The objective of Part 1 of the questionnaire - RFMO Action to Implement the IPOA-IUU - was to seek information on action taken to implement, or other decisions that address, paragraphs 78 - 84 of the IPOA-IUU. The thirty-five substantive questions, or items, based on measures or actions stated in the IPOA-IUU, fall generally into the categories of measures, compilation and exchange of information, policy objectives, institutional strengthening and general. There was also an open-ended question in the event other relevant measures/action were taken and not covered in the questionnaire.
Respondents were asked to indicate the following in respect of each question:
If RFMO has undertaken the measures/action
If no measures/action have been undertaken
N/A (Not Applicable)
Information on Website
Highly effective measure
The total number of responses for each question under the above headings is summarized in Appendix 4 except for Comments, which are noted in the narrative below. A total of fifteen RFBs responded to this Part of the questionnaire, including three RFBs that do not have a management mandate.
IUU fishing activities, by both members and non-members, affects the management goals of most RFBs and/or their members, giving rise to similar problems among them. However, the differences - in the mandates, legal authorities, membership, geographical coverage and priorities - encouraged agreement on the toolbox approach of the IPOA-IUU. In balancing these similarities and it is a reflection of the general applicability of paragraphs 78-84 of the IPOA-IUU that, for 29 of the 35 substantive items in the questionnaire (with different items indicated in each of the two cases):
the number of yes responses was greater than the number of no responses;
the not applicable option was chosen by a range of only 0 - 2 RFBs.
Of the six items where the no responses were greater, four items showed that a number of RFBs had the matter under review, so the total of yes and under review items was the same as or exceeded the number of no responses.
The responses are indicative of trends and general priorities in the measures and actions taken by RFBs to implement the IPOA-IUU. Results are presented below in three groups, according to the number of yes responses to each item on the questionnaire. They are summarized in Figures 1, 2 and 3 in section 3.3, below, as follows:
· Figure 1 -
Significant activity indicated: Nine to eleven yes responses.
(14 items identified)
· Figure 2 -
Moderate activity indicated: six to eight yes responses.
(13 items identified)
· Figure 3 -
Some activity indicated: five or less yes responses.
(9 items identified)
Before reviewing the responses in Figures 1 - 3, and to better appreciate the significance of the yes responses in a broader context, the items showing the greatest number of yes, no, not applicable, under review and highly effective responses are profiled below.
In general, the greatest number of yes responses (10 or 11 per item) were indicated in respect of the following items, most of which relate to compilation and/or exchange of records and information:
Undertaking institutional strengthening to enhance the capacity to combat IUU fishing;
Compiling and exchanging records of authorized vessels.
Developing compliance measures;
Maintaining a record of authorized fishing vessels;
Compilation, exchange of information on details of measures taken on IUU fishing; and
Regularizing coordination with other RFMOs in respect of information.
Generally, only 1-3 RFBs responded no to each of these items.
Conversely, the greatest number of no responses (8), in respect of the items shown below, also attracted the lowest number of yes responses:
Examination of chartering arrangements;
Regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on trade issues.
A lesser number of no responses (6 or 7) were given for the following items, but these are balanced by a greater number of yes responses.
Development of methods of compiling and using trade information to monitor IUU fishing;
Market-related measures to combat IUU fishing;
Institutional mechanisms strengthened - enforcement schemes;
Regularize coordination with other RFMOs - enforcement.
It is evident from the above that trade and marketing measures or action, and certain aspects of enforcement are areas where many RFBs are not currently focusing attention. This may be attributed both to the general mandates and priorities of the RFBs, and to other identifiable factors, for example: an RFB may apply its trade scheme to species not managed by other RFMOs, making coordination with other RFBs impossible; and enforcement issues may require legal authority under member States laws, bilateral or multilateral agreements.
More generally, and with one exception, there was a threshold between no and yes responses: where there were five or less no responses for an item there were more than five yes responses.
