**International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas**

**(Basic Instrument for the International Commission for the**

**Conservation of Atlantic Tunas \-- ICCAT)**

**[Basic Instrument]{.underline}**

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (TIAS
6767), 20 U.S.T. 2887, 1969, which was signed on May 14, 1966.

**[Implementing Legislation]{.underline}**

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971 et. seq.).

**[Member Nations]{.underline}**

There are currently 41 Contracting Parties: Algeria, Angola, Barbados,
Belize, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China (People\'s Republic), Côte
d\'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus (Republic of), Equatorial Guinea, European
Community (EC), France (in respect of St. Pierre et Miquelon), Gabon,
Ghana, Guinea (Republic of), Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Korea (Republic
of), Libya, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama,
Philippines, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa
(Republic of), Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom (in
respect of its overseas territories), United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu,
and Venezuela.

It was agreed at the 1997 Annual Meeting that all EC Member States would
withdraw from the Commission effective December 31, 1997. France and the
United Kingdom rejoined in respect of their independent territories.

**[Commission Headquarters]{.underline}**

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

c/ Corazon de Maria, 8

6-Planta

28002 Madrid, Spain

Executive Secretary (as of May 2004): Mr. Driss Meski

Telephone (from U.S.): (011) 34-91-416-5600

Fax: (011) 34-91-415-2612

Web address: [http://www.iccat.int](http://www.iccat.int/)

**[Budget]{.underline}**

The Commission\'s Standing Committee on Finance and Administration
(STACFAD) approved a budget for calendar year 2006 of 2,172,222.94
Euros, which is the same as approved in 2005. The U.S. contribution to
this budget is approximately 149,000 Euros (approximately \$190,539.78).

The budget reflects salary increases resulting from a new UN
cost-of-living index for Madrid, and includes funds to fill the ICCAT
Publications Coordinator position; vacant since September 2004, and to
hire a new Compliance Officer to administer the positive and negative
vessel lists and manage other compliance information. Given the
projected salary increases, STACFAD once again deferred funding for two
major SCRS priorities: a large-scale bluefin tuna research initiative,
and the creation of a new Bycatch Coordinator position.

ICCAT was able to begin rebuilding its working capital fund in 2004,
thanks to several members paying some or all of their arrears and a
small improvement in the overall payment rate. However, several
Contracting Parties continue to carry significant balances. STACFAD
adopted a U.S. proposal calling on each member with accumulated arrears
to develop a plan to pay its full assessment and any amount overdue.
ICCAT will review this information in 2005 and consider suspending
voting rights of Contracting Parties that are more than two years
behind, as called for in Article X.8 of the Convention.

The Madrid Protocol will enter into force in 2005, which will improve
ICCAT=s budget situation beginning in 2006. The Madrid Protocol
restructures the way Contracting Party assessments are calculated and
links payments to a country=s level of economic development. Under the
new contribution scheme, most ICCAT members will see their payments drop
significantly, though developed countries like the United States will
face substantial increases.

Several other items were acted upon in STACFAD including the selection
of a new auditor, conversion of three staff positions to the
professional series, and the liquidation of accumulated overtime.
Significantly, Japan made a commitment of \$300,000 per year for five
years to improve data collection in developing countries. Japan will
provide a staff person to the Secretariat to oversee the use of the
funds.

**[U.S. Representation]{.underline}**

A. Appointment Process:

The ATCA provides that not more than three Commissioners shall represent
the United States in ICCAT. Commissioners are appointed by the President
and serve 3-year terms. Of the three U.S. Commissioners, one can be a
salaried employee of any state or political subdivision thereof, or of
the Federal Government. The Government Commissioner is not limited in
the number of terms that he or she can serve. Of the two Commissioners
who are not government employees, one must have knowledge and experience
regarding commercial fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico or
Caribbean Sea and the other must have similar knowledge and experience
regarding recreational fishing. The non-Government Commissioners are not
eligible to serve more than two consecutive 3-year terms.

B. U.S. Commissioners:

[Government]{.underline}

William T. Hogarth, Ph.D.

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

[Commercial]{.underline}

Randi Parks Thomas

U.S. Tuna Foundation

1101 17^th^ St., N.W., Suite 609

Washington, D.C. 20036

[Recreational]{.underline}

Robert Hayes

American Sportfishing Association

225 Reinekers Lane

Suite 420

Alexandria, VA 22314

C. Advisory Structure:

The U.S. Commissioners are required, under the ATCA, to constitute an
Advisory Committee to the U.S. National Section to ICCAT. This body
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, consist of an equitable
balance among the various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by
the Convention and is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Committee consists of (1) Anot less than five nor more than twenty
individuals appointed by the United States Commissioners who shall
select such individuals from the various groups concerned with the
fisheries covered by the Convention@ and (2) the Chairs (or their
designees) of the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean,
and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (FMCs). Public Committee
members serve 2-year terms and are eligible for reappointment. The
Committee generally consists of the maximum 20 public members and the
five FMC representatives.

Upon approval of the Committee and the Department of State, the
directors (or their designees) of the fisheries agencies of each of the
states, the residents of which maintain a highly migratory species
fishery in the regulatory area of the Convention, may be invited to
serve as *ex officio* members of the Committee. The Advisory Committee
is invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the U.S.
Commissioners and, at such meetings, shall have the opportunity to
examine and to be heard on all proposed programs of investigation,
reports, recommendations, and regulations of the Commission.

The ATCA also provides that the Commissioners may establish species
working groups for the purpose of providing advice and recommendations
to the Commissioners and to the Advisory Committee on matters relating
to the conservation and management of any highly migratory species
covered by the Convention. Any species working group shall consist of no
more than seven members of the Advisory Committee and no more than four
scientific or technical personnel. The Commissioners have established
the following four working groups: billfish, swordfish, bluefin tuna,
and BAYS (bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack) tunas. The
Commissioners generally appoint the maximum number of technical advisors
provided by law.

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee is Dr. John Graves, The College
of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062. The Committee=s Executive
Secretary is Erika Carlsen (see addresses below). The Committee meets at
least twice a year, usually in Silver Spring, Maryland, and often holds
additional meetings along the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Sea. The Committee=s Statement of Operating Practices and Procedures is
available from its Executive Secretary or online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/international/U.S.\_ICCAT.htm

**[Description]{.underline}**

A. Mission/Purpose:

ICCAT was established to provide an effective program of international
cooperation in research and conservation in recognition of the unique
problems related to the highly migratory nature of tunas and tuna-like
species. The Convention area is defined as all waters of the Atlantic
Ocean, including the adjacent seas. The Commission is responsible for
providing internationally coordinated research on the condition of
Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species, and their environment, as well as
for the development of regulatory recommendations. The objective of such
regulatory recommendations is to conserve and manage species of tuna and
tuna-like species throughout their range in a manner that maintains
their population at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable
catch.

B. Organizational Structure:

The ICCAT is comprised of a (1) commission, (2) council, (3) executive
secretary, and (4) subject area panels. The Commission consists of not
more than three delegates from each Contracting Party. The Council is an
elected body within the Commission consisting of a chairman,
vice-chairman, and representatives of not less than four nor more than
eight Contracting Parties and which performs such functions as are
assigned to it by the Convention or Commission. Although the Council is
supposed to meet at least once between regular meetings (which occur
every other year), since 1978 Special Meetings of the Commission have
been held in lieu of meetings of the Council.

The Executive Secretary is responsible for coordinating the programs of
investigation, preparing budget estimates, disbursing funds and
accounting for expenditures; preparing the collection and analysis of
data to accomplish the purposes of the Convention; and preparing
scientific, administrative, and other reports for approval by the
Commission.

Panels are established by the Commission and are responsible for review
of the species under their purview; collection of scientific and other
information; proposing conservation recommendations for joint actions;
and recommending studies by the Contracting Parties. Panel 1 covers
bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas. Panel 2 covers North Atlantic
bluefin and albacore tunas. Panel 3 covers South Atlantic bluefin and
albacore tunas. Finally, Panel 4 covers Atlantic swordfish, billfishes,
and other species. Standing Committees on Research and Statistics
(SCRS), Finance and Administration (STACFAD), and Compliance have been
established by the Commission. ICCAT also has constituted a Permanent
Working Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics and Conservation
Measures (PWG), which met for the first time in 1993. Much of the focus
of the PWG is directed toward gaining the cooperation of ICCAT
non-members with the conservation and management measures of the
Commission.

C. Programs:

The Commission concerns itself with (1) joint planning of research,
coordination of research carried on by agencies of the Parties in
accordance with its plans, and joint evaluation of the results of such
research; (2) the collection and analysis of statistical information
relating to the condition of fishery resources in the Convention area;
and (3) joint formulation of regulatory recommendations for submission
to the Parties.

Recommendations adopted by the Commission are submitted to governments
for acceptance. These recommendations become effective for all Parties
to the Convention 6 months after their formal submission to all Parties
(unless otherwise stated) provided objections are not made during that
period by concerned Contracting Governments. Each Contracting Party has
the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Commission\'s
recommended conservation and management measures.

