General
12. A summary of the experience of RFMOs with trade documentation schemes and of their impacts is provided here. A more comprehensive account is given in FI:HCC/2002/Inf.2.
13. It was considered that multiple formats may create confusion and increase the paperwork burden placed on operators. The Consultation noted that in the future, more of the world’s fisheries would be subject to landings certification and that there would be a number of advantages in harmonizing aspects of these as well as existing schemes. Harmonization of the schemes would create incentives towards compliance, would promote international trade in fish products and would reduce the possibility of fraud.
14. Trade documents should have harmonized formats and overlays so that they would be readily completed in a number of languages and readily identifiable to customs officers.
15. It was also noted that some shipments of fish might actually be subject to schemes of more than one RFMO. For example, long liners were capable of carrying frozen fish harvested in different oceans. It was noted that the ICCAT, CCSBT and IOTC schemes already used forms that were very similar. The Consultation recommended that the three bodies consult to ensure that the forms are the same and to move towards consistent application of their schemes.
ICCAT
16. The trade document system for bluefin tuna had been initiated by ICCAT in the late 1980s and implemented in 1993. In 1991 the scheme uncovered unreported landings totalling 10% of reported landings. All bluefin exported to the parties of ICCAT had to have trade documents validated by government agencies. Indeed, the ICCAT system required exporters to complete the trade documents for bluefin tuna shipments harvested in any ocean (not just the Atlantic). This had encouraged some of these countries to impose control over their fleets and to become members of ICCAT. Nevertheless, the trade document scheme had not completely eliminated IUU fishing although it had encouraged compliance.
17. As noted above, the ICCAT scheme does not directly prohibit importation of illegally harvested bluefin tuna. The trade documents do not require a statement that the catch had been made in compliance with the fisheries management measures.
18. Problem areas had occurred with conversion factors between product live weight and product weight. There was also a problem with double counting, with different parts of the same fish being exported to different countries with separate documents.
19. The increase of farming bluefin tuna in pens was also creating problems for the system because the capture of live fish is not documented, they gain weight in the pens, and enter the documentation system after they have been killed.
20. ICCAT is in the process of adopting trade document programmes for big-eye tuna and swordfish. Relative to bluefin tuna, however, the market for these species is much less concentrated, which will create additional challenges for effective implementation.
CCAMLR
21. CCAMLR imposes a catch limit for toothfish with respect to each division in the CCAMLR Convention Area. The catches are monitored every five days; when the catch limit is reached, the fishery closes. All longline vessels licensed to fish in the Convention area have observers on board who report on catches, by-catch, discards and sea bird catches. However the observers do not report in real time.
22. The catch documentation scheme was introduced as a result of a high level of IUU fishing in the Convention area, but could not by itself prevent IUU fishing, so additional means have been implemented. It was pointed out that the CCAMLR reporting system avoided the possibility of double reporting, whereas other regional reporting systems could contribute to double counting. There had been a proposal towards electronic documents for catch documentation being issued and maintained by CCAMLR rather than the flag State. CCAMLR had already imposed rules on access and only authorized officers were able to access data and these rules would be conserved in the new system.
23. CCAMLR effectively combined the catch certificate and the trade document into one document and concentrates on whether the catch has been caught legally. They deal with both parties and non-parties to CCAMLR and with exporters and importers. Major traders in toothfish had also been invited to become parties to the catch documentation scheme. With regard to strength and weaknesses in the system, it was pointed out that the system had only become operational in May 2000 and for the EU in July 2001, however it was pointed out that all vessels of CCAMLR member comply and all landings under the catch documentation system are subject to verification. It has been possible to identify eight cases of fraudulent trade documents. Some of these catches were seized and one vessel confiscated.
24. Evidence seems to indicate that the measures have caused the reduction of the black market prices of toothfish up to 50% of the legitimate market price so it was believed that IUU fishing would be progressively eliminated. The programme was being carried out in cooperation with non-Contracting Parties. The trade documents were being compiled in four languages and a guide for the completion of the catch certificates and catch documents had been published.
25. There had been a problem in how to deal with possible misreporting of the origins of catches reported from outside the Convention area. Increased use of VMS had been suggested as a method to solve this problem. Initial problems had also been experienced with regard to the responsibilities of the different parties to the catch documentation scheme (i.e. flag States, port States, importers and exporters).