For the most part, there were 0-2 responses in the not applicable (N/A) column for each item. The following items attracted three or four responses each, except for the last item which five RFBs identified as not applicable.
Policy objectives determined for coordination with RFMOs;
Institutional mechanisms strengthened - mandate;
Institutional mechanisms strengthened - finance;
Regularize coordination with other RFMOs - enforcement;
Timely, effective implementation of policies, measures internally, with other RFMOs and internationally;
Other measures/actions not covered above;
Regularizing coordination with other RFMOs - trade.
It is noteworthy that responses indicate moderate activity by RFBs in relation to the first two items, which were each designated N/A by three RFBs, and only some activity for the remaining five. In fact, only one yes response was received for the last item, reinforcing the low level of activity, and high number of no responses, in relation to many trade-related actions or measures.
There were only two questions that did not attract an N/A response. These related to the development of boarding and inspection regimes, and market-related measures to combat IUU fishing.
Only six RFBs indicated N/A throughout the entire questionnaire. Although it is difficult to identify a common thread among their mandates, one notable feature is the general absence of RFBs with a tuna mandate from this group. The only exception was the indication by one tuna RFB with an advisory mandate that institutional strengthening to enhance capacity to combat IUU fishing is not applicable. This would be unnecessary due to the imminent establishment of a management-mandated tuna organization for its mandated region.
Similarly, for the most part, there were 0-2 responses in the Under Review column for each item. The following items showed three responses each:
MCS - Port control measures;
Development of boarding and inspection regimes;
Development of observer programmes;
Market-related measures to combat IUU fishing;
Development of action plans to combat IUU fishing;
Policy objectives determined for coordination with RFMOs;
Regularizing coordination with other RFMOs - information;
Measures/actions relating to flag State responsibility.
Of the above, only one area is already experiencing significant activity: regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on information. Only some activity has been indicated by RFBs for the item market-related measures to combat IUU fishing so the reviews would add important energy to this area. The other items show moderate activity by RFBs, so further activity would enhance existing initiatives.
An opportunity to indicate measures or actions that are highly effective was offered to respondents on an optional basis. Only three items were marked highly effective:
Information exchange on IUU fishing, support vessels;
Development of observer programmes;
Development of action plans to combat IUU fishing.
Two RFBs indicated the development of observer programmes to be highly effective, while one RFB responded in each of the other two items.
The indicative trends described above are elaborated in this section in the context of affirmative responses and comments made by RFBs. As described above, these are grouped into categories of significant activity, moderate activity and some activity, according to the number of yes responses.
RFBs were given an opportunity to comment on each item, on an optional basis. A number of useful comments were received, describing practices and rules adopted by RFBs. These are summarized in the narrative accompanying the figures below.
At the high end, fourteen items on the questionnaire attracted the greatest number of affirmative responses, indicating the strongest priorities at regional level. A total of nine, ten or eleven yes responses were indicated for each item in Figure 1. A majority of the items in this group relate to the compilation, exchange and/or coordination of records and information, and various aspects of MCS, including development of compliance measures. Policy and institutional issues are also included.
Figure 1. Significant activity indicated
(Nine to eleven yes responses)
· Institutional strengthening
undertaken to enhance capacity to combat IUU
In general, many RFBs reported institutional strengthening both to enhance their capacity to combat IUU fishing, and in respect of mechanisms for reporting and information requirements. As well, many have determined policy objectives for internal purposes, and a few noted that their Conventions contain policy objectives.
Many RFBs reported that they have developed compliance measures, and implemented comprehensive arrangements for mandatory reporting. Records of both authorized and IUU fishing vessels are maintained by many RFBs.
Some respondents, indicating action to promote implementation of MCS by members in their jurisdictions, have commented on subregional and national MCS initiatives, catch and monitoring systems and development of a series of MCS measures.
A number of RFBs commented on another MCS item - real time catch and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). One RFB reported the development of a centralized VMS where members will report VMS data in 2004 on a voluntary basis. Several others referred to specific VMS requirements, and more generally one RFB, with the matter under review, noted sensitization on VMS possibilities in the region. One RFB has measures for the weekly reporting of purse seine activities, but no VMS.