[Panel 1 - Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tunas]{.underline}

*Status of the stocks:*

*Bigeye.* The SCRS assessed bigeye tuna in 2004 and the current stock
biomass was estimated to be near that necessary for sustainable yield.
Taiwan and China have been overfishing their bigeye catch limits for
several years, and it appears that Taiwan laundered (misreported)
between 4,000 and 23,000 mt of Atlantic bigeye tuna as coming from the
Indian Ocean. The effect of this misreporting on the status of the stock
is unclear.

*Yellowfin.* A yellowfin stock assessment was conducted in 2003.
Unfortunately, at the time of the assessment, only 19% of the 2002 catch
data had been reported and the assessment was conducted using data only
through 2001. The SCRS reported that the 2001 yield of 159,000 mt is
likely somewhat above the replacement yield, and that recent levels of
fishing effort and fishing mortality may be near maximum sustainable
yield (MSY). The SCRS suggested that effective measures be found to
reduce fishing mortality of small yellowfin, as the 15% tolerance in
number of fish per landing has not been adhered to. The moratorium in
the Gulf of Guinea noted above was not expected to reduce the mortality
of juvenile yellowfin and a full evaluation of its impact on yellowfin
tuna could not be completed because of insufficient data. A SCRS
workshop is scheduled for May 30^th^- June 3^rd^, 2005 to discuss
methods to reduce mortality of juvenile tropical tunas.

*Skipjack.* The last assessment for skipjack was conducted in 1999. SCRS
reiterated in its most recent report that certain characteristics of
Atlantic skipjack stocks make it extremely difficult to conduct an
assessment using current models; thus, no standardized assessments were
carried out during the last assessment. Instead, estimates were made
using different fisheries indices and a new development of the
generalized production model. The new model suggests that there may be
over-exploitation within the FAD (fish aggregating devices) fisheries,
although it was not clear to what extent this applies to the entire
stock. SCRS noted that maintaining the Gulf of Guinea closed season
could have a positive effect on the eastern stock.

*Conservation and Management Actions:*

*Small fish measures*. In 1972, the Commission recommended a ban on the
taking of yellowfin tuna weighing less than 3.2 kilograms (kg), allowing
an incidental catch of not more than 15 percent of the number of fish
landed per trip. This regulation was extended to bigeye tuna in 1979.
These standards remained unchanged until 2004 when it was decided the
minimum size for bigeye tuna was no longer required. Adherence to the
minimum size for bigeye and yellowfin tunas has been poor.

In 2004, a bigeye proposal was adopted that contained several important
elements including a capacity limitation for China, Chinese Taipei, and
the Philippines, catch limits for the major harvesters, and payback
schedules for China and Chinese Taipei who had overharvested their quota
in previous years. The proposal did not establish catch or effort limits
on minor harvesters. The recommendation also removed the minimum size
measure for bigeye tuna and significantly changed the Gulf of Guinea
time and area closure originally adopted in 1999 and amended over the
years. The new measure reduced the size of the closed area, and the
temporal coverage was reduced from three months to one month. Also,
instead of banning fishing on FADs, the measure established a complete
moratorium in the area by the surface fishery (bait boats and purse
seines). The measure does not expressly require that FADs be removed
from the closed area during the moratorium month, although it was agreed
in plenary discussions that this was the intention. In addition, the
parties agreed that there would be no carry-forward of bigeye tuna
underharvests. The SCRS will be reviewing the change to the closed area.

The SCRS has conducted analyses on the impact of the three month Gulf of
Guinea closure on tuna stocks. The results of the analysis from 2002
indicate that the behavior of the fleets was different during the years
in which the closure has been implemented. For bigeye tuna, the overall
fishing mortality by age was comparable to pre-moratorium levels;
however, an increase in effort by some fleets was larger than the effect
of the moratorium and resulted in an increase in juvenile selectivity.
The moratorium was not designed to affect yellowfin positively or
negatively, however, results indicated that mortality on small yellowfin
increased beyond what would be expected by changes in fishing effort but
this increase may only reflect an increase in recruitment of yellowfin.
Since there was a significant harvest of yellowfin tuna under the
minimum size prior to the closure, this result was unwelcome. Finally,
catches (in weight) of skipjack associated with floating objects
decreased by 41% during the years of the moratorium and may have
lessened the possibility of local depletion that had been suggested in
the last skipjack assessment. As mentioned above, an SCRS workshop to
review mortality of juvenile tropical tuna took place in 2005.

In 2005, the SCRS reported back to the Commission regarding ways to
reduce mortality of juvenile tropical tuna. Considering the mixed nature
of the fisheries and the repeal of the bigeye minimum size in 2004, SCRS
recommended that the minimum size for yellowfin tuna also be repealed.
However, the report noted that this would not reduce juvenile mortality.
With regard to the aforementioned closed area, SCRS concluded that
majority of the catch of small yellowfin and bigeye are caught within
the original closed area, but outside of the 2004 closed area.
Therefore, the 2004 closed area is less effective at protecting juvenile
tropical tuna. At the 2005 Commission meeting the minimum size of
yellowfin tuna was repealed, but no action was taken regarding the Gulf
of Guinea closure.

*Other measures.* In 1997, ICCAT began a program to collect basic data
on fleet size in a move toward limiting fishing effort. In 1998 ICCAT
adopted a measure requiring the registration of vessels over 24 meters
length overall (LOA) fishing for bigeye tuna and authorizing parties to
take the necessary measures to prevent vessels not on the registration
list from fishing for bigeye tuna. Further, ICCAT adopted a binding
measure to limit both the number of vessels larger than 24 meters LOA
operating in the bigeye fishery and the capacity of those vessels as a
means of limiting effort and catch of ICCAT species, with exemptions for
countries under certain catch levels and recreational vessels. The list
evolved over the years and based on a 2002 recommendation a list of
vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the ICCAT
Convention area was created. To date, it has not been used to limit
participation in ICCAT fisheries. The so-called positive vessel list
recommendation does not require submission of well capacity of purse
seine fleets. This information would be needed to establish effective
capacity controls on the purse seine fleet.

Recognizing that vessel limitations and capacity controls are interim
measures and, taken alone, likely will not lead to the recovery of
bigeye tuna, the Commission adopted a resolution in 1998 tasking the
SCRS to develop rebuilding plans for this species that take into account
all forms of fishing mortality, including dead discards. In response,
the Bigeye Tuna Year Program (BETYP) started an ambitious research
program in 1999. The final symposium of the BETYP took place on March
8 - 9, 2004, in conjunction with the Second Worldwide Bigeye Conference.
The results of this research enhanced bigeye assessments so that the
SCRS can provide improved advice to the Commission.

In 1993, ICCAT adopted a measure for yellowfin tuna requiring ICCAT
Parties to cap effective fishing effort at 1992 levels. Total effective
effort has remained relatively stable since 1990. Yellowfin tuna is
probably fully fished. With regard to skipjack, ICCAT has not adopted
any management measures for either the eastern or western Atlantic
stock.

[Panel 2 - North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Albacore]{.underline}:

*Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna*: The capture of bluefin tuna in the
western Atlantic was prohibited in 1981, except for a catch quota for
continuing scientific monitoring of the stock. This catch was allocated
to ICCAT member nations, which had actively participated in the fishery
(United States, Canada, Japan). Brazil and Cuba, whose catches were less
than 50 mt annually, were exempt from these early regulations. The
Commission continued in following years to review periodically and
adjust catch quotas as deemed appropriate. Other measures were also
adopted, such as limiting the catch of bluefin smaller than 120
centimeters in length to no more than 15 percent in weight of the catch
limit in the Western Atlantic; prohibiting directed bluefin fisheries in
spawning areas such as the Gulf of Mexico; addressing the problem of
overages; and encouraging tag and release of fish less than 30 kg.

Given the continued overfished status of western Atlantic bluefin tuna,
ICCAT adopted at its 1998 meeting a rebuilding program for the western
stock with the goal of reaching MSY in 20 years. This represents the
first time that ICCAT articulated a rebuilding goal to guide its
management actions and fashioned a plan for achieving that goal. The
annual total allowable catch (TAC) established under the program was
2,500 mt, inclusive of dead discards. The rebuilding program provides
flexibility to alter the TAC, the MSY target, and/or the rebuilding
period based upon subsequent scientific advice. In 2002, the TAC for the
20-year rebuilding program was raised from 2500 mt to 2700 mt. Other
changes to the rebuilding program included allocating a small bycatch
quota to Mexico, who joined the Commission that year. The United States
and Canada also received bycatch quotas of 25 mt and 15 mt,
respectively.

The 2,700 mt TAC is shared by the United States, Japan, Canada, the
United Kingdom (in respect of Bermuda), France (in respect of St. Pierre
et Miquelon), and Mexico. Bermuda first received a 4 mt incidental catch
allocation during the 1995 quota negotiations. Although the fishery was
fully subscribed, ICCAT noted that the request was limited in scope and
determined that denying it could discourage other non-member countries
harvesting ICCAT-managed species from joining ICCAT; thus, potentially
harvesting ICCAT species but remaining outside ICCAT=s control.

