BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches2006200720082009201020112012Media contact informationMedia updateMinisters releasesPublications
New Zealand will comment today on the cluster of elements relating to Monitoring, Control and Surveillance; and Compliance and Enforcement.
Extent to which States parties are fulfilling their duties as flag States under Article 18 relating to licensing and authorisation of vessels; establishing national records of vessels; marking of vessels and gear; reporting and catch verification; monitoring, control, and surveillance; and transhipment regulation
Effective flag state control is integral to the effectiveness of international fisheries law. Those wishing to circumvent the conservation and management measures adopted by RFMOs need only re-flag their fishing vessels to states that are either not members of the RFMO concerned or unable or unwilling to exercise their responsibilities for controlling the activities of their vessels.
While responsible flag state behaviour is central to strong deterrence of IUU fishing, these obligations are not yet universally or consistently applied by flag states. Despite perceived advances in the law, it is clear that the problem of inadequate flag state control has not gone away.
A fundamental concern for New Zealand is the lack of means to hold States, including flag states, accountable for meeting their obligations under UNFSA.
To help tackle the problem of flag states failing to live up to their international responsibilities, the High Seas Task Force has proposed a preliminary set of guidelines on flag state performance with respect to high seas fishing vessels. The proposed guidelines (see Appendix 4 of the Task Force report) are based on the obligations of flag states with respect to fishing vessels set out in international fishery instruments.
The High Seas Task Force guidelines consider flag State performance in three broad categories
The proposed guidelines constitute criteria that could be used by States and RFMOs to independently evaluate the performance of flag states with respect to fisheries. In effect, the guidelines are a statement of best practice for flag states of high seas fishing vessels. The aim must be to exert pressure to get all flag states to comply with their obligations regarding their registered fishing fleets. Broad acceptance of international minimum standards – for example through FAO Committee on Fisheries – would enhance the possibility of taking legal action against flag states that consistently fail to live up to their responsibilities.
While New Zealand supports the concept of guidelines on flag state performance for high seas fishing vessels, we consider that further work on the detail of such guidelines will be required if the guidelines are to inform decisions about other states or their vessels. More detailed guidelines can be based on the requirements on flag state responsibilities set out in the FAO International Plan of Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing.
In the same way that we suggested yesterday that RFMOs should themselves be audited, we propose that the performance by flag states of their duties should be subject to audit. The IMO recently agreed on a framework and procedures for its voluntary IMO member state audit scheme. This could be a useful precedent for flag state performance monitoring within the UNFSA context. That said, the challenges we face with respect to flag state implementation relate not to those flag states who are seeking to comply with international instruments and principles relating to flag state responsibility, but rather to those flag States who are not exercising effective control over their vessels.
As one practical matter NZ proposes that an assessment should be done of legislation of UN Member States to determine whether they have provisions requiring their flag vessels not to operate with respect to areas or fisheries governed by RFMOs of which such States are not members
Extent to which port States have adopted measures to promote the effectiveness of RFMO measures. Extent to which RFMOs have adopted such measures.
New Zealand agrees that Port State obligations need to be strengthened as part of the suite of tools to address IUU fishing. The HSTF on IUU fishing also recognised this gap. New Zealand was actively involved in the negotiation and drafting of the FAO model Port State scheme. We support in principle the need for better coordination and strengthened provisions for Port State Controls and would be happy to have further discussions about the specific process to undertake this work. A specific recommendation from the Review Conference would be a good outcome. We would support this work being undertaken by the FAO.
Consistent with the recent report of the High Seas Task Force, New Zealand encourages the Review Conference to
New Zealand also supports the Norwegian proposal that the Review Conference recommend that States consider initiating a process within the FAO to establish a legally binding instrument on port state control based on the FAO Model Port Scheme.
Extent to which States parties individually and through RFMOs, cooperate to ensure compliance with and enforcement of conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in accordance with articles 10(h), 20, and 22
RFMOs have proliferated around the geographical range of stocks or species. There are important interactions between fish stocks in different regions as well as between species associated with or dependent upon target stocks. There are also interactions between management measures, for example, quotas set for tuna species that migrate between regions; measures taken to avoid bycatch of seabirds; measures to address IUU fishing; and trade-related measures.
Greater coordination between RFMOs (and with market states) would be beneficial to ensure the establishment of compatible MCS and compliance and enforcement measures e.g. vessel registers, centralised regional Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), harmonisation of sanctions/penalties. There would also be substantial benefit in a more systematic sharing of knowledge among RFMOs.
In its recent report, the High Seas Task Force agreed to
The MCS network is a voluntary arrangement between national organisations with responsibility for fisheries related MCS activities including over 50 countries. Its objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of MCS activities through enhanced cooperation, coordination and information collection and exchange among organisations responsible for fisheries–related MCS.
The MCS network is an effective tool against IUU fishing, but is limited in its effectiveness because of its voluntary nature and the fact it has no formal secretariat or location.
New Zealand proposes that the existing voluntary International MCS Network be strengthened by providing resources to improve its effectiveness, give it a dedicated analytical capability and give it the capacity to provide training and technical support to fisheries enforcement agencies in developing countries. The enhanced MCS Network will significantly improve the information available to enforcement organisations, exposing IUU operations, and will strengthen national and regional capacity to improve enforcement against IUU.