Some RFBs referred to their measures regarding a further MCS item - monitoring landings, and one advised that this control is executed by each member country.
One RFB reported that MCS - regulation of transshipment is problematic because it is a national effort, restricted by means to monitor vessels at sea. However, others reported measures taken to address this area.
The compilation and exchange of information appeared to be a high priority, especially in relation to details of measures taken on IUU fishing and on records of authorized vessels. Many RFBs also indicated regularized coordination of information with other RFBs. Interestingly, a lesser - but still significant - number of RFBs indicated that they undertake estimates of the extent, magnitude and character of IUU activities.
A total of six, seven or eight respondents indicated yes for each of the thirteen items in the questionnaire described in Figure 2. Several of these items are compliance-related measures, and some involve strengthening institutional mechanisms. Others concern policy, cooperation, coordination and information exchange.
Responses to these items show that a slightly reduced number of RFBs exchange information on IUU fishing and support than those that exchange information on measures taken and vessel records as indicated in Figure 1. This could be partly attributable to the difficulty, often expressed by RFBs, of obtaining such information from members or non-members. It may also be linked to the fact that only about half of the RFBs undertake estimates of the extent, magnitude and character of IUU activities - again, possibly because of the difficulty in obtaining the information.
Figure 2. Moderate activity indicated
(Six to eight yes responses)
· Information exchange on IUU
fishing, support vessels;
Some respondents that do exchange information on IUU fishing and support cited the following mechanisms: the RFB website; adoption of resolutions on fishing by non-Party vessels and a list authorized vessels; and establishment a committee/scheme to promote compliance by non-contracting parties.
RFBs that commented on MCS - port control measures included reference to their trade documentation scheme and conservation measures adopted in support of a catch documentation scheme, and conservation and enforcement measures. One RFB noted that this control is exercised by each country, and another indicated that such measures are contained in agreed regional minimum terms and conditions for access by foreign fishing vessels.
Few RFBs referred to existing boarding and inspection schemes. One reported that a system on inspection has been in place since 1988, and another since 1993. The scheme forms part of the conservation and enforcement measures of one RFB, and the harmonized minimum terms and conditions for fisheries access (MTCs) of another. One RFB referred to the exchange of information on guiding inspectors, and another has recently adopted measures.
Of the measures considered to be highly effective, the development of observer programmes was the only item endorsed by two RFBs. One RFB reported an observer programme that has been in place since 1996, and another cited its Program for Observers and Satellite Tracking.
Two RFBs referred to presumptions they have adopted describing elements of IUU fishing. The presumptions assist in identifying IUU fishing vessels in order that agreed measures and action can then be taken. Information on these and similar resolutions adopted by other RFBs is in Appendix 2.
RFBs referred to both formal and informal action plans to combat IUU fishing. A formal Action Plan forms one of the four pillars of the approach of one RFB to IUU fishing. The Plan identifies countries that are supporting illegal fishing for southern bluefin tuna (SBT). Several countries have been identified and threatened with trade restrictive action. Of the countries identified to date, four have left the fishery and another three are now cooperating fully with the RFBs management objectives. The action plan is a permanent agenda item for consideration at each annual meeting of the Commission. Another RFB has prepared a formal draft Action Plan, under review at the time of writing.
Other RFBs report that no formal plan has been adopted, but that specific action has been taken such as requiring satellite positioning systems or developing evidentiary measures. One RFB referred to its mechanism of Enforcement Evaluation and Coordination Meetings in this context.
Some RFBs reported annual or other focused estimates of the extent, magnitude and character of IUU fishing. One RFB stated that it estimates IUU fishing exists, but that it is not relevant in extent or magnitude.
The determination of policy objectives for coordination with RFMOs was reported to be carried out under the framework of the Convention/Treaty by two of the respondents, by and another in discussions at meetings with RFMOs.