The 1998 recommendation as amended by the 2002 recommendation provides
that, after reducing the TAC to account for (a) the bycatch quotas for
United States and Canada for their directed longline fisheries in the
vicinity of the management boundary area, (b) the quotas for the UK and
France, and (c) the dead discard allowance, the remainder of the TAC is
to be allocated among the United States (57.48%), Japan (18.77%), and
Canada (23.75%). The rebuilding plan has a unique clause that provides
an incentive to minimize dead discards. If dead discards are above a
country=s allowance, they must be counted against that country=s quota
in subsequent years. If discards are below a country=s allowance, half
of the underage may be added to the next year=s quota while the other
half is conserved. Among other things, this recommendation also allows
four years to balance the 8 percent tolerance of bluefin under 115 cm,
which will facilitate implementation of recreational fishery measures.

In 2004 the U.S. was focused on extending current management measures
and postponing allocation discussions for western bluefin tuna until the
scheduled assessment in 2005. The EC wanted to postpone the assessment
and allocation discussions for eastern bluefin tuna until 2006. Due to
the U.S. desire for integrated management of these two stocks the
assessment and allocation discussions for both stocks were postponed
until 2006. In the interim, the Working Group to Develop Integrated and
Coordinated Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Management Strategies met in 2005 and
will meet again in 2006. The primary focus of the discussions will be to
develop a range of future alternative management approaches that will be
submitted to the SCRS for review and to consider bluefin farming issues.

*Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna*: Recognizing the potential impact of
mixing between the eastern and western Atlantic stocks of bluefin tuna,
the United States has been pursuing the establishment of effective
management measures for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin
tuna fishery with increasing vigor. At the 1998 ICCAT meeting, the
Commission adopted, for the first time, firm quotas for all harvesters
of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. Previously,
ICCAT had established a cap for all countries (except France which
received firm quotas beginning in 1996) fishing in the fishery with
phased in reductions. These reductions were to start in 1996 and be
completed by 1998. However, compliance with these reductions for eastern
Atlantic/Mediterranean harvesters was slim.

Under the terms of the agreement adopted by ICCAT in 1998, the 1999
quota for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery was 32,000 mt
and the 2000 quota was 29,500 mt. A critical aspect of this agreement
was that overharvests from 1997 were to be deducted from the 1999 quota
level; thus, the adjusted TAC applicable to the eastern
Atlantic/Mediterranean was expected to approach 27,000 mt. In real
terms, the 1999 catch level was to be about a 33 percent decrease over
current catch levels. Before the quota agreement for the eastern bluefin
tuna fishery came into force, Libya and Morocco lodged objections to the
measure. The agreement came into force for all but these two countries
on August 20, 1999.

At the 2000 ICCAT meeting, the Commission adopted an overall catch level
of 29,500 mt for 2001, although scientific advice indicated that the
total catch for the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery must, at a
minimum, be reduced to 25,000 mt in order to begin rebuilding.
Furthermore, a catch level of 29,500 would allow overfishing to
continue, and does not take into account other factors that may lead to
actual harvest levels that exceed this target.

The difficulty in establishing an effective conservation measure for
this stock during this time was due, in part, to the lack of progress on
ICCAT allocation criteria. In 2001, with the *ICCAT Criteria for the
Allocation of Fishing Possibilities* adopted and in place, the
Commission again considered management measures for eastern bluefin
tuna. However, a proposal for this fishery was not circulated until very
late in the meeting and set the TAC at a level inconsistent with
scientific advice. The multi-year measure, which allowed catches at
levels 35% higher than sustainable levels with little reduction, was
blocked by a number of members, including the United States, and
resulted in the abrupt ending of the 2001 meeting. With no measure in
place for 2002, countries fishing eastern bluefin tuna set autonomous
quotas. In 2002, the Commission tried again and was successful in
adopting a multi-year management measure for the fishery. The measure
fixed catches of eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna to 32,000 mt for the
years 2003 through 2006. The measure has an allocation scheme that
includes all parties fishing for eastern bluefin tuna and has payback
and carryover provisions.

The 2002 recommendation for eastern bluefin tuna also reiterated
previous conservation measures in effect for the eastern Atlantic and
relating to eastern bluefin tuna, including: (1) a prohibition on
catching bluefin tuna with purse seines during the month of May in the
Adriatic Sea and during the period July 16-August 15 in the other areas
of the Mediterranean to protect juveniles (previously the entire
Mediterranean was closed for the month of August); (2) a prohibition on
catching bluefin tuna by longline vessels greater than 24 meters in
length during June and July in the Mediterranean: (3) a prohibition to
retain on board, land, or sell bluefin tuna under 4.8 kg in the
Mediterranean; and (4) a 10% tolerance for the landing of bluefin tuna
weighing less than 6.4 kg. A prohibition on the use of airplanes and
helicopters in support of fishing operations in the month of June in the
Mediterranean also remains in effect.

At the 2004 meeting, the EC wanted to postpone the assessment and
allocation discussions for eastern bluefin tuna until 2006. Due to the
U.S. desire for integrated management of the eastern and western stocks
the assessment and allocation discussions for both were postponed until
2006 (see Western Atlantic Bluefin section for more detail).

Also during the 2004 meeting, an EC proposal to prevent the marketing of
recreationally caught tuna and limit the use of certain types of gear
(encircling nets, gillnets and longlines) in recreational fisheries in
the Mediterranean Sea was adopted. Another EC sponsored recommendation
that was adopted related to bluefin farming. While an improvement over
the 2003 farming measure with regards to data collection, reporting
requirements and member accountability, the new measure still falls
short in the areas of observers (not required) and direct measurement of
tuna transferred between catcher vessels and caging facilities. A final
measure adopted in 2004 increased the minimum size of bluefin tuna in
the Mediterranean Sea to 10 kg with no tolerance (this does not affect
the current 6.4 kg minimum size in the western Atlantic). In 2005, the
fourth bluefin farming measure in as many years was adopted. This
measure replaces the 2004 measure and requires reporting of the amount
of bluefin transferred to caging operations to be reported as part of a
countries Task I data, VMS be installed on all tugging/towing vessels
used in the transport of bluefin, the establishment of a positive
bluefin farm list to be reported to the Secretariat and other
requirements.

*Small fish:* In 2002, the Commission also adopted a recommendation that
requires parties to develop (1) a plan for reducing catches of juvenile
bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean and (2) scientific programs to
identify the various fisheries that are fishing bluefin tuna and the
size and distribution of catches in those fisheries. The plans were
presented to the Commission and the SCRS in 2005. Unfortunately, the
plans were severely lacking in details, leading to very little
discussion on ways to reduce juvenile mortality.

*Entire Atlantic*: In 1974, a 6.4 kg minimum size limit and a limit on
fishing mortality were established for Atlantic bluefin tuna. The
minimum size measure allows an incidental catch of not more than 15
percent of fish (by weight or number) less than 6.4 kg to be landed per
trip. An absolute minimum size of 3.2 kg was adopted by ICCAT at its
1998 meeting. This is an increase over the previous absolute minimum
size of 1.8 kg. The 1998 absolute minimum size measure prohibits the
retention, landing, and sale (including sale in markets in nations
bordering the Convention area) of bluefin tuna less than 3.2 kg in the
Convention Area by Contracting Parties and non-Contracting Parties.

In 1992, the Commission adopted the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document
(BSD) program, which requires the use of an ICCAT-accepted reporting
system to monitor trade in fresh and frozen bluefin tuna. The BSD
requires exporters of bluefin tuna to include documents identifying the
location and flag of the vessel catching the fish. This information has
been used to address the problem of harvests that are contrary to ICCAT
rules, especially by non-member countries. The 2003 trade resolution
linked information from the BSD program with compliance. The Compliance
Committee is tasked with reviewing Contracting Party activities, while
the Permanent Working Group (PWG) is tasked with reviewing the
activities of non-Contracting Parties. Information on the BSD and the
work of the PWG and Compliance Committee can be found later in this
chapter.

During the 2004 meeting Canada proposed to extend a non-binding measure
capping pelagic longline effort in the central North Atlantic through
2005.

*Mixing.* Because of concerns that harvests of eastern Atlantic bluefin
tuna will negatively affect the western stock, ICCAT adopted at its 2000
meeting a proposal calling for an intersessional scientific meeting in
2001 to examine bluefin tuna stock boundary issues and the possibility
that bluefin tuna spawning areas exist in the central Atlantic Ocean.
ICCAT also requested that the SCRS (1) report on the effects of bluefin
tuna farming on the collection of catch statistics, (2) recommend ways
to improve the bluefin tuna statistical document, if needed, and (3)
report on updating the conversion factors for bluefin tuna products to
live weight.

