUU fishing.

Authorities include the Marshall Islands and observer authorities include Solomon Islands. See

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/.

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/contact_us.php#MarshallIslands

http://www.tokyo-mou.org/





Provision Gaps

HMTC Section 11

Measures to be taken shall include the power to

board fishing vessels and inspect their

documentation, and carry out such other

measures necessary for the conservation and

management of fish stocks.

The power to board fishing vessels in a port

is already given by international law as a

matter of sovereignty.

Inspection of documentation is a power

already given by international law; standards

should be set to harmonize the documentation

that should/shall be inspected by the port

State.

HMTC Section 16

“foreign fishing vessels shall not be issued with a

fishing licence unless compulsory pre-fishing

inspections are carried out by the licensing

member for purpose of: (a) verifying the catch on

board the vessel; and (b) ensuring that the vessel

complies with accepted international pre-fishing

practices as described in Annex 6.

Not all countries implement the pre-licensing

inspections;

Although there is an effort to require

minimum standards in Annex 6, they relate to

pre-fishing inspections only.

Section 16 requires the vessel to “comply

with practices in the Annex”, but in fact there

is a gap in Section 16 because it does not

recognize that some of the practices in Annex

6 contain criteria directed at inspection by the

port State. It would be useful to review these

criteria for purposes of developing minimum

standards.

The implementation of Annex 6 at national

level is uneven.

NTSA Article 16

The Parties may cooperate to enable port

inspections and other MCS activities … at the

request of another party and may permit

personnel of another Party to conduct port

inspections.

This Article reflects the spirit of MCS

cooperation and reciprocity of the Niue

Treaty, but does not set minimum standards

or elements of inspection or actions to be

taken where there are grounds to suspect IUU

fishing.

WCPFC CMM 2010-06 to establish a list of

vessels presumed to have carried out

The requirement that vessels must enter port

“voluntarily” is consistent with the WCPFC

Convention but is not in the FAO Agreement.

The CMM does not cover vessels that have





Provision Gaps

IUU fishing activities in the WCPO.

22. CCMs to take measures to ensure that vessels

on the WCPFC IUU Vessel List that enter ports

voluntarily are not authorized to land, tranship,

refuel or re-supply therein but are inspected upon

entry;

been ordered to port on suspicion of fishing

illegally – i.e. that entered involuntarily.

“Are not authorized” to land, tranship etc., is

more restrictive than “do not land, tranship,

etc”. The port State could deny

authorization, but turn a blind eye to

transhipment activities that actually do take

place.

The measure is not directed at IUU fishing

and related activities but only applies to

vessels on the IUU vessel list; such vessels

would likely have left the WPO region but

may call into ports of WCPFC Asian

Members.

The port activities for which use is denied is

not as comprehensive as those in the FAO

Agreement: “landing, transhipping,

packaging and processing of fish that have

not been previously landed and for other port

services, including, inter alia, refuelling and

resupplying, maintenance and drydocking.”

No minimum standards in regional agreements or

measures similar to those in the FAO Agreement

Agreement on level and priority for

inspections (apart from pre-fishing

inspections);

Minimum information needed for a request to

enter port;

Authorization to enter port required to be

issued and presented upon arrival;

Criteria for mandatory denial of use of port

without inspection (e.g. if the vessel does not

have an authorization to fish);

Conduct and reports of inspections;

Denial of use of port after inspection;

Notification and exchange of information;

Application to fishing related activities;

Duty of flag States;

Requirements of developing States.




3.2. Strengthening existing regional requirements

The HMTCs provide a sound basis for elaborating minimum standards for port State measures that

would be tailored to the needs, cooperative mechanisms and organizations in the region.

