FI:IUU2/2001/Inf.3

Back to Documents

It was agreed at the Consultation that the final version of the report would be distributed to delegates with additional written comments received by the Secretariat by 12 October 2000 (see paragraph 16 of FI:IUU2/2001/2)

Comments were received from:

1. Mexico has clearly established in various international fora its firm and determined support and commitment towards the protection and conservation of the environment and natural resources. As regards fisheries, Mexico has taken resolute action by establishing concrete fisheries management measures to develop responsible fishing in waters under its jurisdiction and to contribute towards the attainment of sustainability in high-seas zones worked by vessels flying its flag.

2. Mexico is committed to the effort to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. To this end, it has strengthened its legislation and mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of appropriate conservation and management measures at national, regional and international level.

3. Mexico is also committed to unconditional recognition of the Constitutional State and thus the principles of International Law.

4. In this connection, Mexico wishes to state its position regarding the negotiating text of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, resulting from this week's proceedings.

5. Regrettably, Mexico cannot be party to its adoption as, in its opinion, the text includes certain measures that either go beyond the scope of current international law or that need to be examined and agreed in the specialized international fora mandated in these matters.

6. If the intention of some delegations present at this FAO Consultation is to promote the adoption of a voluntary instrument that will validate practices implemented by certain regions or States, Mexico wishes to state that the legitimacy of these practices cannot be discussed within the framework of FAO and that any legality of the measures in question needs to be determined by relevant bodies of the fora specifically set up for this purpose.

7. Acting in strict observance of international law, Mexico has incorporated the principles of responsible fishing into its national fisheries policy and has promoted initiatives at regional and international level for the conservation and sustainable utilization of living marine resources. It cannot therefore accept any move to amend or reinterpret policy decisions, agreed by the international community, through a voluntary document such as this Plan of Action.

8. Mexico is also concerned that certain countries have resorted unduly to conservation measures solely as an pretext to adopt and maintain market-related measures that are aimed at protecting the interests of their nationals, to the detriment of the rights that assist coastal states to develop their fishery industries and use sustainably the resources that lie within waters under their jurisdiction and on the high seas. Mexico strongly objects to such a situation.

9. Mexico wishes to record its concern over attempts to employ international mechanisms to incorporate unresolved aspects, to renegotiate agreements reached in other for a, or to endorse illegitimate practices. Mexico therefore maintains its general reservations concerning the document resulting from this Consultation, and in particular the sections on Port State and Market-Related Measures.

10. Regardless of the above, Mexico wishes to reaffirm its commitment to continue working towards the sustainable use of fishery resources and playing an active and constructive role in regional and international efforts for the conservation, management and development of these resources.

1. Greenpeace is deeply disappointed with the outcome of the Technical Consultation on IUU fishing held 2-6 October. Many of the important proposals contained in the text produced in May 2000 at the Experts Consultation in Sydney were either significantly weakened or outright deleted at the October meeting.

2. The draft International Plan of Action (IPOA) in its current form will fail to achieve its stated objectives: to "prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing". The IPOA needs to focus on those aspects of the problem, such as fishing by vessels flying "flags of convenience", that are arguably most urgent and can only be solved through international cooperation and action.

3. The Technical Consultation will meet again in February as a result of numerous reservations placed on various sections of text. Greenpeace hopes that the additional time allocated to the process will help governments to step back and reflect upon the urgency to take proactive action against the overexploitation of the world�s fisheries and oceans by fleets operating outside international rules and regulations. Greenpeace also hopes that those governments that proved particularly obstructive in October will reconsider their positions in advance of the meeting in February.

4. Greenpeace has comments on specific parts of the draft IPOA.

5. The most striking example of the lack of commitment by governments to take action was the deletion of paragraph 63 calling on states to make it a violation to trade in fish or fish products derived from IUU fishing and to adopt sanctions under domestic law.

6. Most of the provisions in the draft text calling on countries to take action against companies and true owners of IUU/FOC fishing have been deleted or seriously weakened, under the pretext that it would interfere with rights of individuals. In the same sense, the reverse burden of proof based on the assumption that vessels flying the flag of non-cooperating states undermine conservation rules has been eliminated.

7. The same goes for some the key elements of the text in relation to closing ports and markets to IUU/FOC fishing. Greenpeace finds it unacceptable to use free trade arguments to oppose such crucial provisions. In no way can free trade justify allowing the uncontrolled fishing by FOC fleets to continue unhampered.

8. It also appears that a new loophole in international law has been developed in the form of charter arrangements through which flag of convenience vessels are contracted to fish by certain States, sometimes in areas quite distant from those States� waters and well beyond their control.

9. A number of African countries � Nigeria, Angola and Mauritania among them - made strong statements on the need to develop effective tools to stop vessels poaching in developing countries EEZs. Greenpeace feels that their plea has largely been ignored.

10. Overall, FAO members failed to build on actions against IUU fishing taken by regional fisheries management organizations such as ICCAT, IATTC, and others, or on the relevant provisions of the 1995 UN Fisheries Agreement. Instead, the status quo largely prevailed with many governments arguing that the IPOA must be limited to the strict wording of UNCLOS. Existing legal instruments have clearly failed to contain the growing problem of flag of convenience and IUU fishing. The whole point of this process is to develop new tools within the framework of international law, that would allow States, among other things, to take effective action to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU fishing if and when the flag State fails to do so.

11. Greenpeace hopes that the February meeting will produce and agree to a far more concrete and effective set of provisions to be included in the International Plan of Action.