The SCRS reported the results of their research in the 2001 report of
the *ICCAT Workshop on Bluefin Mixing*. In 2002, the Commission adopted
a recommendation establishing a working group to develop integrated and
coordinated Atlantic bluefin tuna management strategies. The Working
Group is comprised of both scientists and managers and will evaluate
stock structure and mixing information and develop options for
implementing alternative approaches for managing mixed populations of
Atlantic bluefin tuna. The final meeting of the Working Group was held
in 2005 and the results presented to the Commission. Because of the
bluefin stock assessment occurring in 2006, it was agreed at the 2005
Commission meeting that the Working Group would meet again in 2006.

*Northern Albacore:* At its 1998 meeting, ICCAT adopted a measure to
limit fishing capacity in the northern albacore fishery. This action is
similar to that taken by ICCAT in the bigeye tuna fishery in 1999 and is
intended to prevent further increases in fishing mortality, consistent
with scientific advice that the stock is close to full exploitation.
Specifically, parties fishing for northern albacore are to limit the
number of vessels in this fishery to the average number in the period
1993-95. To control compliance with this measure, parties submitted a
list of the vessels participating in a directed fishery for northern
albacore by June 1, 1999, and annually thereafter. The measure exempted
recreational vessels and countries harvesting less than 200 mt from
these reporting and limitation requirements, although it capped the
latter at 200 mt. In addition, Japan was to limit its total catch of
northern albacore to no more than 4 percent by weight of its total
longline harvest of Atlantic bigeye tuna.

At its 1999 meeting, ICCAT adopted a recommendation directing the SCRS
to evaluate the fishing capacity of different fleets/gears that
participate in northern albacore fishery with a view to establishing
effective fishing effort correspondence, taking as the reference period
the years 1993-95. To improve control over the overfished northern
albacore fishery, ICCAT agreed at its 2000 meeting to establish
first-ever catch limits on that fishery. These catch limits continued
until 2003.

Despite difficulties with the stock assessment on northern albacore
conducted in 2003, the Commission considered new management measures for
the stock and adopted a new multi-year recommendation for this stock.
The three-year recommendation establishes a total allowable catch (TAC)
of 34,500 metric tons for northern albacore through 2006 and includes an
allocation arrangement covering ICCAT=s major and minor harvesters as
well as non-members. The TAC level is not projected to result in
rebuilding. In recognition of concerns of stockpiling underharvests, the
2003 measures includes a provision limiting carryover resulting from
underharvests for a particular party in any given year to 50% of its
initial catch quota.

In order to coordinate the timing of assessments of northern and
southern albacore, it was agreed at the 2004 meeting that the stock
assessment for northern albacore would be postponed from 2006 until
2007. The management measures for northern albacore expire at the end of
2006. The extension of these measures will be discussed at a future
meeting.

[Panel 3 - South Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Albacore]{.underline}:

*Southern Bluefin Tuna*: No management measures have been established by
ICCAT for southern bluefin tuna. This stock is distributed among the
Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans. Stocks are assessed and managed by
the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tunas (CCSBT).
ICCAT collaborates closely with the CCSBT regarding this stock.

*Southern Albacore*: ICCAT adopted management measures for southern
albacore for the first time at its 1994 meeting. Further measures were
adopted in both 1996 and 1997. These actions were aimed at arresting the
apparent decline of southern albacore. A TAC of 22,000 mt was
established for the stock at ICCAT=s 1997 meeting for both 1998 and
1999; however, a sharing arrangement for the TAC could not be agreed by
the concerned nations (which included ICCAT members South Africa and
Brazil and non-members Chinese Taipei and, at that time, Namibia). The
1998 scientific advice estimated that replacement yield for the stock
was higher than previously thought at 28,200 mt and that current catch
levels appeared to be sustainable. Based on this advice, ICCAT adopted a
new measure at its 1998 meeting that replaced the 22,000 mt TAC for 1999
with a 28,200 mt TAC. Of that figure, 27,200 mt was allocated to parties
Afishing actively@ for southern albacore (i.e., South Africa, Brazil,
Namibia, and Chinese Taipei). Countries not actively fishing for
southern albacore, including the United States and the EC, were subject
to an annual catch limit of no more than 110 percent of their average
1992-96 catch levels of that stock. Japan was to endeavor to limit its
total catch of southern albacore to no more than 4 percent by weight of
its total longline catch of bigeye tuna taken in the South Atlantic.

To keep within the TAC, parties under the Aactively fishing@ catch limit
agreed to monitor their catches and report those catches to a designated
Contracting Party within 2 months of the harvest. Every 2 months, a
report of the cumulative catch is to be made to those actively fishing
for southern albacore and to the ICCAT Secretariat. When the total catch
reaches 80 percent (21,760 mt) of the 27,200 mt level, multilateral
discussions are to be initiated in order to decide on steps to be taken
to prevent over harvest of the catch limit. Once the established catch
limit of 27,200 mt is reached, the parties stop fishing for southern
albacore. While implementation of this innovative management approach
has not worked particularly well, TACs have not been seriously violated
in the past.

Although there is continuing difficulty on the part of certain countries
to monitor their southern albacore fisheries and report in a timely way,
ICCAT agreed to rollovers of the 1998 measure in each of the years
during the period 1999-2003, with minor changes in some years. In 1999,
ICCAT recognized that U.S. catches of southern albacore are incidental
to its South Atlantic swordfish fishery and that, according to analyses
based on improved data collection, the limitation in effect for the
United States for 1998 was not adequate. Thus, the United States was
provided a modest increase in its harvest allowance for 2000 and was to
limit its total catch of southern albacore to no more than 4 percent by
weight of its total South Atlantic swordfish catch taken by longline. In
2000, the TAC was raised to 29,200 mt, which corresponds to replacement
yield and is below the estimates of maximum sustainable yield. Four
parties (Brazil, Namibia, South Africa, and Chinese Taipei) shared
27,500 mt of the overall TAC. Also in the 2000 measure, the catch limit
for parties not actively fishing for southern albacore and having caught
less than 100 mt during the years 1992-1996 was set at 100 mt, which
included the United States. Those parties not actively fishing for
southern albacore and having caught more than 100 mt during the same
years were held to the previous provision of 110% of their average
during those years. In the 2002 measure, parties fishing for southern
albacore agreed to participate in an intersessional meeting to develop
and agree on sharing formulae based on the *ICCAT Criteria for the
Allocation of Fishing Possibilities* adopted in 2001.

After some delay, a multi-year management measure for southern albacore
was adopted in 2004. The new recommendation sets the total allowable
catch (TAC) at 30,915 mt, the estimated MSY, for the years 2005-2007.
However, country-specific catch limits were not established. If parties
(in aggregate) exceed the previously agreed 2004 TAC of 29,200 mt, the
overage will be subtracted from the 2006 TAC. Similarly, if parties
exceed the TAC of 30,915 mt in 2005 or 2006, the overage will be
subtracted from the 2007 or 2008 TACs, respectively. There is no
provision to carry forward underharvests. The recommendation also
requires an intersessional meeting for participants to discuss
allocation criteria for this fishery if the TAC is exceeded. There was
no change to the allocation for minor harvesters, including the United
States.

[Panel 4 - Swordfish, Billfish, Bonito, and Other Species]{.underline}:

*Swordfish:* In 1990, the Commission adopted management provisions for
swordfish that, among other things: reduced fishing mortality on fish
weighing more than 25 kg by 15 percent from the 1988 levels in the North
Atlantic; prohibited the landing of swordfish weighing less than 25 kg
in the entire Atlantic; allowed an incidental catch of not more than 15
percent of the number of fish landed; and limited effort in the entire
Atlantic to 1988 levels. Because the 15 percent tolerance (in number) of
incidental small fish catch is difficult to enforce, the Commission, in
1995, adopted a U.S. proposal allowing Contracting Parties to select an
alternative swordfish minimum size of 119 cm from the tip of the lower
jaw to the fork of the tail, or the equivalent in weight, with no
tolerance. The measure allows Contracting Parties that adopt this
alternative minimum size to take the necessary measures to prohibit the
landing and sale in their jurisdiction of swordfish and swordfish parts
below the alternative minimum size.

By 1994, new data indicated that current harvest levels of North
Atlantic swordfish were above replacement yield, and country quotas for
1995 and 1996 were agreed for all of the primary harvesting nations. At
its 1995 meeting, the Commission established a long-term sharing
arrangement for North Atlantic swordfish to carry over unused quota from
year to year and to subtract quota overages from the following year=s
quota. This arrangement improved the inequities associated with the 1994
swordfish agreement by increasing the U.S. share to a level consistent
with past harvests (29 percent of total harvest).

In its 1996 report, the SCRS noted that catches of North Atlantic
swordfish in 1995 were considerably higher than the established 1995 TAC
of approximately 13,800 mt. North Atlantic swordfish was estimated to be
at 58 percent of the level that would produce MSY, and replacement yield
was estimated to be 11,360 mt.