It is recommended that the current review of the HMTCs build on requirements in sections 11 and 16

and WCPFC CMM 2010-06, address the gaps identified in section 3.1, take into account applicable

minimum standards in the FAO Agreement and consider, inter alia:

(a) establishing minimum harmonized standards for port States’ laws and information/inspection

requirements, procedures and reports;

(b) applying PSM to vessels suspected of IUU fishing and/or related activities;

(c) consider mechanisms to integrate port State measures into existing regional operations and

databases;

(d) information/database elements, including information for port entry and results of inspections,

notification and exchange of information;

(e) measures to take where there are grounds to suspect IUU fishing has taken place; and

(f) such other measures that may be appropriate.

It is further recommended that this could be carried out in workshops addressing legal and operational

elements. The objective would be to base the above on practical needs of the region and international

minimum standards (e.g. including workshopping the Annexes of the FAO Agreement).

Consideration should then be given to identification for specific training and capacity needs, costs and

mechanisms, for example through a regional study.

3.3. Existing national legislation and gaps

National legislation generally does not generally have provisions that underpin port State measures.

Annex 1 sets out model provisions for implementing port State measures in national laws, and shows

gaps in current national legislation where such provisions do not exist. The conclusions are indicative

only, because the Expert did not have available all relevant legal instruments from each country and

worked mainly from the principal fisheries act.

The minimum standards of the FAO Agreement were used in crafting the model provisions, and these

include existing regional standards. If different minimum standards are agreed regionally, the model

provisions could be adjusted accordingly.

There are a range of other related provisions that might also be reviewed, including authorization of

port inspectors and institutional authority or cooperation. For example, where the use of port has been

denied to foreign vessels, new offences should be created that would allow action to be taken against

the violating vessel as well as any person involved in the violation (e.g. suppliers).

A clear trend emerged showing that existing national legislation has many gaps that need to be

reviewed and filled to implement basic port State measures.

Annex 1 is presented in three parts:




Part 1 sets out key model provisions on port State measures. As noted above, they may be

adapted to any minimum standards which may be developed in the region. The model

provisions address:

1. Definitions

2. Requirements for port entry use

3. Denial of port entry

4. Denial of port use after entry

5. Inspection procedures and results

6. Transmittal of inspection results

Part 2 shows the extent of implementation of each model provision described in Part 1 in the

national laws of 14 FFA member countries, and in one country’s draft Fisheries Amendment

Bill. This resulted in a matrix of 90 cells (6 x 15) and the extent of implementation of the

model provision was assessed for each on a scale of four grades, from 0 (red) to 3 (green).

Just over 60% of the cells ranked 0 and appear red, where members had no relevant provisions

in their legislation, and 04% showed green. (As noted above, the FAO standards include

requirements in regional instruments, so this means there is also weak implementation of

existing standards.)

Part 3 shows the table of laws consulted for the assessment.

3.4. Strengthening national legislation

Harmonized national legislation will be essential for implementing certain minimum standards that

may be agreed on a regional basis. It is understood that legislation should be reviewed also to ensure

implementation of the HMTCs, CMMs and NTSA.

The Regional MCS Strategy recommends a prioritization of reviewing and updating fisheries

legislation and adoption of a legislative framework approach that specifies fundamental requirements

(i.e. flag and port State controls, boarding and inspection provisions on the high seas etc) while

allowing for flexibility through subordinate legislation such as regulations, conditions of license and

gazette notices as circumstances arise. 37

It is recommended that legislation relating to port State measures form part of activities carried out

under the MCS Strategy. In particular, this could include:

(a) input by legal experts to the development of regional minimum standards for port State

measures in appropriate fora, e.g. review of HMTCs, FFC and/or WCPFC.

(b) development of model legislation at the regional level to implement minimum regional and/or

international standards as appropriate;

(c) development of operating procedures complementary to the legislation;

(d) technical assistance and advice at national level;

37

Component G1SO1.5




(e) training of legal and operational officers in the implementation of the legislation and

procedures.

4. MCS considerations

4.1. Existing requirements/procedures and gaps for inspections, information (from vessels

and inspections), databases and integration with other MCS tools

Gaps in regional MCS inspection procedure

Procedure requirement Gaps

Existing port inspection procdure Lack MCS base approach to establish

that IUU fishing has taken place at sea.as

per annex B (h) of the PSMA.