There are three items referring to the strengthening of institutional mechanisms, relating to mandate, functions and decision-making. In respect of all three, one RFB referred to its comment regarding the applicability of the Convention/Treaty noted in the preceding paragraph. Another did the same in respect of mandate, and for functions reported that the Commission continuously updates and develops the institutional framework for the rational exploitation of fisheries within its jurisdiction.
Cooperation with non-members is carried out regularly by many RFBs, and one RFB reported that a comprehensive policy is adopted and implemented. Another cited such cooperation as one of the four pillars of its approach to IUU fishing, and elaborated that it established the status of cooperating non-member as part of a strategy to engage with all countries active or interested in the fishery. This status provides non-members with the right to participate fully in the affairs of the RFB other than to vote and imposes responsibilities to implement the management and conservation measures of the RFB including to limit catch to an agreed amount. It is regarded as a transitional measure to full membership and accession to the Convention. Three countries have indicated that they wish to apply for cooperating non-member status. If granted, the RFB will be setting catch limits for almost 100 percent of catch activity in the fishery. For 2003-2004 the RFB set catch limits on members totalling 14,030 tonnes and another 900 tonnes for cooperating non-members.
On the other hand, an RFB that responded no to this item commented that it is an open organization but has, however, not established a policy to encourage non-contracting Parties to join the RFB. It adopted a resolution in 1999 to guide future new members expectations with regard to fishing opportunities in the regulatory area.
Many respondents indicated they are taking measures or actions relating to flag State responsibility, and some others have the matter under review. Actions taken by two of the respondents were described. In one, if a non-contracting Party vessel has been observed fishing in the regulatory area, the President of the RFB sends a letter to the flag State of the vessel, requesting their cooperation. Another indicated that it carries out diplomatic demarches. A third cited measures agreed at regional level in the minimum terms and conditions of fisheries access for foreign fishing vessels.
Five or less RFBs responded yes to each of the nine items on the questionnaire shown in Figure 3, indicating some activity only. The highest aggregation of items relate to trade and market-related measures, followed by institutional and coordination aspects of enforcement. An area relevant to enforcement, examination of chartering arrangements, is included in this grouping. The remaining items relate to strengthening institutional finance mechanisms, timely and effective implementation of policies internally, with other RFMOs and internationally, and other measures/action.
Of the above, the items in this grouping where the least activity is indicated are the examination of chartering arrangements and regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on enforcement, which received three affirmative responses each, and regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on trade, with only one RFB responding affirmatively.
Figure 3. Some activity indicated
(Five or less yes responses)
· Development of methods of compiling and using trade information to monitor IUU fishing;
· Market-related measures to combat IUU fishing;
· Examination of chartering arrangements;
· Institutional mechanisms strengthened - finance;
· Institutional mechanisms strengthened - enforcement schemes;
· Regularize coordination with other RFMOs - enforcement;
· Regularize coordination with other RFMOs - trade;
· Timely, effective implementation of policies, measures internally, with other RFMOs and internationally;
· Other measures/action not covered above.
Two RFBs commented on their existing measures and activities in relation to the development of methods of compiling and using trade information to monitor IUU fishing. One referred to its Catch Documentation Scheme in place since 2000. A third RFB reported that the matter is under discussion. Another RFB, which has implemented a trade documentation scheme as one pillar of a four-point approach to IUU fishing, described its procedures as follows.
The trade documentation scheme requires members not to import southern bluefin tuna (SBT) unless it is accompanied by a trade document of the RFB. These will only be accepted from countries who have undertaken to cooperate with the RFB. The trade documents have a specified structure and a minimum list of data to be supplied. Apart from the usual data requirements associated with identifying the product and where it was caught and by whom, the country of destination must be completed. They are consecutively numbered.
Members that import SBT are also required to send copies of all trade document scheme forms to the Secretariat for reconciliation. The Secretariat contacts the exporting country if forms are missing. Data collected from the Scheme will be placed on the RFB website shortly.