At its 1998 meeting, ICCAT adopted a U.S. resolution tasking the SCRS to
develop rebuilding scenarios for the heavily stressed Atlantic swordfish
stocks. Among other things, the SCRS was to estimate a series of annual
TACs, including dead discards, that are necessary to rebuild to biomass
levels that would support MSY with a probability greater than 50 percent
within various time periods (5, 10, and 15 years). These analyses were
used by ICCAT at its 1999 meeting, during which ICCAT parties committed
to rebuild North Atlantic swordfish to the biomass that will produce MSY
within 10 years, with a greater than 50 percent probability. The 1999
swordfish rebuilding program established 3 years of progressively
smaller TACs that are inclusive of dead discards. The dead discard
allowance was phased out by 2004, per the provisions of the rebuilding
program.

Because of the incidental nature of Japan=s swordfish harvests, Japan
was originally given a Amanagement period@ of 5 years (1997-2001) within
which to comply with its cumulative quota over that time period. In
2000, Japan reported that it had seriously exceeded its North Atlantic
swordfish quotas for the last few years. Swordfish are a non-target
species taken in Japan=s bigeye tuna fishery. Because of concerns for
the integrity of the ten year swordfish rebuilding program and given the
recent underharvest by the United States of its North Atlantic swordfish
quota, the United States agreed to assist Japan in addressing its
swordfish overharvest. Specifically, a measure was adopted in 2000 that,
among other things, allowed Japan access to 400 mt of unused U.S. quota
for 2001 only. The goodwill generated by the sacrifice made by the U.S.
longline industry assisted the United States in advancing its agenda on
other important issues. Other aspects of the measure include: (1)
providing Japan flexibility to count up to 400 mt of its 2002 swordfish
catch taken from a certain part of the North Atlantic against its
uncaught South Atlantic swordfish quota, with 1 mt of catch taken in the
specified area counted as 2 mt of southern swordfish quota; (2)
requiring Japan to have 5 percent observer coverage on its vessels
operating in the North Atlantic in 2001 and to endeavor to increase that
coverage to 10 percent for 2002; (3) requiring Japan to conduct research
on the stock structure of Atlantic swordfish; and (4) reviewing Japan=s
catch in both 2001 and 2002 to assess its progress toward compliance.

In 2002, the stock assessment for North Atlantic Swordfish indicated
that the stock showed signs of improvement and was at 94% of the biomass
needed to produce MSY. In response to the positive results of the
assessment, the Commission decided to raise the TAC of North Atlantic
swordfish to 14,000 mt for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Under the
amendments of the rebuilding plan, 1,185 mt per year was set aside for
the Aothers@ category, and the remainder was divided between the EC,
U.S., Canada and Japan. The 2002 amendment to the rebuilding plan
further divided the Aothers@ category to provide country-specific
quotas.

A recommendation put forth by the U.S. in 2004, extended the current
management measures on North Atlantic swordfish through 2006. Both North
Atlantic and South Atlantic swordfish will be assessed in 2006.

*South Atlantic Stock*: The Commission established management measures
for South Atlantic swordfish for the first time in 1994. The 1994
measures for South Atlantic swordfish were extended in 1995, 1996, and
1997. These measures required Contracting Parties whose catches in the
South Atlantic were greater than 250 mt to not increase their catches in
1995 and 1996 beyond their 1993 or 1994 catch level, whichever is
higher. Further, member nations whose catches in the South Atlantic were
less than 250 mt were not to increase their catches in 1995 and 1996
beyond 250 mt. ICCAT adopted a recommendation at its 1997 annual meeting
that established a TAC of 14,620 mt for the South Atlantic swordfish
stock. This agreement also set up a sharing arrangement and specified
catch quotas for 1998-2000.

Both the sharing arrangement and the TAC for the South Atlantic stock of
swordfish were reviewed by ICCAT at its 2000 meeting. While this stock
is significantly healthier than a number of other ICCAT species, the
target TAC for 2001 was set at 14,620 mt, which is above the level that
would produce MSY (13,650 mt). Moreover, unlike past years, no member
specific quotas could be agreed for this fishery. Instead, parties were
encouraged to set precautionary catch limits for 2001 such that the TAC
target would not be exceeded. All parties were required to notify ICCAT
of their catch limit by the end of 2000. A majority of countries
complied with this reporting requirement.

*Mediterranean Stock*: With respect to the Mediterranean stock of
swordfish, in 2003, following a new stock assessment for Mediterranean
swordfish, the Commission adopted a recommendation that requires
Contracting Parties to take the necessary measures to reduce the
mortality of juvenile swordfish in the Mediterranean. The measures also
prohibit the use of driftnets for fisheries of large pelagics in the
Mediterranean (for more information on driftnets, see Other Issues
section).

*Billfishes*: At its 1995 meeting, the Commission adopted a resolution
focusing on the enhancement of research programs for billfish and
calling for voluntary release or tag and release by commercial as well
as recreational fishermen. In 1996, the Commission passed a resolution
to encourage actions to facilitate the recovery of billfishes, including
the use of monofilament leaders and improvement in catch and
post-release mortality statistics.

At its 1997 meeting, the Commission adopted the first mandatory
conservation measures for Atlantic blue marlin and white marlin. The
recommendation required all ICCAT Contracting and non‑Contracting
Parties, starting in 1998, to reduce landings for each of these species
by at least 25 percent from 1996 landings. This reduction was to be
accomplished by the end of 1999. The recommendation further: (1)
required Parties to promote the voluntary live release of these species;
(2) called for the provision of information to ICCAT regarding measures
in place to reduce landings or fishing effort in all fisheries that
interact with marlins; (3) called for the submission of base data to the
SCRS; (4) called for SCRS stock assessments for these stocks to be
presented and reviewed at the 1999 Commission meeting; and (5) exempted
small‑scale artisanal fisheries from the above requirements. The
landings cap achieved by the end of 1999 were subsequently continued
through 2000.

At its 2000 meeting, the Commission adopted a two‑phase plan to rebuild
severely depleted populations of Atlantic blue marlin and white marlin.
The marlin rebuilding program has since been amended three times. Phase
one of the rebuilding plan requires countries to reduce, through the
release of all live marlins taken as bycatch in commercial fisheries,
white marlin landings by 67 percent and blue marlin landings by 50
percent from 1996 or 1999 levels, whichever is greater, in recognition
of the fact that members who complied with the earlier measures and
reduced their marlin landings by 1999 would be penalized more than those
who had not reached their reduction targets. The United States agreed to
limit annual landings by recreational fishermen to 250 marlin and to
maintain regulations that prohibit retention of marlins on U.S. longline
vessels. Phase one of the plan also encourages countries to set minimum
sizes for marlins taken in recreational fisheries through 2006. In phase
two of the program, ICCAT will reassess the status of the billfish
stocks and develop specific timetables to rebuild the stocks to levels
that will support maximum sustainable yield. At such time, additional
landings restrictions or alternative management measures such as fishing
gear modifications or time and area closures may be applied. Consistent
with SCRS advice, the assessments of blue and white marlin were
postponed until 2006. At that time, SCRS shall present information on
stock recovery scenarios. Pending the assessments, the current
management regime (mandatory live release for all purse seine and
longline vessels and a catch limit of 250 white and blue marlin for the
U.S. recreational fishery) could be extended.

*Sharks*: U.S. leadership resulted in adoption at the 2004 ICCAT meeting
of a binding management measure for sharks caught in association with
fisheries managed by ICCAT. The decision was taken by consensus and is
the first time ICCAT has ever asserted management authority over sharks.
The adoption of a shark management measure was a high priority for the
United States. To address the issue of shark finning, a major component
of the measure is to require full utilization of shark catches.
Fishermen must, therefore, retain all parts of the shark except the
head, guts, and skins to the point of first landing. Countries are
required to ensure that their vessels retain onboard fins that total no
more than 5% by weight of sharks onboard up to the first point of
landing. Parties that currently do not require fins and carcasses to be
offloaded together at the point of first landing must ensure compliance
with the ratio through certification, monitoring or other means. The
SCRS will review the fin-to-body ratio in 2005. The 2004 agreement also
(1) establishes requirements for data collection on catches of sharks,
(2) calls for research on shark nursery areas, and (3) encourages the
release of live sharks, especially juveniles. Co-sponsors of the shark
proposal included Canada, the European Community, Japan, Mexico, Panama,
South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. The SCRS will review
the stock assessment of shortfin mako sharks in 2005 and the Commission
may consider additional management measures at that time. In addition,
both blue and shortfin mako sharks will be reassessed by the SCRS no
later than 2007. In 2005, SCRS reported that the 5% fin-to-body ratio
was appropriate and that shortfin mako need additional protection. At
the 2005 Commission meeting a recommendation on shortfin mako sharks was
adopted, however, confusion over the language in the recommendation has
lead to a repeat of the 2004 measure, rather than new measures to reduce
fishing mortality for this species.

