27. Three working were formed with identical terms of reference - namely, to address the following three questions:
Question 1. Is VMS cooperation necessary in the Subregion, and if so for what reasons?
Question 2. What is the nature of the cooperation required? [A list of types of cooperation was required from each group].
Question 3. What actions should be taken (a) at national level and (b) at subregional level to achieve this cooperation? [A list of actions was required from each group].
28. Each group presented the results of its deliberations in plenary session. The conclusions are summarised below and include a number of points raised in the working groups but not included in the provisional reports given in the plenary.
Question 1. Is VMS cooperation necessary in the Subregion, and if so for what reasons?
29. The unanimous consensus was that cooperation on VMS is necessary for several reasons including:
a) no one country can fully monitor the fleets operating in its own waters;
b) VMS provides improved monitoring of the movement of vessels in the sub-region;
c) VMS can help reduce IUU fishing in the Subregion;
d) VMS may provide more accurate evidence in the case of contested violations and conflicts between fishers;
e) VMS may make the use of surveillance assets more effective, reduce surveillance costs and improve the cost-effectiveness of surveillance;
f) the presence of shared, straddling and highly migratory stocks makes cooperation essential in all domains of fisheries management;
g) individual vessels, in particular foreign flag vessels, operate in two or more countries in the Subregion and VMS can assist in tracking such vessels;
h) the general weakness or inexistence of surveillance assets in the countries; and
i) VMS can assist in search and rescue operations.
Question 2. What is the nature of the cooperation required?
30. This question was interpreted in two different ways. The first interpretation pivoted on a choice between two types of Subregional VMS information sharing networks described in the presentation on institutional options. These were: the FFA model, with a centralised ‘client-server’ type configuration; and the CFP type model - a decentralized, or ‘peer to peer’ configuration in which each member country has its own VMS system and each member state shares VMS information with the others based on subregional, bilateral, or multi-lateral agreements. The groups were unanimously in favour of the CFP model, wherein each country would have its own VMS system. In this manner each country could proceed at its own pace with a gradual development of a secure data exchange network between member countries. A sub-regional protocol on information exchange could be considered, and the need for further work on the proposed sub-regional vessel register was noted.
31. The second interpretation involved identification of a set of subject areas in which cooperation was considered necessary which included the following:
a) information exchange;
b) standardization of equipment (in so far as practical);
c) harmonization of legislation; and
d) training.
32. There was consensus that VMS should target industrial vessel, while monitoring development of suitable technical solutions for artisanal vessels.
Question 3. What actions should be taken (a) at national level and (b) at Subregional level to achieve this cooperation?
National level
33. The actions to be considered at national level include:
a) the VMS support systems (software, and/or equipment) installed in national FMCs must ensure inter-operability and compatibility with other national VMS systems and an ability to accept and interpret VMS signals from different satellite service suppliers;
b) inform the SRFC, and SOCU in particular concerning the choices of systems and results of pilot VMS schemes;
c) seek financing for VMS;
d) prepare suitable VMS regulations;
e) finalize national vessel registers;
f) inform vessel operators of the merits of VMS and seek their active cooperation in the design and establishment of such systems;
g) train VMS operators; and
h) conduct pilot VMS projects, feasibility and cost benefit studies in all countries.
Subregional level
34. The actions to be considered at national level include:
a) VMS to be considered as an integral part of sub-regional strategy;
b) harmonise VMS legislation (SRFC Permanent Secretary to request the FAO Legal Office for such assistance bearing in mind that a request for ‘regional project assistance’ requires requests from at least three countries);
c) seek financial assistance for UCOS and enable the SRFC to fulfil its role;
d) prepare a draft protocol on the exchange of VMS information and a ‘roadmap’ for future development of VMS in the subregion;
e) put the subregional vessel register in place; and
f) transfer of technologies and skills between countries.
