53. The experts noted that many of the issues raised at the Consultation had already been the subject of recommendations by other Expert Consultations and similar meetings where the need had been reaffirmed for an effective clearinghouse of MCS data formats and standards.
54. The Consultation further noted that the CWP membership represented most of the parties concerned with the international exchange of MCS information, and considered the CWP to be the primary international body for this purpose.
55. The Expert Consultation recommended as follows:
a) When establishing data formats and procedures for MCS, States, RFMOs and other entities that are concerned with the international exchange of MCS data, are encouraged wherever possible to make use of the existing international codes and standards as recommended by the CWP.
b) FAO should take measures to increase awareness of the mission and objectives of the CWP, improve access to the CWP web site and documents, and facilitate greater use of standards already agreed for fisheries data formats and procedures.
c) The CWP should establish procedures for the proposal and adoption of internationally acceptable data formats and procedures for MCS, including a mechanism for achieving CWP consensus by remote means, so that the CWP can facilitate its role as a clearinghouse for international fishery data standards and procedures.
d) FAO, in close coordination with the CWP, should identify gaps and/or conflicts in existing data standards, and pursue initiatives to establish required international standards.
e) The CWP should encourage newly established RFMOs and current non-member RFMOs to adopt existing international standards for data collection, recording and international exchange, and to seek membership in the CWP with a view to playing an active role in its activities.
f) Where different coding schemes are used for describing equivalent data elements, FAO should prepare and make available, through the CWP web site and reports, tables indicating the correspondence between the codes as a step towards possible harmonization of such codes.
g) The Secretariat of the CWP should provide copies of this report ("Report of the Expert Consultation on Data Formats and Procedures for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance, Bergen, Norway, 25-27 October 2004") to the members of the CWP.
h) Flag States should require that their vessels report directly to the flag State’s FMC.
i) The CWP should consider the "North Atlantic Format" for adoption as the model for developing an international standard for VMS position and catch reporting, and the CWP should enter into a dialogue with NEAFC with regard to the custodianship of the international format, and establish protocols for future alterations of the international format.
j) All flag States should establish an electronic database of their fishing vessels, with particular reference to large vessels and vessels operating outside the waters under their jurisdiction. In establishing such databases, flag States should take due notice of the database structures and codes used at international level.
k) The CWP, with assistance from FAO and CWP members, should:
(i) recommend field codes and data formats, or database interchange formats, for fishing vessel databases, such as those required under the Compliance Agreement, in order to facilitate the crosschecking in, and exchange among, databases of fishing vessels;
(ii) recommend standards for the international exchange of information on fishing vessel authorizations;
(iii) adopt the UN-LOCODE as a standard for identification of fishing ports in fisheries-related databases and international exchange of data; and
(iv) recommend definitions for major fisheries violations and the respective codes for violations to facilitate international exchange of information on violations.
l) FAO should synthesize available information on electronic logbooks with a view to establishing standard data formats. Where possible, fisheries authorities should use existing codes and formats as recommended by the CWP.
m) Ecolabelling certification bodies should use internationally accepted codes as recommended by the CWP.