*Sea Turtles and Seabirds:* After more than two years of negotiation,
ICCAT took action in 2003 in response to a U.S. proposal regarding sea
turtles. The Commission adopted a non-binding resolution that encourages
all parties to provide information on interactions with sea turtles in
the ICCAT Convention area \-- in particular, the bycatch of sea turtles
in ICCAT fisheries. Pursuant to this resolution, parties agreed to share
all available information on technical measures to reduce the incidental
capture of sea turtles in ICCAT fisheries and ensure the safe handling
of turtles that are released. ICCAT also resolved to have its scientific
body develop standardized data collection and reporting methods to
assess the problem of sea turtle bycatch. Furthermore, the United States
provided significant information about research that has been conducted
in the northern Atlantic regarding methods to reduce the incidental
capture and mortality of sea turtles by longline vessels. In 2005, the
Commission adopted a non-binding resolution encouraging research on the
use of circle hooks in both recreational and commercial fisheries in
order to reduce sea turtle bycatch and post-release mortality of
bycaught species.

At the 2002 Commission meeting, ICCAT adopted a resolution on the
incidental mortality of seabirds. The resolution urges parties to inform
SCRS and the Commission of the status of their National Plans of Action
for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries
(NPOA-Seabirds) and to implement such plans, where appropriate.
Furthermore, the resolution encourages parties to collect and provide to
SCRS all available information on interactions with seabirds, including
incidental catches in all fisheries under the purview of ICCAT.

[Permanent Working Group (PWG)]{.underline} :

*Trade Measures.* Up through 2003, much of the work of the PWG was
guided by the Bluefin Tuna Action Plan Resolution, the Swordfish Action
Plan Resolution, and the Unregulated and Unreported Catches Resolution,
which were adopted to promote cooperation with ICCAT conservation
measures. The Resolutions established mechanisms by which multilateral
trade measures could be imposed against parties deemed to be diminishing
the effectiveness of the ICCAT conservation measures for ICCAT species
under certain circumstances. The adoption of the Bluefin Tuna Action
Plan in 1994 was the first time such a mechanism had been developed
within an international fisheries management organization. The following
year, the Swordfish Action Plan was adopted in recognition of the
declining status of swordfish stocks in the Atlantic and increasing
catches by non-Contracting Parties.

In 1998, the UUCatches Resolution was adopted to help address the
problems associated with unreported and unregulated catches of tunas by
large-scale longline vessels, partly in recognition of the problems
associated with so-called Aflag of convenience@ vessels and established
a process for identifying both ICCAT members and non-members whose
large-scale longline vessels have been fishing for ICCAT species in a
manner which diminishes the effectiveness of the Commission=s
conservation and management measures. Similar to the Action Plans, the
UU Catches resolution provided for ICCAT to identify countries and to
recommend appropriate action, including non-discriminatory trade
restrictive measures to prevent the large-scale longline vessels of
identified countries from continuing fishing operations for tuna and
tuna-like species in a manner inconsistent with ICCAT conservation
goals. Each year the Commission has undertaken a review of fishery
related activities in the Convention Area.

ICCAT first applied the provisions of the Bluefin Tuna Action Plan at
its 1995 annual meeting and identified Belize, Honduras, and Panama as
nations with vessels fishing in a manner that diminishes the
effectiveness of ICCAT=s conservation measures for bluefin tuna. In 1996
the Commission agreed that Belize, Honduras, and Panama had not
rectified the fishing practices of their vessels. Therefore, in
accordance with the Bluefin Tuna Action Plan Resolution, the Commission
recommended its members to take measures to the effect that the import
of Atlantic bluefin tuna products in any form from these three countries
be prohibited. These recommendations for multilateral trade restrictive
measures represented the first time that such measures had been
authorized by an international fishery management organization to ensure
cooperation with agreed conservation and management measures. The trade
restrictive measures against these three countries continued through
2000. In 1999, in accordance with the Swordfish Action Plan, ICCAT also
recommended that its members prohibit the import of Atlantic swordfish
and swordfish products from Belize and Honduras. Panama joined the
Commission in 1998 and its fishing activities and compliance issues were
subsequently referred to the Compliance Committee. Sanctions on all
these countries have now been lifted. Over the years, ICCAT has
identified a variety of countries and applied trade restrictive measures
in accordance to its trade regime. When problem fishing has been
rectified, ICCAT has lifted these sanctions.

Following several years of work, ICCAT took a decisive step in 2003 to
broaden its regime of trade restrictive measures and adopted a
comprehensive trade resolution. The trade resolution adopted by ICCAT
members applies equally to all fisheries and all parties (both ICCAT
members and non-members), establishes a more transparent process for the
application of trade restrictive measures, and uses comparable standards
for evaluating fishery related activities. In addition, the resolution
allows for swift re-imposition of trade sanctions in cases where parties
recently released from sanctions act in bad faith and again engage in
problem fishing activities. This comprehensive approach, which replaces
the separate Action Plans, will bolster ICCAT=s already significant
efforts to eliminate IUU fishing in the ICCAT Convention Area.

In 2004, the Commission noted its serious concern with respect to
overharvests and misreporting activities by vessels flagged by Chinese
Taipei (a.k.a. Taiwan). The Commission considered revoking Chinese
Taipei=s status as a cooperating party/entity/fishing entity and/or
identifying Chinese Taipei under ICCAT=s trade measures resolution. The
former decision would immediately impact Chinese Taipei=s ability to
trade in ICCAT species since its vessels would be removed from the
positive list. The latter decision gives Chinese Taipei one year to
rectify its problem fishing activities before a decision on whether or
not to impose trade restrictive measures is taken. After much
discussion, the Commission decided to identify Chinese Taipei under the
trade measures resolution but to maintain cooperating status. During
discussions, Chinese Taipei agreed to take steps to address problem
fishing activities. At the 2005 Commission meeting, Chinese Taipei
fishing activities were reviewed. Following a week of intense
negotiations, the Commission adopted a recommendation that stopped short
of applying trade sanctions, but severely reduced Taiwan's bigeye quota
in the Atlantic from 16,500 mt to 4,600 mt, which provides 3,300 mt to
the directed bigeye fleet and 1,300 mt as bycatch in the albacore
fishery. Taiwan's directed bigeye fleet is limited to 15 vessels and its
albacore fleet is limited to 60 vessels in 2006. In addition, the
measure requires Taiwan to improve monitoring and control of its fleet,
to reduce overall fleet capacity in the Atlantic, and to take steps to
control its business entities involved in supporting IUU activities.
Taiwan's fishery operations and progress under the 2005 measure will be
reviewed under ICCAT's trade regime at the 2006 annual meeting. At that
time, the Commission will decide whether additional measures are
necessary, possibly including non-discriminatory trade restrictive
measures.

In 2005, with respect to the trade resolution, sanctions were maintained
for Bolivia (bigeye tuna), Georgia (bigeye tuna) and Singapore
(swordfish). Singapore was identified under the trade resolution for
failing to implement ICCAT=s Statistical Document Program for swordfish.
This is a very significant decision since Singapore does not have
vessels harvesting Atlantic swordfish, but it is the largest trader of
swordfish in the world. Identifications were maintained for Costa Rica
and Cuba and St. Vincent and the Grenadines was added. In addition, 10
vessels were put on ICCAT=s IUU list (see Compliance Committee section
for more information on the IUU vessel list).

*Statistical Document Programs*: A bluefin tuna statistical document
program (BSD program) was established by the Commission in the early
1990s. Subsequently, statistical document programs were adopted for
swordfish and bigeye tuna. These programs contribute to ICCAT=s review
of fishery activities under the trade resolution and can also assist
with catch data verification. The statistical document programs require
the use of an ICCAT-accepted reporting system to monitor trade in fresh
and frozen bluefin tuna, fresh and frozen swordfish, and frozen bigeye
tuna. The purpose of the programs are to improve the reliability of
statistical information on catches of these species, particularly in
regards to non-Contracting Parties, since some of these nations do not
provide catch data to ICCAT. The program tracks trade of product and
provides information on the flag state and name of the harvesting
vessel, the location of harvest, the point of export, a description of
the fish in the shipment and the like. Updates to the statistical
document programs have been adopted since the initial program was
established. Most recently, the Commission adopted a recommendation
changing the documents to include a field for the harvesting vessels
ICCAT record number (under ICCAT=s authorized vessel listing program)
and, for the bluefin tuna statistical document, the collection of
information on the farming operation that the bluefin tuna products came
from, where applicable. The statistical document programs will be
further reviewed and discussed with a view to their possible improvement
at an upcoming intersessional meeting in April 2005 in Fukuoka, Japan.

*Cooperating Parties*: ICCAT continues to encourage certain non-members
to become cooperating parties. Granting such status helps ICCAT expand
and improve its control over the fisheries under its purview. Nonmembers
with said status agree to voluntarily abide by ICCAT=s rules and in
return receive certain benefits, such as, qualifying for quota
allocations and placing their vessels on the Apositive@ vessel list (see
Compliance Committee section for more information on vessel lists).
ICCAT recently clarified the criteria and responsibilities of
cooperating parties, and in 2003 adopted a recommendation on criteria
for attaining the status of cooperating party. The new measure also
outlines the type of information countries need to submit for
consideration and allows for the yearly review of those in cooperating
status.