In recent years some new markets have developed in countries who are not members of the RFB. To ensure the integrity of the scheme, the RFB will be asking these countries to assist by returning the forms to the Secretariat for reconciliation.
This scheme has eliminated flag of convenience vessels from a number of countries from the fishery because the market has been made inaccessible.
More recently the scheme enabled the RFB to identify flag of convenience vessels operating under the flag of a country that was cooperating with it. The RFB approached the cooperating country on the basis of the trade information. The vessels have been de-registered and the vessels are no longer active in the fishery.
Four of the five RFBs indicating affirmative responses to the above item on trade information also provided affirmative responses to the item on market-related measures to combat IUU fishing. One RFB referred to its Catch Documentation Scheme under each question.
Of the three RFBs that indicated implementation of the measure to examine chartering arrangements, one referred to the system of notification and reporting under chartering agreements that is in place. Another commented that the matter has been partly examined.
One RFB commented on the item relating to strengthening institutional mechanisms regarding finance. It noted that there seems to be enough flexibility in its Convention to enable it to meet the objectives stated, and most are already in place. However, it noted that there seems to be room for improvement concerning coordination and cooperation with other RFMOs. The RFB applied the same comment to the remaining substantive items in this grouping
No other comment was received regarding strengthening institutional mechanisms in relation to finance. One RFB that responded yes in relation to institutional strengthening for enforcement schemes noted that the Commission establishes fishing regulations and each country is in charge of enforcement within its jurisdiction. The same RFB responded yes to the item on regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on enforcement, and commented that it has coordination arrangements with a relevant Commission for a specific species within the framework of its treaty.
The one RFB that referred to other measures/action not covered by the substantive items referred to management measures it had taken.
 The two items where the
total no responses exceeded the yes plus under
review responses are Question 18, Examination of Chartering Arrangements
and Question 32, Regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on trade. These are
discussed in the text below.|
 Details of respondents are noted in Figure 1.
 Question 18. CCSBT, CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, GFCM, IATTC, NASCO, RECOFI. Three RFBs indicated yes.
 Question 32. CCAMLR, CCSBT, FFA, GFCM, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, RECOFI. One RFB indicated yes, however five RFBs indicated this was not applicable. IATTC responded yes.
 Question 7. CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, GFCM, NAFO, NASCO, RECOFI. Five RFBs responded yes, one N/A, and two under review.
 Question 15. CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, NAFO, NASCO, RECOFI. Five RFBs responded yes, none N/A, three under review.
 Question 29. CCSBT, FFA, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, NASCO, RECOFI. Five RFBs responded yes two N/A, one under review.
 Question 31. CCSBT, FFA, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, NAFO, RECOFI. Three RFBs responded yes, three N/A and one under review.
 e.g., CCAMLR.
 Question 33. Timely, effective implementation of policies, measures internally, with other RFMOs and internationally. Five RFBs responded no and four responded yes.
 Of the 36 items, 29 showed a response of 0-2 RFBs.
 Question 23. CECAF, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 24. IPCH, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 26. CTMFM, IPHC, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 31. IPHC, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 33. CTMFM, FFA, IPHC, NEAFC.
 Question 36. CECAF, IPHC, NASCO, NEAFC.
 Question 32. CECAF, CTMFM, IPHC, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, IPHC, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 The Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
 Twenty-seven of the items marked Under Review showed 0-2 RFBs each.
 Question 11. GFCM, ICCAT, NEAFC. ICCAT also indicated no for this question.
 Question 13. CCSBT, CECAF, ICCAT.
 Question 14. CECAF, CTMFM, NEAFC.
 Question 15. GFCM, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 17. CCAMLR, GFCM, NEAFC. CCAMLR noted that the draft prepared is under review. IATTC (not included) commented that there is no formal plan, but evidentiary measures are being adopted.
 Question 23. GFCM, IATTC, IBSFC. IATTC referred to discussions at meetings of RFMOs and tuna RFMOs.
