PRESENTATION OF TECHNICAL PAPERS

11. Summary print copies of all the technical presentations are provided in Annex 5. The complete presentations may be viewed on the FishCode Programme website, http://www.fao.org/fi/projects/fishcode/default.htm

12. Mr Andrew R. Smith (FAO, Rome) made a presentation of the “History and Future of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance”. The presentation focussed on the development and use of VMS as an MCS tool. The traditional MCS tools are of obvious importance but it is recognized that new and additional tools need to be developed. The cost of operating surveillance vessels and aircraft is substantial, and the traditional tools may be inappropriate in some fisheries. Emerging 15 years ago as a spin off of the Global Maritime Safety and Distress System (GMDSS) the technology of combining positioning systems with communication systems has been recognized as a useful tool for tracking fishing vessels. During the last 6-7 years, this technology, generally known in fisheries as Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), has been widely adopted all over the world.

13. VMS is relatively inexpensive and its synergy with other tools in the MCS toolbox greatly adds to the cost effectiveness of the other MCS activities. It assists flag states to control their vessels and provides improved distress and safety communication. The potential for transmission of operational information is a significant benefit for vessel crews and operators. Its use in detecting fishing vessels not equipped for VMS was questioned and Mr Smith underscored the importance of using VMS together with the traditional MCS tools, e.g., land radar, air and surface patrols, and emphasized that VMS be considered as a complement to, rather than replacement for the traditional MCS tools.

14. Mr Smith went on to present “The International Plan of Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing” (IPOA/IUU Fishing). The IPOA/IUU Fishing^[1] was developed as a response to concerns that such illegal fishing activities are increasing. The IPOA provides a definition of what constitutes IUU fishing and suggests actions that should be taken by Flag States, Coastal States and Port States. Improved MCS is one of the answers to this increasing problem, and VMS has an important role among the MCS tools. A further potent measure in combating IUU fishing is the use of trade documents to trace fish products from their origin till their destination, thus enabling the exposure of unreported fish. The importance of cooperation between countries and the vital place of Regional Fisheries Organizations (RFOs) in the IPOA was also highlighted.

15. Questions were raised concerning who pays for the installation and operation of VMS. Mr Smith indicated that there was a wide range of solutions. Governments have funded, or subsidized VMS, industry has borne the full costs, as is the case in Senegal. In a pilot project in Portugal in the early 1990s the service providers covered some of the costs and are actively involved in pilot projects in the Subregion. The issue of flags of convenience was also raised and Mr Smith advised that as a consequence of the successful introduction of trade documents and their use by ICCAT, some of the most important flag of convenience states have started to equip their vessels with VMS. Coastal states may require vessels of distant water fishing nations (DWFN) to be equipped with transceivers and to transmit positions when inside the EEZ of the coastal state.

16. Mr Kieran Kelleher (FAO Consultant) gave a summary of a recent review of MCS and IUU fishing in the Subregion^[2]. Copies of the full report were made available. Among the principal fisheries violations identified for the Subregion were: falsification of vessel characteristics; closed area violations; and trawl net violations. The important financial and biological losses incurred as a result of false vessel characteristics were noted. Discussion ranged over a variety of topics, including: the need for an economic link between vessels and flag states; registration of vessels; the need to link vessel characteristics to their impact on the fish resources; clarification of the role and potential for electronic logbooks; the need to control artisanal fishing; and the operations of fish processing plants.

17. Mr Robert Gallagher (FAO Consultant) presented a technical overview of VMS (“Fishing vessel monitoring: the what, why and how”) that emphasized the need for accurate functional specifications which meet the requirements of the fisheries administration. He outlined the shipboard, transmission and fisheries monitoring centre (FMC) requirements, data analysis and confidentiality, and the use of VMS data for control, resource management, commercial purposes and safety at sea. Additional information was provided in response to questions on confidentiality, financing of VMS, sharing of data, equipment breakdown

18. Mr Kelleher presented the “Institutional options for VMS in the Sub-Region” that reviewed the criteria for selection of fisheries for VMS and described VMS arrangements in a range of countries, including at a regional level in the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) in the South Pacific and the European Union (EU)/Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Examples of the use of VMS for control, resource management, and protection of endangered species were given and an emphasis placed on VMS as part of a suite of MCS tools used within the context of a coherent fisheries management plan. Questions focused primarily on the differences between the ‘FFA model’ and the ‘EU/CFP model’, in particular the provisions on information exchange and responsibility for VMS operations.

19. Mr Henning O. Teigene (FAO, Rome) made a presentation on “Legal issues related to VMS”. International, regional and national aspects were addressed. The main international legal basis for the use of VMS is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Convention includes Articles relating to the competence of the Coastal State to require the use of VMS equipment in its territorial waters and in the EEZ. Based on a question following the presentation a clarification was provided regarding the legal regime of the EEZ. The Coastal State exercises certain sovereign rights in the EEZ, which is something less than sovereignty. One consequence is the rule of Article 73 that corporal punishment, e.g., imprisonment, may not be used as a sanction for the master of a foreign fishing vessel operating in the EEZ.

20. The question arose as to whether vessels transhipping fish (reefers) and support vessels (e.g., bunker) could be required to be equipped with transceivers. This subject raises complex issues in international law. In case of the reefers the answer is probably “yes”, as the vessels could be considered to be “fishing” vessels. On the other hand bunker vessels could possibly claim the right of freedom of navigation as set out in the LOS Convention. Participants queried the use of VMS as evidence and expressed concerns regarding the confidentiality of VMS information. The use of VMS information as evidence depends on the judicial proceedings applicable in case of violations of fisheries legislation in each country, and in particular on whether a civil or criminal proceeding applies and on the nature of the rules on evidence. A recent US Decision used VMS as evidence that a fishing vessel was inside a closed area, but corroborating evidence was used to prove that the vessel had been fishing. VMS information is may not necessarily constitute proof of fishing activity in the absence of corroborating evidence.

21. The participants were made aware of the possibility of requesting legal technical assistance from FAO with regard to VMS regulations.

22. Mr Gallagher showed how a VMS system is designed and built in a presentation entitled “Putting VMS into practice: the devil is in the details”. The presentation emphasized the need for careful research and planning to ensure the VMS system meets the precise needs of the fisheries administration and other users, such as the vessel operators themselves. He stressed the wide range of technical options and compared the relative merits of Argos and Inmarsat systems. In response to questions he confirmed that both systems could readily co-exist in a national VMS system, and that in the case of the countries in the Subregion, where foreign vessels deploy both types of transceivers, a national FMC is likely to require the capability to process both types of signal.