Over the years ICCAT has granted cooperating status to Mexico (1998),
Chinese Taipei (1998), and the Philippines (2000). Such status has been
granted despite some concern over (1) lack of control by Chinese Taipei
over vessels formerly flagged to them, (2) increasing bluefin and
swordfish harvests by Mexico, (3) concern over the use of IUU vessels by
the Philippines. These parties were able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of ICCAT that they were cooperating with the Commission by,
among other things, submitting data and making efforts to re-register or
de-register vessels, as appropriate, and otherwise controlling their
fishing activities and/or the number of vessels fishing for ICCAT
species. Mexico joined the Commission in 2002 and the Philippines in
2004.

A number of countries applied for cooperating status in 2003, including:
Guyana, Egypt, Cuba, Guatemala, Netherlands Antilles, Belize, Northern
Cyprus, and Grenada. Cooperating status was granted to Guyana, the
decisions on the others were deferred. In 2004, cooperating status was
renewed for Guyana and conferred on the Netherlands Antilles for the
first time. After significant debate cooperating status was also renewed
for Chinese Taipei (see Trade Measures section for more information). In
2005, cooperating status was renewed for both Guyana and Netherlands
Antilles. Egypt was denied cooperating status this year because a
failure to meet appropriate deadlines.

*Other Actions*: In an effort to improve ICCAT statistics, the
Commission adopted at its 1999 meeting a resolution on improving
recreational fishery statistics that calls on parties to provide to the
SCRS specific data relating to recreational fisheries. Beginning in
2000, parties are also required to include a discussion of such data in
their annual national report. In the future, SCRS will carry out an
examination of the extent and impact of recreational fisheries on
Atlantic tunas and tuna-like species.

Other measures adopted by ICCAT that remain in effect include: (1) a
recommendation that Contracting Party fishing vessels and mother vessels
can only receive at sea transshipments from other Contracting Party
vessels and cooperating parties (adopted in 1997); (2) a recommendation
establishing a process for reporting and taking action against stateless
vessels and for reporting observed possible violations by both
non‑Contracting and Contracting Parties (adopted in 1997); (3) a
recommendation that prohibits landing and transshipment in ICCAT member
ports by non-members under certain conditions (adopted in 1998); and (4)
a recommendation to address attribution of catch classified as
not‑elsewhere included (NEI) to the catch data (Task 1) of the
appropriate ICCAT member or non-member (adopted in 1997).

[Compliance Committee]{.underline}: At the 1995 meeting, the Commission
adopted new terms of reference for its Compliance Committee (then, the
Infractions Committee). The new terms strengthened the Committee\'s
ability to evaluate compliance by Contracting Parties by allowing the
Committee to make recommendations to the Commission on how to resolve
problems of non-compliance by Contracting Parties and provide for the
development of measures to ensure proper application of Convention
provisions, including the development of international inspection and
enforcement schemes.

At its 1996 meeting, ICCAT made international fisheries management
history by adopting a recommendation on Contracting Party compliance
relative to quotas that are established for the Atlantic bluefin tuna
fishery and the North Atlantic swordfish fishery. The measure provides a
process for members to first explain how overharvests for the subject
species occurred and the actions taken or to be taken to prevent further
overharvests. Beginning with the 1997 management period, and in each
subsequent management period, members have to repay 100 percent of any
over harvests of these stocks, and ICCAT may recommend other appropriate
actions. Further, overharvests of bluefin tuna or of North Atlantic
swordfish quotas during two consecutive management periods can result in
other penalties, including quota reductions of at least 125 percent of
the over harvest and, as a last resort, trade restrictive measures. At
its 1997 meeting, the Commission agreed to extend the compliance
agreement to the South Atlantic swordfish fishery (Brazil, Uruguay, and
South Africa formally objected to the measure, and are, therefore, not
bound to the provisions of this measure). Application of these measures
was clarified at the 1998 ICCAT meeting.

Minimum size compliance relative to all ICCAT species has been an issue
for several years. Effective implementation of existing recommendations
by many countries fishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean has
not occurred for a variety of reasons. At the 1997 meeting, an agreement
was reached that requires Contracting Parties to explain in detail
minimum size overharvests and provides that, beginning in 2000,
continued overharvests could result in ICCAT actions to reduce those
overharvests, including but not limited to, time/area closures,
assignment of small fish quotas, and/or gear restrictions.

At the 1999 ICCAT meeting, additional progress was made in implementing
the various compliance recommendations, including submission of
reporting tables, although conflicting interpretations of some ICCAT
measures made implementation of compliance recommendations difficult at
times. Consistent with the compliance regime, ICCAT has developed a
ACompliance Annex@ from parties= reporting tables. The annex is adopted
during the early part of the annual meeting, and then serves as the
official record to assess overharvests and subsequent penalties to be
deducted by ICCAT members in cases of non-compliance. In cases where
reporting tables are not submitted, or are incomplete, SCRS data is
used.

Full implementation of ICCAT=s member compliance regime has been slow.
In the past, there have been numerous delays in the submission of
reporting tables. Once reported, some members have altered their
compliance data one or more times during the ICCAT meeting without
explanation. Moreover, while reviewing member compliance, it has become
apparent that there are fundamental differences in interpretation of
both ICCAT=s conservation and management measures as well as its
compliance rules. ICCAT has worked to improve the compliance regime, and
has seen some success as of late. In recent years, setting a deadline
for the submission of compliance data allowed for the earlier completion
of the compliance annex during meetings, and facilitated a review of
member compliance.

*Trade Actions*: As noted above, a number of ICCAT=s recommendations
provide for the use of trade restrictive measures against ICCAT members.
This was done for the first time in 1999, when a recommendation was
adopted that required ICCAT members to prohibit the import of bluefin
tuna from Equatorial Guinea pursuant to the terms of ICCAT=s compliance
recommendation regarding bluefin tuna and swordfish quotas. This action
was agreed to given the fact that Equatorial Guinea does not have a
quota for either stock of bluefin tuna, does not report catch data to
the Commission, and had not taken any steps to address concerns
expressed by ICCAT in repeated communications. At the 2004 meeting,
trade restrictions were lifted for Equatorial Guinea

*Actions Related to Unreported and Unregulated Fishing:* In 1999, for
the first time, the Commission identified ICCAT members pursuant to its
AResolution Concerning the Unreported and Unregulated Catches of Tunas
by Large-Scale Longline Vessels in the Convention Area,@ adopted in
1998. (For a description of this resolution, see the PWG section above.)
Upon review of relevant information, the Commission identified three
Contracting Parties (Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Guinea, and Trinidad
and Tobago) as nations whose large-scale longline vessels have been
fishing for ICCAT species in a manner that diminishes the effectiveness
of relevant ICCAT conservation and management measures. ICCAT requested
that these countries take all necessary measures to ensure that their
large-scale longline vessels cease fishing operations for tuna and
tuna-like species in a manner inconsistent with ICCAT conservation
measures. The Commission considered at its 2000 meeting whether or not
to recommend that trade restrictive measures be placed against any of
these three ICCAT members and adopted a measure that requires its
members to ban the import of bigeye tuna from Equatorial Guinea. These
sanctions have since been lifted. Fishery related infractions and
compliance are now reviewed in accordance with the 2003 trade measure
resolution. (For information on the trade measure resolution and for
information on trade actions relative to non-members, see PWG section.)

*Monitoring and Control*: ICCAT has a number of measures in effect
relating to monitoring and control. Moreover, ICCAT has held three
meetings of its Working Group on Integrated Monitoring and Control
Measures, a group established to review ICCAT=s monitor and control
measures with a view to strengthen them and fill gaps where necessary.
Three recommendations developed by the working group were adopted at the
2003 annual meeting on the following topics: flag state duties, vessel
monitoring systems, and basic data collection for fishing vessels
authorized to fish for species managed by ICCAT. No future meetings of
the working group are currently scheduled, however, the Commission is
continuing to discuss the development of a comprehensive and integrated
international monitoring and inspection scheme. In 2004, a new format
for annual reports was approved as was an implementation date of 1
November 2005 for the start of vessel monitoring system coverage.
Discussions covering the use of observers and improved transshipment
controls occurred in 2004 but no new measures have yet been adopted. In
2005, a comprehensive measure on transshipments was adopted which
included a provision for observers on transshipment vessels among other
requirements.