Advance request for port entry Advance entry request exist in most

countries with major port, but not

necessarily in line with the FAO

minimum standard

Information gathering prior to inspection Apart from the IUU list, vessel registry

and VMS, other information exist from

other regional programme such as,

observer, surveillance, good stand record,

that are not make use of for priority

inspection.

Port entry Authorisation and denial Non WCPFC fishing vessel fishing on

high seas calling into port.

No clear regional and or national

requirement of what type of vessel

should be allow into port.

Some countries allow un-license vessel

others do not.

No procedure to inform RFMO, flag state

other relevant coastal state and regional

organization.

Denial of use of port Denial for use of port is practically non-

existence.

Once entry is granted other agencies goes

ahead with their respective services.

Inspection procedure Priorities, and level of inspectional is not

define.

Which vessel to be inspected and why, is

not well-defined. Some countries

targetunlicensed vessel other licence

vessel only.




Gaps in regional MCS inspection procedure

Procedure requirement Gaps

Conducting inspection Inspection is information gathering

mechanism rather than investigative with

weak procedure to establish possible IUU

fishing at sea.

Result of inspection Result of inspection is rarely transmitted

to the WCPFC and the FFA, and never to

the flag State

Transmittal of inspection including electronic

exchange

Despite good established regional

information exchange system in place for

both WCPF and FFA, there limited port

inspection information exchange of

inspection result.

Training of inspectors No specific training for port inspection.

FFA presently developing Dockside

training for its members.

Port State action following inspection and there is

clear ground that a vessel has engaged IUU

fishing

No particular detection of IUU fishing

have been identified in port and reported

to flag state or Regional organisation.

All IUU reported and listed as IUU have

been detected at sea.

4.2. Strengthening requirements/procedures for inspections, information (from vessels and

inspections), databases and integration with other MCS tools

Inspection procedures are central to detect and establish IUU fishing that undermines the regional

management measures and national legislation and to ensure the long term conservation and

sustainable use of marine living resources.

It is therefore recommended that, for strengthened MCS in port State measures, the following

instruments be developed:

SOP for port entry and priority for inspection, including integration of information from

other regional programmes, including a standard Advance Request of Entry in Port

(AREP);

SOP for inspection procedure before, during and after inspection, comprising record

keeping and databases and information exchange , including a standard inspection form;

and

training for fisheries inspectors/officers in accordance with Article 17 of the PSMA,

including investigation and prosecution.




5. Interagency cooperation at national level38

5.1. General gaps

5.1.1. Legal

Interagency cooperation is important not only to detect and address fisheries offences, but those

relating to fisheries-related crimes such as money laundering. It can be based on agreed procedures,

but it is preferable to conclude MOUs, which provide a sound legal basis and clarify responsibilities

and information exchange. Problems that can occur without such cooperation include failure by the

ports authorities to notify fisheries when vessels are entering port, or to take measures such as denial

of entry for vessels suspected of IUU fishing. Gaps include weaknesses in general information

exchange, monitoring and inspection/enforcement activity.

Some countries have concluded or are developing interagency MOUs at national level to strengthen

operational cooperation between fisheries and enforcement and or ports authorities, including Fiji,

FSM and Solomon Islands. In some cases there is a need for full implementation of the MOUs.

5.1.2. MCS and operational

Interagency cooperation is critical and needs to be formalised to ensure that port services are denied or

allowed upon decision taken by fisheries authorities. It is essential to ensure smooth operational

inspection by all relevant organisations such as customs, immigration, port authority, health etc.. The

coordination will ensure thorough inspection and undue delay of vessel in port. There must be a clear

agreement as to the procedures, authorities and decisionmaking responsibilities, preferably through an

MOU.

The agency responsible for vessel registration needs to seek approval from the fisheries authorities

prior to registration of vessels that will engage in fishing or fisheries related activities to ensure that

vessels with good credibility and records are registered. In this regard, the fisheries authorities should

be consulted.