 Question 30. CECAF, GFCM, IBSFC.
 Question 35. CCAMLR, GFCM, IPHC.
 Question 4. NPAFC.
 Question 14. CCSBT, FFA.
 Question 17. NPAFC, which referred to the Joint Operations Information Coordination Group; Enforcement Evaluation and Coordination Meetings. Information is on the website.
 ICCAT has advised that it responded yes to a number of questions, particularly relating to MCS, where measures have been adopted but are not expected to formally enter into force until June 2004.
 Question 1. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CECAF, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 2. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC.
 Question 3. CCAMLR, CCSBT, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC.
 Question 5. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 6. CCAMLR, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 8. CCAMLR, CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC.
 Question 9. CCAMLR, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 10. CCAMLR, CECAF, CMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 12. CCAMLR, CECAF, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 20. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 21. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CECAF, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 22. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NASCO, NPAFC.
 Question 28. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NAPFC.
 Question 30. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC.
 CCAMLR reported the establishment of a Committee (SCIC) with Revised Terms of Reference on Implementation and Compliance. CTMFM noted that the Commission has the mandate to adopt norms and measures aimed at ensuring the rational exploitation of the fisheries within its jurisdiction. The existing institutional framework is continuously updated by means of agreements arrived to in the Commission. IATTC referred to the Antigua Convention signed 14 November 2003. NAFO noted that the Secretariat has the necessary resources to carry out its functions, and non-Members whose vessels fish in the NAFO area are routinely invited to join the Convention.
 CTMFM noted that the Commission, within its jurisdiction, serves as a channel for the exchange of fisheries information between both member countries.
 CTMFM commented that the policy objectives are set out in the Treaty (to ensure rational exploitation of the fisheries within the Commissions jurisdiction) and developed in successive Resolutions approved by the Commission. NAFO, in a similar vein, noted that there seems to be flexibility enough in the Convention itself that enables NAFO to meet the objectives outlined in this paragraph. And as commented on above, most of these means are already in place in NAFO. However, there seems to be room for improvement concerning coordination and cooperation with other regional fisheries management organizations (this comment is also applicable to items 23-33 of the questionnaire).
 CCAMLR noted that a suite of measures has been developed and is kept under review, and new measures are adopted. CTMFM reported that since 17 November 2003, Argentine fishing vessels must be equipped with compulsory satellite positioning systems. The Uruguayan fleet will implement the same system as soon as possible. Until that system is ready, Uruguayan ships must report their position at specified intervals. Relevant IATTC resolutions since 1998 are available on the website, and NAFO has adopted Conservation and Enforcement Measures (CEM) which include compliance measures, and that are under consecutive review by the Fisheries Commission.
 CTMFM has the matter under review, and noted that it is in the process of setting up a common fishing report. FFA has undertaken its work through the Harmonised Minimum Terms and Conditions for Foreign Fishing Vessel Access (MTCs). NAFO referred to PART III (E) (Hail system) of the Conservation and Enforcement Measures.
 CCAMLR noted that a vessel database has been established and is maintained. CTMFM explained that the competent fisheries Authority of each of the Parties is in charge of issuing fishing permits. This information must be communicated to the Commission and to the other Party. FFA referred to the Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels, and NAFO referred to its Conservation and Enforcement Measures Part IIID, Notification of Fishing and Processing Vessels.
 CCAMLR noted that the vessel database has information of IUU vessels. CTMFM reported that Navies and Coast Guards have the task of reporting on IUU fishing activities. NAFO referred to paragraph 5.2 of the Rules of Procedure for the General Council, concerning The Standing Committee on Non-Contracting Party Fishing Activities (STACFAC).
 CECAF noted the existence of sub-regional and national MCS initiatives, and CCSBT reported that its members all have MCS systems in place. Their implementation is reported to the CCSBT in various ways at meetings. CTMFM referred to the requirement since 17 November 2003 for Argentine fishing vessels to be equipped with compulsory satellite positioning systems. The Uruguayan fleet is to implement the same system as soon as possible. Until that system is ready, Uruguayan ships must report their position at specified intervals.
