5. “Trade documentation” refers to schemes established by regional Fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to require documentation to accompany particular fish and fish products through international trade identifying the origin of the fish for the purpose of ascertaining levels of unreported fishing. Both schemes under consideration have the purpose of combating IUU fishing and in both, documents accompany the fish through trade. Discussion in the meeting revealed that the terms “catch certification,” “catch documentation” and other related terms have not been consistently applied in international practice.
6. One key difference between these types of programs is that catch certifications are issued at the point of harvesting and cover all fish to be landed or transshipped. Trade documents are issued only with respect to products that enter international trade. Both types of documents contain information relating to the fish in question, although catch certifications contain more comprehensive data.
7. Two types of documentation programmes have been already adopted by RFMOs. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has adopted a Catch Documentation Scheme for toothfish (dissostichus spp.) that is in fact an amalgam of a catch certification and trade documentation programme. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) have adopted trade documentation programmes. In addition, the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, has adopted a programme to certify certain tuna as “dolphin-safe.” The Consultation considered that this programme is significantly different from programmes adopted by the other RFMOs, in that its primary purpose is unrelated to efforts to combat IUU fishing.
8. The ICCAT, CCSBT and IOTC trade document programmes call on importing States[1] to ensure that all fish covered by the programs are accompanied with a trade document, validated by authorities of exporting flag countries or re-exporting countries. The ICCAT scheme, which has been in place the longest, has produced evidence that vessels from certain States[2] have been fishing for Atlantic bluefin tuna in a manner that undermines ICCAT’s conservation and management measures for that species. That evidence, along with other related information, has led ICCAT to adopt binding recommendations that its members prohibit the importation of bluefin tuna from certain States.
9. The CCAMLR catch certificate programme requires logbook-type information to be provided by captains of the fishing vessels before each transshipment or landing, which are verified by Flag State authorities. If the catches are confirmed to have been made in accordance with management measures, certificates are validated with unique numbers and attached wherever the fish are sold or processed.
10. The Consultation also briefly considered the documentation required pursuant to the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) including permits to import, export and re-export species included in the Appendices to the Convention. The Consultation noted that the primary purpose of the CITES requirements relates to its mandate to protect endangered and threatened species through the regulation of international trade, and that this mandate was narrower than that of RFMOs.
11. The Consultation noted that terms for catch and landings of fish are often used in different ways which can lead to confusion. The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) has adopted a standard terminology to eliminate this confusion and has recommended that FAO use it. The Consultation recommended this should be followed by all parties. In this sense all uses of “catch” for this subject should be replaced by “landings”. In the report this has not been done to avoid conflict with the name of the Consultation and its antecedents but the Consultation recommended that FAO and RFMOs using these schemes should adopt the standard CWP terminology.
|
[1]
In this report, where appropriate, the term “States” refers to
regional economic integration organizations, entities and fishing
entities. [2] In some cases such as those where vessels are chartered, the responsibilities of flag States might be fulfilled by the State in which the vessel is chartered. |