IOTC
26. IOTC adopted a trade documentation scheme for bigeye tuna in December 2001. This was expected to be implemented in July 2002. The scheme exempts bigeye caught in the Convention area by purse seine and pole-and-line destined to canning. This is because difficult to distinguish juvenile bigeye tuna from yellowfin of similar size, which are caught by these fisheries. In addition, these species are processed as a single commercial category.
27. The IOTC resolution recognizes that there is a considerable level of IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean and, in a context where current catch levels may not be sustainable for bigeye tuna, it is considered necessary to quantify catches and identify IUU vessels. It is possible that these schemes will be extended to yellowfin tuna and swordfish as these species may also be heavily exploited.
28. There are currently fleets from 30 to 40 flag entities operating in the Indian Ocean, landing in a large number of ports. In addition, up to 60 % of the tuna caught by large deep-freezing long liners is thought to be transshipped at sea. The IOTC scheme requires certification by officials representing the flag State and care will have to be taken to ensure that the verification process is carried out in a satisfactory manner.
29. The IOTC documentation scheme is identical to the one being considered for bigeye by ICCAT and this already provided a certain degree of harmonization. It was pointed out, however, that inclusion in both schemes of information on the precise dates of fishing trips when the catch was made would provide valuable information on the activity patterns of the vessels concerned. Both the IOTC and the ICCAT schemes require contracting and collaborating parties to report imports from all oceans. This opens an opportunity for coordination of actions between these two bodies.
CCSBT
30. No participants in the Expert Consultation had direct experience relating to CCSBT. However, the CCSBT Executive Secretary provided a copy of the minutes from the recent CCSBT meeting at which the organization discussed implementation of its trade documentation scheme, noting several emerging issues. CCSBT also provided data from its scientific meeting demonstrating the impact of the introduction of the scheme.
Other systems
31. The Consultation discussed the following other related experiences and systems which were different in nature to the catch certificate and trade document schemes discussed above.
IATTC/AIDCP
32. Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) recently adopted a scheme under which the parties could issue certificates indicating that canned tuna is “dolphin-safe” (i.e. was harvested without dolphin mortality or serious injury). The dolphin safe tuna certificate is a different type of form from all the others in that it is not aimed at trade or management measures but at market objectives. Observers are present on all large purse-seine vessels. At the time of catch, dolphin safe tuna is stored in separate wells from non-dolphin safe tuna. The tuna tracking number attached to the fish follows it through the system. Copies of the dolphin safe certificate and the original tuna tracking form are kept by the secretariat.
33. As this scheme was only introduced in July/August 2001, it is too soon to assess its effectiveness.
34. Although this scheme was not created as a tuna management tool, it may create an additional incentive for fishers to avoid dolphin mortality in the tuna fishery of the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
35. There is some longline tuna fishing in the Eastern Pacific Ocean by vessels of States that are not IATTC members which do not report their catches to the IATTC. The adoption of a catch certification or trade documentation programme for these fisheries might be helpful in the future.
WCPFC
36. The Convention establishing the Commission for Highly Migratory Species in the Central and Western Pacific has not yet entered into force and the Commission does not yet exist as a functioning body and is not expected to do so for several years, but the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish (an ad-hoc meeting of scientists in the region who provide analysis of the fisheries) was considering catch certification and trade documentation as there is considerable potential for unreported catches in the central and western Pacific area. However this is expected to be very difficult due to the wide range of fishing fleets and diverse ports at which the vessels could land.
CITES
37. The CITES permit procedures are based on a system of permits to export products of species listed in the Appendices of CITES. About 30000 species are listed in the three Appendices. Some CITES species have an export quota which is decided by the country of origin. There is a specific field on the permit for recording the amount exported against the quota. It was explained that if fish were caught on the high seas a CITES “introduction from the sea” certificate would need to be issued by the country of first export if those fish were listed in Appendix 2.
38. Government authorities must determine that a species has been legally acquired and that its export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild before an export permit can be issued. The signature or the seal may be authenticated by the CITES Secretariat. The permit is valid for six months. The authority at a national level usually comes under the environment administration, but parties may designate additional management authorities to deal with specific genera. This is the case with sturgeon for which the fisheries administration has been designated as the management authority by most states.
39. It was recommended that if CITES were to list a commercial fish species that was already the subject of a catch certificate or trade document system by a RFMO, to the extent possible the CITES procedures should be harmonized with those of the RFMO.