5.2. Strengthening interagency cooperation

The Regional MCS Strategy recommended the establishment of national MCS coordination

committees (interagency bodies), which would hold regular meetings promoting coordination and

collaboration and result in an increase of the exchange of MCS data (including for VMS, observers

and port inspections).39

It is recommended that interagency cooperation in port State measures be fostered at national level,

through:

(a) national implementation of the Regional MCS strategy, as part of MCS coordination;

38

The Experts considered that interagency cooperation at regional level is strong, so focused on national level in

this paper. 39

G1SO1.1.




(b) development of MOUs between fisheries, the Port Authority and other concerned agencies

such as immigration and customs, supported by technical assistance where needed, to define

the cooperation, responsibilities and decisionmaking among agencies;

(c) full implementation of existing MOUs through various means, such as capacity development

and prioritization.

6. Human and institutional capacity at national and regional levels

6.1. General gaps

There is insufficient capacity in designated ports, including human capacity with sufficient legal

mandates and training needed for PSM.

Since the minimum standards in the PSMA are only partially addressed in national laws and practice,

port managers, inspectors, fisheries officers, enforcement and legal personnel are not well versed and

trained to implement PSM. One inspector may already be tasked with inspecting 300-600 vessels a

year and in this regard is not well placed to carry out a thorough inspection needed for compliance

purposes. Added to this, countries have not generally prioritized vessels for inspection.

Some countries do not have the capacity and a clear mechanism to deal with the seizure of IUU

vessels, confiscation catch or gear. In addition, their lawyers and judges are not trained for these

situations.

6.2. Strengthening human and institutional capacity

Long term planning involving human resource development plan (5 to 10 years) , which was not in

evidence in the countries. This should be developed for purposes of PSM and included in broader

sectoral or national plans. Staffing levels and training needs should be identified for all relevant

persons – management, legal, MCS, operational and others.

Training needs must be specified, and where possible a regional training programme – along the lines

of those for observers – should be established.

Institutional capacity should be similarly strengthened through a development plan and arrangements

or MOUs with other agencies. Clear responsibilities, decisioinmaking authority and procedures

should be agreed.

7. Assistance

Assistance may be sought through regional organizations or donor programmes in the region. Some

other possibilities include the following:

In the event that a WCPFC PSM CMM is approved, the WCPFC Convention provides for

assistance to developing States with specific requirements (Article 30). The WCPFC fund

may be eligible for EU assistance, which indicated in 2012 a programme to assist RFMOs

with a grant facilitation to improve compliance with CMMs .




The PSMA establishes a fund to assist developing States that are party to the Agreement, but

this will not be operative until the Agreement enters into force after 25 countries have ratified

it.

The World Bank operates a Development Grant Facility (GDF) to support Global Partnership

for The Oceans, and this could be another future option for assistance.

In any case, a regional strategy and priorities would need to be developed, possibly through FFA,

based on those in the Workshop outcomes.

8. Development of a WCPFC port State measures scheme

8.1. Potential regional process for FFA Members

As noted elsewhere in this project, the development of a WCPFC PSM scheme could benefit from

consideration by FFA members in regional processes and mechanisms, including through the FFA

Secretariat, the FFC process and as part of the current review of the HMTCs.

It will be important to allow lead time for the region to identify, in parallel with development of a

WCPFC scheme, what is needed for its implementation in terms of law, procedures, capacity,

institutions, information and databases. In this regard, consideration should be given to development

of a scheme in WCPFC over the course of several months to a year, taking into account developments

in, and needs of, the region.

8.2. Potential time frame and priorities

Given the complexity of developing PSM in term of human and institutional capacity the

implementation will vary largely between countries, depending on their presence human, institutional

and financial status and port activity. To that effect time frame will vary from country to country. The

time frame for implementation has been identified by IOTC as five to ten years for full

implementation of PSM.