 NAFO has established catch and monitoring systems and systems for monitoring of landings and port control, see PART VII (Port inspections) of the Conservation and Enforcement Measures. These measures include transhipment, see PART I J) and PART III E), 1 (e) and paragraphs 2, 5, 10 and 11 of the non-CP Scheme.
 ICCAT adopted a package of MCS measures in November 2003, but they are not expected to formally enter into force until June 2004.
 CCAMLR is developing centralized VMS. FFA also coordinates centralized VMS.
 CTMFM reported that, from November 17, 2003, Argentine fishing vessels must be equipped with compulsory satellite positioning systems. The Uruguayan fleet will implement the same system as soon as possible. Until that system is ready, Uruguayan ships must report their position at specified intervals. FFAs centralized approach monitors vessel positions only. IPHC referred to limited implementation for domestic, primarily for domestic purposes. NAFO referred to CEM PART I, D) (Recording of catch), PART III E) (Hail system) and PART VI (Program for observers and satellite tracking. VMS is real time. ICCAT adopted relevant measures in November 2003, but they are not expected to formally enter into force until June 2004.
 CCAMLR referred to its trade documentation scheme and Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. CECAF noted statistical reporting, ICCAT referred to measures adopted in November 2003 but are not expected to formally enter into force until June 2004, and NAFO cited CEM PART VII (Port Inspections).
 FFA cited the agreed Minimum Terms and Conditions of Access by Foreign Fishing Vessels. ICCAT referred to relevant measures adopted in November 2003, but not yet expected to formally enter into force until June 2004. NAFO referred to CEM PART I (J) and PART III (E),1 (e) and paragraphs 2, 5, 10 and 11 of the non-CP Scheme.
 CCAMLR reported that this is annually reviewed by the Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC) and reported to the Commission. CCSBT noted that this is done in an unstructured way by providing other RFBs with the report of the CCSBT deliberations. IATTC stated that resolutions are circulated to non-members and other tuna RFMOs. NAFO reported that this information is not made available to other RFMOs or FAO.
 CCAMLR noted that this information is compiled and exchanged between members via the CCAMLR website. CCSBT reports that the positive list is one of the four pillars of its approach to IUU fishing. At the 2003 annual meeting the CCSBT agreed to introduce a list of vessels over 24 metres authorized to fish for SBT. This will come into effect on 1 July 2004. The list will include vessels from members and all cooperating countries. Members are required to prevent the import of SBT from any vessel that is not on the list of approved vessels. The list of approved vessels will be published on the CCSBT website. The agreed scheme requires the Secretariat to make the information available to other RFBs to assist in the coordination of efforts to combat IUU fishing. The CCSBT agreed not to develop a negative list at this stage preferring to wait until the effectiveness of the positive list could be determined. ICCAT referred to information on its website, and NAFO noted that this information is not made available to other RFMOs or FAO.
 Eight responded affirmatively, see Figure 2.
 A higher number of RFBs responded no to the question on exchange of information on IUU fishing (5 RFBs) than to questions on exchange of information on measures (2 RFBs) and vessel records (3 RFBs). Responding to this question, CCAMLR noted that the information exchange is arranged via the CCAMLR website. CTMFM, designating N/A, stated that the fisheries in the area of the Commission do not employ support vessels. IATTC referred to its resolutions on fishing by non-Party vessels and its List of Large Scale Tuna Longline Vessels. NAFO has established a specific committee (STACFAC) addressing issues regarding non-Contracting Parties activities in the Regulatory Area and has adopted a Scheme to Promote Compliance by non-Contracting Party Vessels with the Conservation and Enforcement Measures Established by NAFO (the non-CP Scheme).
 Question 4. CCAMLR, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 11. CCAMLR, CTMFM, FFA, IBSFC, IPHC, NAFO, NASCO.
 Question 13. CCAMLR, FFA, IBSFC, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 14. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, IPHC, NAFO.
