LODGE presentation

The approach of the High Seas Task Force towards Evaluating Flag State Performance: 

The approach of the High Seas Task Force towards Evaluating Flag State Performance Michael W. Lodge Round Table on Sustainable Development at the OECD (High Seas Task Force 2004 - 2006)

The background: 

The background High Seas Task Force 2004 – 2006. Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, UK, IUCN, WWF, Earth Institute. Brief to develop initiatives that could be implemented immediately without waiting for the rest of the international community and would have a measurable impact on the problem of IUU fishing. “Closing the Net”, March 2006

The problem: 

The problem How to expose and deter IUU fishers and create disincentives to reflagging? Report: How well are flag States performing? (HSTF/07) www.high-seas.org Gianni and Simpson, 2006 Conclusion: Cannot expect radical improvements in the immediate future.

The proposal: 

The proposal Database on information on global high seas fishing fleet (FISHVIS). Supported by Guidelines on Flag State Performance for Fishing Vessels Periodic independent evaluation of performance against those guidelines

The precedent: 

The precedent

The precedent: 

The precedent Round Table of Shipping Industry Organizations BIMCO (123 countries, 65% merchant fleet) INTERTANKO (70% tanker fleet) www.marisec.org/flag-performance Not a ranking, but highlights “possible negative performance”

Shipping industry criteria: 

Shipping industry criteria Based on shipping industry guidelines (safety, environmental and social performance) Port State control (Paris, Tokyo, USCG black and white lists) Non-ratification of IMO Conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, LL 66, STCW 78 and ILO 147) Classification: A.379 (IACS) Fleet average age IMO reporting IMO attendance

HSTF Guidelines: 

HSTF Guidelines Developed at September 2005 workshop Intended to be a prototype model Criteria based on objective list of flag state responsibilities contained in e.g. IPOA-IUU, UNSG Report on Flag State Implementation (A/59/63) Aim to use guidelines to: Evaluate performance of individual flag states Name and shame poor performers

HSTF Evaluation Criteria: 

HSTF Evaluation Criteria Participation in global fisheries agreements LOSC / UNFSA / FAO Compliance / SCTW Participation in regional fisheries agreements and organizations RFMO membership / C-NCP status / compliance record Domestic implementation NPOA-IUU / National record / FAO Marking / High seas authorization

And the winner is …: 

And the winner is …

Slide11: 

Albania Bolivia Cambodia Costa Rica Democratic Republic of Congo Georgia Honduras Indonesia Kenya Madagascar Mongolia Surinam Belize Bolivia Cambodia Cyprus Equatorial Guinea Georgia Honduras Marshall Islands Mauritius Panama St Vincent & The Grenadines Sierra Leone Vanuatu Cambodia Colombia Congo Dominica Georgia Grenada Israel Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahirya Mauritania Panama Palau Philippines Singapore Togo Vanuatu HSTF Criteria Marisec (2005) Gianni & Simpson (2006)

Tentative conclusions ….: 

Tentative conclusions …. Very little correlation between FONC and traditional FOC. FONC tend not to have significant merchant fleets (no value in fishing vessels). Major FOC (Liberia etc.) not interested in fishing vessels and amenable to reform (Belize). FONC not making big money out of flagging fishing vessels. But FONC tend to have potential for RFMO allocations.

Where to from here?: 

Where to from here? Simple, low-cost initiative Guidelines and criteria can be further refined and improved Guidelines could be adopted by an international body (e.g. FAO) Add in port state controls as they develop (record of detentions/inspections) Evaluation of performance against guidelines should be independent Needs high-profile host and wide publicity