The workshop identified priorities for activities to implement PSM, and most were high, and short

term. This should be done by countries and on a regional basis possibly through FFA. The Workshop

outcomes are attached, and this report endorses them.




ANNEX 1

NATIONAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO PORT STATE MEASURES

PART 1 – MODEL PROVISIONS FOR PORT STATE MEASURES

Essential elements of national legislation to support the minimum standards for port State measures agreed in the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State

Measures are shown below, together with a summary description in the left column.

National legislation should also have a range of related measures including appointment, authority and training/qualifications of inspectors and enforcement

officers, duties of the operator, master and crew towards them and prohibitions on violations of conservation and management measures of RFMOs and the

laws of other coastal States.

The definitions noted below do not have to be implemented verbatim as long as the general meaning is clear and consistent in the national legislation.

1. Definitions

“conservation and

management measures”

means measures to conserve and manage living marine resources that are adopted and applied consistently with the relevant rules

of international law including those reflected in the Convention;

“fishing related

activities”

means any operation in support of, or in preparation for, fishing, including the landing, packaging, processing, transshipping or

transporting of fish that have not been previously landed at a port, as well as the provisioning of personnel, fuel, gear and other

supplies at sea.




“foreign fishing vessel” a fishing vessel that is not [a local fishing vessel] [registered under (country) law and does not fly the (country) flag, or that holds

more than one registration].40

“port” includes offshore terminals and other installations for landing, transhipping, packaging, processing, refuelling or resupplying;

“vessel” means any vessel, ship of another type or boat used for, equipped to be used for, or intended to be used for, fishing or fishing

related activities.41

2. Requirements for port entry and use of port

Vessel must request entry in advance and provide required information.

Country must issue a written authorization to enter port.

No foreign fishing vessel shall use a port in (country) for landing, transhipping, packaging, or processing of fish or for other port

services including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking, unless:

(a) the port has been designated for use by foreign fishing vessels;

(b) the operator has given at least ** hours advance notice or such other notice as may be prescribed or required by

the (Director);

(c) the operator has provided to the (Director) such information as may be prescribed or he/she may require;

40

The HMTC definition of "foreign fishing vessel" or "vessel" requires that the vessel operates in the EEZ of an FFA member. This does not allow for foreign fishing

vessels that may not operate in the EEZs of FFA members but have engaged in IUU fishing activities (e.g. on the high seas in violation of WCPFC CMMs or in the waters

under the jurisdiction of a non-FFA member). It also would not cover vessels operating illegally in the territorial sea of an FFA member. The HMTC definition: “any tuna

fishing or tuna fishing support vessel which operates in the exclusive economic or fisheries zone of an FFA member and is not part of the domestic fleet of the FFA member

in whose zone the operation occurs.” 41

The following regional agreements define vessels or fishing vessels as those used for fishing or related activities: WCPFC Convention, 2012 Niue Treaty and the HMTCs.

The 2009 FAO Agreement and the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement also take this approach.




Vessel (or agent) must present authorization upon arrival in port.

If the requirements are

not met, the use of port

must be prohibited for

specified activities.

(d) a written authorization for the use of such port has been issued by the (Director); and

(e) where the (Director) has authorized entry of such vessel into port, the master of the vessel or, in the case of a

foreign fishing vessel, the vessel’s representative presents the authorization for entry into the port to an

authorized officer or other competent officer upon the vessel’s arrival at port.

3. Denial of port entry

Vessels must be denied port

entry where there is

sufficient proof of IUU

fishing, including where it is

on an RFMO IUU Vessel

List.

However, entry may be

authorized exclusively for

inspection and other actions

as effective as denial of

entry.

(1) Authorization to enter a port shall be denied where there is sufficient proof that a vessel seeking entry into port has

engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing or fishing related activities in support of illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing, in particular the inclusion of a vessel on a list of vessels having engaged in such fishing or fishing

related activities adopted by a regional fisheries management organization, in which (country) is a member or cooperating

non-member, in accordance with the rules and procedures of such organization and in conformity with international law.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), authorization for such a vessel to enter a port may be given exclusively for the purpose

of inspecting it and taking other appropriate actions in conformity with international law which are at least as effective as

denial of port entry in preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and fishing related

activities in support of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.




