ENB:07:49 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

PART VI - COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

On Article 19, dealing with compliance and enforcement by flag States, Thailand requested that the chapeau be aligned with Article 18(3)(b) with a direct reference or alternate text. Israel said the reference to "flag State" should be removed from chapeau. Australia, supported by Papua New Guinea, stated the chapeau should remain unchanged. The US, supported by the Russian Federation, pointed out that paragraph 1 will be bolstered by national legislation. Israel said Article 217 of the Convention applies to this article and refers also to vessels bearing flag State registry. The Chair said the reference to Article 217 and the suggestion of the Secretariat to delete "flag" would be accepted. Japan questioned term "flying its flag" in the body of the article. The Chair agreed the term flows from the chapeau and should be removed from the body. The EU stated replacement of "sanctions" with "penalties" is unacceptable and urged that paragraph (e) be harmonized with the language of the FAO. He requested "the owner of" be inserted in paragraph (e) before "the vessel does not fish..." Canada supported the EU regarding "penalties". He further stated "adequate in severity" should read "be of sufficient severity as to be effective...", and "the refusal" should be added before "cancellation,..." The Chair noted that Article 217 of the Convention says "adequate in severity". Papua New Guinea supported the EU wording, if "masters" was included. Indonesia stated the paragraph (c) information requirement should be broadened. Regarding paragraph 2, the use of "on such vessels" should be deleted. The Republic of Korea stated that owners should not be responsible for violations, as masters often act without their knowledge.

<$TEfWeight=4>Japan supported the EU regarding the language, saying that paragraph 2 should be consistent with FAO Flagging Agreement, Article 3(8), which suspends the fishing license. Australia, supported by Fiji, noted the vessel must not return to fishing on the high seas. This could be clarified by saying "on vessels flying its flags". Chile suggested that "fishing gear" be inserted between "position" and "catches" in paragraph 1(c), and said available information should be greater. Malaysia stated the use of "sanctions" in paragraph 2 was not adequately discussed, and reserved the right to comment. New Zealand supported the Chair's text, and urged harmonization of paragraph 2 with UNCLOS. China stated "...on the high seas" should be added as in the Flagging Agreement.

Japan, Norway, Peru and the Republic of Korea stated there should be no substantive change. The Chair responded to each of the proposed changes, noting that paragraph 1(c) was already broad enough and that adding references to the high seas and "flying its flag" to paragraph 2 was unnecessary.

For Article 20, on international cooperation in enforcement, Japan proposed adding specific reference to "appropriate authorities". Uruguay, supported by Peru, argued that paragraph 5 should be rearranged to call for flag State authorization to board first, then cooperation in enforcement action. Japan, supported by the US, China and New Zealand, preferred the present wording because general cooperation should come first, then boarding as a last resort.

For Article 22, on boarding and inspection by port States, Chile, supported by Uruguay, stated that paragraph 2 was no longer intact, and proposed a new paragraph that merged paragraphs 1 and 2 and specified the duties of the port State. The Russian Federation said that limitations on port State sovereignty were unacceptable, questioned the meaning of "voluntarily" in a port and requested changing "right" to "obligation" in paragraph 1. Japan, supported by the US, the EU, Australia, Papua New Guinea and China, said the wording was intentionally vague and represented an acceptable, negotiated compromise. Uruguay argued that flag State involvement is needed for violations on the high seas and does not undermine port State sovereignty. The Republic of Korea, supported by Poland, noted that "inter alia," in reference to acts a port State may undertake, should be deleted. Indonesia commented that landings and transshipments mentioned in paragraph 3 warranted sentences. Chile withdrew its proposal, providing that the text remained unchanged. The Chair summarized: the paragraph will be retitled; "duty" will be added to paragraph 1; paragraph 2 will retain the word "may" to keep the voluntary tenor; "inter alia" will not be deleted; paragraph 3 and 4 will remain unchanged. The article, as amended, was accepted.

[Return to start of article]