 Question 16. CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, ICCAT, NAFO, NEAFC.
 Question 17. CCSBT, CTMFM, IBSFC, ICCAT, NASCO, NPAFC.
 Question 19. CCAMLR, CTMFM, IATTC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 23. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO.
 Question 24. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO.
 Question 25. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO.
 Question 27. CCAMLR, CCSBT, CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NPAFC.
 Question 34. CCAMLR, CCSBT, FFA, IATTC, ICCAT, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.
 Question 35. CCSBT, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC.
 NAFO referred to its CEM PART VII (Port Inspections).
 NPAFC, under the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean.
 NAFO, which referenced CEM PART IV (Scheme of joint international inspection and surveillance).
 ICCAT: the measures are not expected to enter into force before June 2004.
 CCSBT and FFA.
 CCAMLR , the Scheme of International Scientific Observation.
 NAFO, CEM PART VI.
 CCAMLR cited Conservation Measure 10-06: see www.ccamlr.org. Concerning vessels flying the flag of Contracting Parties, NAFO referred to CEM PART IV paragraph 9. Concerning non-Contracting Party vessels, see paragraph 10 of the non-CP scheme.
 CTMFM and IATTC, respectively.
 NAFO. The meetings fall within its Joint Operations Information Coordination Group.
 CCAMLR and NAFO carry out annual estimates, and NAFO referred to the annual compliance report and list of non-contracting Parties vessels fishing in the NAFO area. This is not made available to other RFMOs or FAO, however. IATTC referred to purse seine vessels that are not complying with management measures, and identification of non-reporting longline vessels. ICCAT reported that catches are estimated mainly for bluefin and bigeye tunas; vessels investigated have mostly been large-scale longliners.
 CTMFM referred to the Rio de la Plata Management Commission within the framework of the Treaty, IATTC identified discussions at meetings of RFMOs and tuna RFMOs, and NAFO stated that there seems to be flexibility enough in the Convention itself that enables NAFO to meet the objectives outlined in this paragraph. Most of these means are already in place in NAFO. However, there seems to be room for improvement concerning coordination and cooperation with other regional fisheries management organizations. NAFO applied this comment to the next three points as well: institutional mechanisms strengthened for mandate, functions and decision-making.
 Question 7. CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT.
 Question 15. CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, ICCAT, IPHC.
 Question 18. CCAMLR, ICCAT, NAFO.
 Question 26. CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, ICCAT, NAFO.
 Question 29. CCAMLR, CTMFM, IBSFC, NAFO, NPAFC.
 Question 31. CCAMLR, CTMFM, NASCO.
 Question 32. IATTC.
 Question 33. CCAMLR, IATTC, NAFO, NASCO.
 Question 36. CTMFM.
 CCAMLR, referring to the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissotichus spp.
 The CCSBT reported it has a very effective trade documentation scheme. The effectiveness derives in significant part from a member (Japan) being almost a monopsonist buyer of SBT. The input costs of targeted fishing for SBT on the high seas means that Japanese sashimi prices are required to make the enterprise viable.
 NAFO, which indicated yes for strengthening institutional mechanisms in relation to finance and enforcement schemes and timely, effective implementation of policies and measures internally, with other RFMOs and internationally. It indicated no for regularizing coordination with other RFMOs on coordination and trade.
 CTMFM referred to coordination with the Rio de la Plata Management Commission, specifically for coastal demersal species within the framework of the treaty.
 CTMFM. While not directly related to measures or action on IUU fishing, it indicates that fishing contrary to these measures would result in IUU fishing. Specific reference was made to: the establishment of: TAC for the main species; closed areas to prevent concentration of juveniles of the main species; the use of selective fishing gears is compulsory for hake; the establishment of a season period of squid harvest; the establishment of minimum catch size for the main species; the establishment of a protection line for demersal coastal species. Vessels of more than 28 m length, can not cross to the northwest of the established line in order to prevent overfishing.