4. Denial of use of port after entry

Denial may occur before or

after inspection where

certain criteria are met

(1) Where a foreign fishing vessel has entered a port subject to the jurisdiction of (country), the (Director) shall deny that

vessel the use of the port for landing, transhipping, packaging or processing of fish that have not been previously landed or

for other port services, including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking, where:

(a) the vessel does not have a valid and applicable authorization to engage in fishing or fishing related activities

required by its flag State;

(b) the vessel has not been granted a valid and applicable license to engage in fishing or fishing related

activities required under this Act;

(c) there is clear evidence that the fish on board was taken in contravention of applicable requirements of any

coastal State in respect of areas under the national jurisdiction of that coastal State;

(d) the flag State of any foreign fishing vessel does not confirm within a reasonable period of time on the

request of the Director that the fish on board was taken in accordance with applicable requirements of a

relevant regional fisheries management organization; or

(e) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the vessel was otherwise engaged in illegal, unreported or

unregulated fishing or fishing related activities in support of illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing,

unless the operator of the vessel can establish:

(i) that it was acting in a manner consistent with relevant conservation and management measures;

or




(ii) in the case of provision of personnel, fuel, gear and other supplies at sea, that the vessel that

was provisioned was not at the time of provisioning a vessel referred to in subparagraph (e).

(2) Where, following an inspection, there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel has engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities in support of such fishing, the (Director) shall deny the vessel the use of its port for landing,

transhipping, packaging and processing of fish that have not been previously landed and for other port services, including,

inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking, if these actions have not already been taken in respect of

the vessel, in a manner consistent with international law.

(3) Where action has been taken in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), the (Director) shall promptly notify the flag

State and, as appropriate, relevant coastal States, regional fisheries management organizations and other international

organizations, and the State of which the vessel’s master is a national of its findings; and

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1) and (2), a vessel shall not be denied the use of port services essential to the safety and

health of the crew and the safety of the vessel, provided these needs are duly proven, or, where appropriate, for the

scrapping of the vessel.

5. Inspection procedures and results

Procedures to be followed

for inspections, report of

results to be provided.

(1) In carrying out inspections of fishing vessels in port, authorized officers shall follow such procedures as may be

prescribed or the (Director) may require to the extent possible, and:

(a) present to the master of the vessel an identification document prior to an inspection;

(b) in case of appropriate arrangements with the flag State of a foreign fishing vessel, invite that State to

participate in the inspection;




(c) not interfere with the ability of the master of a foreign fishing vessel, in conformity with international law,

to communicate with the authorities of the flag State;

(d) make all possible efforts to:

(i) avoid unduly delaying the vessel to minimize interference and inconvenience, including any

unnecessary presence of authorized officers on board, and to avoid action that would adversely

affect the quality of the fish on board;

(ii) facilitate communication with the master or senior crew members of the vessel; and

(e) ensure that inspections are conducted in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner and would not constitute harassment of any vessel.

(2) A report of the inspection shall promptly be provided to the (Director) in such form as may be prescribed or the

(Director) may require.

6. Transmittal of inspection results

Transmittal of inspection

results to flag State, coastal

States, master’s national

State, RFMOs

The results of inspections shall, to the extent practicable and in any case where there is clear evidence of IUU fishing, be

transmitted to the flag State of the inspected vessel and, as appropriate, to:

(a) those States for which there is evidence through inspection that the vessel has engaged in IUU fishing or

fishing related activities in support of such fishing within waters under their national jurisdiction;

(b) the State of which the vessel’s master is a national;

(c) relevant regional fisheries management organizations; and




(d) FAO and other relevant international organizations.