In addition, given continuing concerns about the quality and timeliness
of data submissions to the Commission, a joint SCRS-Compliance
Committee-PWG workshop was held on October 11, 2003, in Madrid, Spain,
to look at data issues and recommend possible ways to improve the
collection, submission, and use of scientific and compliance data.
Attendance to the data workshop was low, despite it being held
immediately following the 2003 SCRS Plenary meeting. However, the report
of the group provided a number of suggestions for improving ICCAT data
and fishery statistics, and a U.S. proposal to establish a special fund
to implement some of those suggestions was adopted by the Commission at
the 2003 annual meeting. Japan offered \$300,000 per year for five years
and a staff member to contribute to this effort. In addition, the U.S.
introduced the idea of a Adata report card@ at the 2004 ICCAT meeting.
The concept was to highlight those fisheries for which crucial data is
missing, pinpoint the responsible countries, and identify how to improve
the situation. The report card was not adopted, in part due to lack of
time for full debate, although it may be reconsidered in the future. At
the 2005 Commission meeting, the issue of lack of data reporting was
reiterated. This time, the United States was successful in getting a
recommendation adopted, which asks the Secretariat to provide
information on the data that is lacking for each stock and provides for
the Commission to take action against a country for failed reporting,
taking into account previous data reporting problems and possible
capacity constraints. It also requires that the SCRS provide an
evaluation of the extent to which the missing data may adversely affect
stock assessments.

*Vessel Lists*. ICCAT adopted proposals at its 2002 meeting to establish
positive and negative (IUU) vessel lists. Parties were to have provided
their vessel information for inclusion on the positive vessel list by
July 1, 2003. The list of authorized vessels was compiled by ICCAT and
it can be viewed on the ICCAT website at www.iccat.int.

The implementation of the authorized vessel list by member states is
currently underway. The Secretariat compiled a draft negative vessel
list based on input from parties and circulated it for discussion and
use at the 2003 meeting. Based on the negative (IUU) list, ICCAT members
and cooperating parties are to take all necessary measures not to
support the fishing activities of vessels on the list, including
prohibiting imports, landings or transshipments of ICCAT species.
Currently, the list only applies to large-scale fishing vessels of
non-contracting parties. Parties agreed to undertake efforts to improve
information with respect to this issue during 2004. In 2005, a negative
list was adopted consistent with the terms of the IUU list
recommendation. It contains 10 vessels and can be viewed on the ICCAT
website.

[Other Issues]{.underline}:

*Large-Scale Tuna Vessel Size:* In 2004, the U.S. proposed to reclassify
large-scale tuna vessels from greater than 24 m to greater than 15 m.
The proposal failed due to uncertainty about the overall affect on
fleets and management. The measure was reconsidered in 2005 after
Parties were able to review the potential impact of the change on their
respective fleets. However, no conclusion was reached due to debate over
which length to shift the definition to (e.g. 18 m or 15 m) and
discussion about which conservation measures the changes would apply to.

*SCRS Bycatch Working Group:* At the 1994 ICCAT meeting, Parties agreed
to expand the Commission\'s research activities to include collection of
bycatch statistics in tuna fisheries, including shark bycatch. The SCRS
established a group to do this, which concluded that information on
shark bycatch was insufficient. The SCRS recommended that efforts be
undertaken to estimate bycatch for incorporation into ICCAT\'s
statistical databases and to obtain more empirical evidence, such as
through a scientific observer program. The Commission adopted a
resolution in 1995 encouraging cooperation with FAO on the study of
shark stock status and bycatch. ICCAT\'s Shark Working Group met in 1996
and 1997 to improve statistical information on sharks taken as bycatch
in the ICCAT Convention area. In 2000, the SCRS Sub-Committee on Bycatch
recommended that ICCAT take the lead in conducting stock assessments for
Atlantic blue, porbeagle, and mako sharks and that the initial stock
assessment evaluations should be scheduled for 2002. To undertake this
work, parties were requested to provide total catches and landings
(including dead discards) of and other relevant data related to these
three species. Blue and shortfin mako sharks were assessed by the SCRS
in 2004 (See Panel 4: Sharks section for more information).

*Transparency:* In a significant development, the United States was
successful in improving the transparency of ICCAT by getting agreement
at the 1998 meeting on meaningful changes to the Commission=s guidelines
and criteria for granting observer status at ICCAT meetings. Among other
things, these changes resulted in lower participation fees.
Representatives from several non-governmental organizations participated
in the 1999 ICCAT meeting representing their organizations at an ICCAT
meeting for the first time. Subsequent meetings saw a continuation of
this participation.

*International Instruments:* At its 1999 meeting, ICCAT adopted a
AResolution on the Need for New Approaches to Deter Activities that
Diminish the Effectiveness of ICCAT Conservation and Management
Measures.@ This non-binding measure proposed that ICCAT Contracting
Parties, Non-Contracting Parties, Entities and Fishing Entities consider
new measures and approaches to address fishing activities that diminish
the effectiveness of ICCAT measures beyond those that have been adopted
by ICCAT to date. It included provisions (1) endorsing the FAO
initiative to develop an International Plan of Action (IPOA) on IUU
fishing and encouraging all parties to participate in this undertaking;
(2) encouraging all ICCAT members who have not yet done so to consider
ratifying/acceding or accepting the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and
1993 FAO Compliance Agreement; and (3) calling upon all parties to
participate in efforts to ensure the sustainability of marine living
resources in the ICCAT Convention area, as called for by the FAO IPOA
for the Management of Fishing Capacity. At the 1999 meeting, the
Commission also adopted a non-binding measure endorsing the FAO IPOA on
the Management of Fishing Capacity and attaching a high priority to its
implementation.

*Fishing Capacity:* Overcapacity is a serious problem in many ICCAT
managed fisheries as it contributes to poor stock productivity,
unsatisfactory economic performance, and excessively contentious
management discussions. ICCAT, like other Regional Fishery Management
Organizations (RFMOs) and most national governments, has experienced
problems in its efforts to effectively and efficiently manage fisheries.
Overcapacity may be directly responsible for overharvest in these
fisheries. At the 2004 ICCAT meeting, problems associated with fish
laundering and overcapacity of the Chinese Taipei fleet were of
particular concern. The United States is interested in furthering the
debate on capacity issues within ICCAT. Toward that end, we submitted a
white paper on capacity to ICCAT in 2004 together with a proposal to
establish a working group to examine the issue. While recognizing that
capacity issues are a problem in ICCAT fisheries and need thorough
discussion, there was not enough time at the 2004 meeting for detailed
debate. In addition, other parties felt that ICCAT had already taken on
a significant intersessional workload for 2005. Thus, it was agreed that
the matter should be taken up again at the 2005 ICCAT meeting. At the
2005 annual meeting, the Commission agreed to hold an intersessional
meeting on capacity in 2007, however, no terms of reference were
established. The terms of reference will be discussed at the 2006
meeting.

*Compendium Working Group:* In the fall of 2004, the Key Contacts of the
Compendium Working Group met to discuss the consolidation of the ICCAT
Compendium. The Group raised concern over interpretative issues, which
need to be addressed by the Commission and stressed the need to draft
future proposals in a way, which would avoid such issues. The Group work
plan was adopted by the Commission and the Group will proceed as
outlined, including a meeting in 2005.

*Driftnets:* In 2003, a provision prohibiting the use of driftnets in
the Mediterranean Sea for large pelagics was adopted. Morocco was
identified has having driftnet fisheries in violation of the
recommendation. Currently, they are working toward improving their
compliance, but have requested financial assistance in order to
accomplish that goal.

*Sargassum:* In 2005, the Commission adopted a resolution asking SCRS to
review the importance of pelagic *Sargassum* as an important habitat for
the early life history stages of ICCAT species and report back to the
Commission whether measures are needed to protect it.

*Strengthening ICCAT:* Currently, there is a large amount of global
debate about the performance of RFMOs, particularly under the U.N. Fish
Stocks Agreement. In 2005, the Commission asked the Secretariat to
review ICCAT's conservation and management regime and identify where
these measures address the relevant provisions of various international
fisheries instruments.

*Pending Issues:* The use of the precautionary approach in management
was raised at the 2004 ICCAT meeting, but there was no agreement on a
recommendation. The process for mail voting and quota transfers were
also discussed, but no agreement reached. These issues as well as others
were discussed at the 2005 meeting and no conclusion was reached. They
will be on the agenda for the 2006 meeting.

A complete accounting of all ICCAT conservation and management measures,
including those relating to compliance issues, can be found on the ICCAT
website (www.ICCAT.int).

The Fifteenth Special Meeting of the Commission will be held November
20-26, 2006, in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The plenary meeting of the SCRS is
scheduled for October 2-6, 2006, in Madrid, Spain.

**[Staff Contacts]{.underline}**

NOAA Fisheries:

Kimberly Blankenbeker

Office of International Affairs

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Telephone: (301) 713-2276

Fax: (301) 713-2313

E-mail: Kimberly.Blankenbeker@NOAA.gov

Erika Carlsen

Office of International Affairs

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Telephone: (301) 713-2276

Fax: (301) 713-2313

E-mail: Erika.Carlsen@NOAA.gov

Department of State:

Deirdre Warner-Kramer

Office of Marine Conservation (OES/OMC)

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818

Telephone: (202) 647-2335

Fax: (202) 736-7350

E-mail: Warner-KramerDM@State.gov