PART 2 – EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MODEL PORT STATE MEASURE PROVISIONS IN NATIONAL LAWS

0 No relevant provisions Red (56 cells)

1 Partial provision, slightly implements model law Orange (14 cells)

2. Partial provision, more fully implements model law but not completely Yellow (16 cells)

3. All relevant requirements in model law implemented Green (4 cells)

Definitions Requirements for port

entry and use Denial of port entry

Denial of port use after

entry

Inspection

procedures, results

Transmittal of

inspection results

Cook

Islands

No definition: CMM,

port

Section 63. Landings and

transhipments may be

prohibited where

reasonable grounds show

effectiveness of CMM

undermined.

Federated

States of

Micronesia

No definition: CMM,

port

Applicable to fishing

vessels only, not those

used for related activities

115(b)(3) Report 24 hours

prior to entry (licensed

fishing vessels, not

applicable to fishing related

activities e.g. carrier vessels)







entry

Inspection

procedures, results

Transmittal of

inspection results

Fiji No definition CMM,

IUU fishing (“port”

definition in s. 76)

s. 76. PS may deny

entry if reasonable

grounds to suspect

IUU fishing or related

activities, or if vessel

is on IUU Vessel List,

but may permit entry

for inspection.

Denial disrectionary

where vessel has been

sighted violating

CMM or is non-CCM

to RFMO.

Kiribati No definition: related

activities, CMMs, port.

“fishing vessels” include

“vessels used in support

of commercial fishing” ,

no related activities.

Marshall

Islands

No definition: port,

CMM


vessels, not those used

for related activities

S.506 Regulations may be

made for designation of

ports, requirement for notice

of entry.

S.506 Regulations

may be made to

prohibit port use or

access or use where

vessels are on IUU

vessel list

S. 506 Regulations may

be made to prohibit port

use or access for violating

laws of coastal State,

fishing on high seas

without an authorization

S. 506 Regulations

may be made on the

powers of

inspectors and

conducting an

inspection.

S. 506 Regulations

may be made on the

cooperation and

exchange of

information

Nauru No definition: port,

CMM, related activities

S. 7(4) Where reason to

believe that CMMs were







entry

Inspection

procedures, results

Transmittal of

inspection results


vessels. not those used

for related activities.

undermined or a coastal

State’s fisheries

management laws

violated, flag State must

be notified and measures

may be taken to secure

compliance.

Niue

Palau

Papua New

Guinea

No definition:

CMM, port

Samoa No definition:

CMM, port

Solomon

Islands

(current)

No definition: CMM

port


vessels only, not those

used for related activities

Section 55. An

authorised officer

may inspect

documents, fishing

gear and catch on a

foreign fishing

vessel in port.

Solomon

Islands

(Fisheries

Amendment

Bill)

No definition, CMM,

port

All requirements met. All requirements met. All requirements met. All requirements

met.

Tonga No definition: Section 101(t) Regulations (Same as previous) (Same as previous) (Same as previous) (Same as previous)







entry

Inspection

procedures, results

Transmittal of

inspection results

CMM, port

may be made providing for

Flag State control, powers or

measures that may be

exercised to give effect to

Port State rights and

responsibility;

Tuvalu No definition:

CMM, port

Section 21: 24 hours notice

to be given before port entry.

Section 44. Landings and

transhipments in Tuvalu

national jurisdiction may

be

prohibited where, on

reasonable grounds, the

effectiveness of CMMs

was undermined.

Vanuatu No definition:

CMM, port




PART 3 - TABLE OF LAWS CONSULTED

The following laws were available to the Expert and may not include regulations or other legal instruments in the countries. The matrix is

therefore indicative only.

Cook Islands Marine Resources Act 2005, No. 7 of 2005

Federated States of Micronesia Marine Resources Act of 2002, PL NO. 12-34 with amendments

Fiji Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 (Decree No. 78 of 2012)

Kiribati An Act for the Conservation, Management and Development of Kiribati Fisheries and Control of Foreign Fishing and for

connected purposes, Bi, 6 if 2010

Marshall Islands Title 51 - Management Of Marine Resources, Chapter 5 (codifies Parts VIII, IX, X and XI of P.L. 1997-60), s. 506

included by PL 2011-63. Nauru Fisheries Act 1997

Niue Domestic Fishing Act 1995 No: 199, Domestic Fishing Regulations, 1996

Palau Foreign Fishing 27 PNCA § 101

Papua New Guinea Fisheries Management Act 1998 No. 48 of 1998. Fisheries Management Regulation 2000 No. 2 of 2000.

Samoa Fisheries Act 1988, Fisheries Amendment Act 1999, No. 11, Fisheries Amendment Act 1999 No. 11, Fisheries

Amendment Act 2002 No. 19.

Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998, (No. 6 of 1998), Solomon Islands Fisheries Amendment Bill 2013.

Tonga Fisheries Management Act 2002

Tuvalu Marine Resources Act 2008 Revised Edition, CAP. 48.20, Marine Resources (Amendment) Act 2012

Vanuatu Fisheries Act 2006 Chapter 315




ANNEX 2

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES

Three Working Groups were established to develop a strategy for implementation of port State

measures, taking into account minimum standards of the PSMA and based on the following aspects:

legal and policy, institutional and operational. They developed the strategy in an iterative process, by

first considering the pros and cons, and reviewing guidelines for implementation. The strategy shown

below is a culmination of the outcomes of the Working Groups, and was reviewed and agreed by

participants.

The Workshop considered the pros and cons of implementing the minimum standards of the FAO Port

State Measures Agreement and guidelines for implementation. Outcomes of these two areas

contributed to, and culminated in the identification of strategies. The process and outcomes are

summarized below.
















recommendations. Drawing from this, the workshop then identified the following strategies which

addressed legal and policy, institutional and operational elements.





FFA and WCPFC.

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES

General Priority Term

Expert study on the current process and risk analysis.

High Short

Carry out a risk assessment based on current national, subregional and

regional MCS.

High Short




Legal and policy

Request technical assistance to:

review existing national legislation;

develop generic legislation that can be tailored to a country’s needs;

review cooperation in port inspections under the Niue Treaty

Subsidiary Agreement;

Parties to Niue Treaty to begin development of minimum standards for

PSM on MCS issues;

hold consultations with relevant agencies and stakeholders.

High Medium

WCPFC to continue to review CMMs in relation to MCS issues in a

transparent process.

High Medium

FFA MCS Working Group to continue to review HMTCs, and conduct

workshops to standardise regional forms for port entry and inspection,

based on Annexes A and C in the PSMA.

High Medium

FFA to continue to develop regional standards for port State measures;

FFC to review development of port State measures;

FFA to conduct regional workshops on the outcomes.

High Medium

Develop ongoing legal training courses.

High Long

Operational

Identify SOPs for national, subregional and regional levels based on

PSMA framework and national priorities. SOPs to include:

o port entry;

o inspection;

o investigation;

o confiscation of property;

o reporting.

High Medium-

long

Develop a manual based on the SOPs for use in the region.

High Medium

Increase workforce capacity.

High Short-

long

Develop advanced training in PSM SOPs for investigators.

High Medium

Build PSM into existing national, subregional and regional databases.

Develop formats for PSM-related data exchange.

High Short




Develop a training programme for data entry officers.

Build training into existing FFA VMS training.

Set procedures and criteria on transmittal of inspection results.

High Medium

Work in close collaboration with the flag States and relevant RFMOs.

High Medium

Institutional

Foster interagency cooperation and coordination through establishment

of interagency MOUs and data sharing protocols at national,

subregional and regional levels. MOUs should:

o appoint a lead agency;

o establish a National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for

PSM.

National and regional consultations should be held as appropriate.

High Short

Operational guidelines should be developed to govern the NCC through

national consultations.

High Medium

Identify the necessary national infrastructure to develop through a

national consultative process, and seek external funding for the

development.

Medium Long




6.7 Photographs

Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP...

Documents

Transcript of Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP...