Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
MeetingReport of the Eleventh Session of the Compliance Committee 2014
Also available in:
No results found.The Eleventh Session of the Compliance Committee (CoC) of the Indian Ocean Tu Commission (IOTC) was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka from the 26–28 May 2014. The welcome address was given by the Director General of the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Mr. Nimal Hettiarachchi, Sri Lanka. The meeting was opened by the Chair, Mr. Herminio Tembe (Mozambique). A total of 122 delegates attended the Session, composed of 96 delegates from 25 Contracting Parties (Members) of the Commission, 1 del egate from 1 of the 2 Cooperating Non- Contracting Parties and 16 delegates from 7 Observers (including 9 invited experts). (para. 2) The CoC RECALLED that the purpose of the meeting is to strengthen compliance amongst Members, i.e. Contracting Parties, and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs) by firstly reviewing progress made during the 2013/2014 intersessiol period, identifying outstanding issues of non-compliance as well identifying the challenges and difficulties that each CPC and not ably developing coastal States are facing in enforcing and complying with IOTC Conservation and Magement Measures (CMMs), and filly to encourage such improvement during the next intersessiol period. The following are a subset of the complete recommendations from the CoC11 to the Commission, which are provided at Appendix IX. Identification of possible infringements under the Regiol observer programme (para. 69) The CoC RECOMMENDED that those CPCs identified in paper IOTC–2014–CoC11–08c Rev_1 and Add_1, a summary of possible infractions of IOTC regulations by large-scale fishing vessels (LSTLVs/carrier vessels), which have not submitted any response to the Committee investigate and report back to the IOTC via the Secretariat, the findings of their investigations, within three months of the end of the 18th Session of the Commission, by submitting reports on the follow-up on the irregularities identified. In order to assist with the comprehensive evaluation of any alleged infringement, co pies of the logbooks, VMS plots, licenses and any other relevant documents should be provided by the flag States, as necessary. Review of options for a regiol high-seas boarding and inspection scheme for the IOTC area (para. 110) The CoC RECOMMENDED the creation of either an informal, inter-sessiol working group to discuss further the ‘Regiol high-seas boarding and inspection scheme’ involving interested CPCs, or via the proposed Working Party on Compliance (IOTC–2014–S18–PropQ), if adopted by t he Commission, in order to develop the guideline further and subsequent proposal for a Conservation and Magement Measure. If a separate working group is formed, then the group should meet, to the extent possible, via electronic means to minimise costs. (para. 113) The CoC RECOMMENDED that all CPCs inform fishing vessel owners, companies and agents of the advisability of reporting intention to transit through another CPCs waters, and to provide details of the reporting formats, such as that for U K(OT) contained in Circular 2013–51. (para. 114) The CoC RECOMMENDED that all CPCs inform fishing vessel owners, companies and agents of the requirements to comply with IOTC CMMs and to include this within terms and conditions of licencing and fisheries legislation. (para. 115) The CoC RECOMMENDED that all IOTC coastal State enforcement bodies consider completing a common ‘Reporting Form for Activity Not Compliant with IOTC Resolutions’ for any inspections carried out on board vessels in transit through their waters, and report a summary of this to IOTC Secretariat for the CoC, at least annually. (para. 116) The CoC RECOMMNEDED that as part of its review and consolidation of IOTC CMMs the Commission should revise all relevant CMMs such that they apply to any vessel, irrespective of its size, registered on the IOTC Record of Vessels which operate in the IOTC area of competence and which fish outside their tiol fisheries jurisdiction for species covered by the IOTC Agreement. Activities by the Secretariat in Support of Capacity Building for Developing CPCs (para. 129) The CoC RECOMMENDED that the Commission consider its continued support of the work of the Secretariat in 2014/15, to allow it to undertake additiol capacity building missions to improve the implementation of CMMs by IOTC Members, and to consider further developing the plan of work for 2014/15. Adoption of the Report of the 11th Session of the Compliance Committee (para. 145) The CoC RECOMMENDED that the Commission consider the consolidated set of recommendations arising from CoC11, provided at Appendix IX. -
Book (stand-alone)Guidelines for personal protection when handling and applying pesticides
International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management
2020Also available in:
These guidelines are intended to provide guidance on pesticide risk reduction through reduced exposure by effective personal protection with special attention to the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). First, they provide technical information on personal protection and on the selection and use of PPE. Second, in line with the FAO/WHO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, they address policy issues and recommend measures to improve personal protection and specifically the use and availability of adequate quality and affordable PPE. They are primarily aimed at government authorities in charge of pesticide management and risk reduction, but are also considered useful to public and private sectors such as pesticide industry, non-governmental organisations (NGO) and other relevant entities. More specifically, these guidelines are targeted at stakeholders in low and middle income countries (LMICs) where it is acknowledged that there is limited legislation, compliance and enforcement, and PPE availability. These Guidelines were developed by the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM) to provide guidance on provisions in the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management that are related to personal protection of pesticide users. They are meant to enhance current national legislation and regulations on personal protection and personal protective equipment (PPE) or where there is none, to provide guidance. They reflect the FAO/WHO joint approach on pesticide management, thus addressing personal protection of both agricultural and public health operators/applicators, the latter being engaged in using insecticides for vector control. -
Book (series)A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar 2014
Also available in:
No results found.Madagascar’s extensive (~6,500 km) coastline comprises the most diverse and extensive shallow marine habitats in the Western Indian Ocean, supporting an estimated 123 shark and ray species. Sharks have featured in Madagascar’s fisheries for at least 100 years, with exports recorded as early as the 1920’s. Globally, shark fins are one of the most highly valued seafood items and represent a critical and significant source of cash for some of Madagascar’s isolated fishing communities. The global sh ark fin trade is estimated to be worth between US$400-500 million a year. Increases in the shark trade over the last two decades is closely linked to economic growth in China, where the market is concentrated, and the ripple effects of this increase in demand have been felt worldwide. Scientific estimates for the number of sharks killed annually can be up to 100 million individuals and sharks are on the whole overexploited. Today, thirty percent of all shark and ray species are now classified as ‘Threatened’ or ‘Near Threatened’ with extinction according to the IUCN Red List, although this number is likely to be higher given that the status of almost half (47%) of shark species cannot be scientifically assessed due to a lack of data. There is strong evidence that shark overexploitation occurs in Malagasy waters and that shark populations in the area are declining rapidly. Although reliable figures on Madagascar’s domestic shark fishery are sparse, anecdotal observations report declines in shark numbers within the last two decades. According to national studies based only on official export data, recorded shark fin exports stood at approximately 32 tonnes in 2010, a decrease from 65 tonnes in 1994. Lack of data on catches, particularly from artisanal fisheries, bycatch by licensed industrial vessels, and by illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing by foreign industrial vessels, means these official export figures are likely to be gross underestimates of the actual pro duction. Madagascar’s shark fishery is comprised of three main fisheries according to Malagasy legislation: artisanal, traditional and industrial fisheries. Madagascar’s artisanal and traditional shark fisheries extend along the entire west coast, with the most important traditional fisheries along the southwest coast. Overfishing has led to fisher migration, spreading the fishery along the entire west coast and also much of the north. There is no established traditional shark fishery along the east coast due to adverse sea conditions, whilst the south is the least developed of all sites surveyed for this report. Throughout the country, surveyed fishers report catching shark for the purposes of income from selling fins (88%) and meat (77%), and as a source of food (31%), demonstrating the important link to the international shark fin trade. Shark fin exports reach the international market mostly through two principal buyers and exporters, namely the Sea Reine and Sin Hing, Chinese comp anies based in Antananarivo. The supply chain for shark fins is both complex and rather fluid with fishers selling either fresh (wet) or dried fins to collectors and fins graded in value according to size and quality. Some fishers bypass the local collectors and sell dried fins directly to main buyers in larger towns to obtain a better price, which can be a mark-up of 40% for high quality fins. The value of shark fins during the study period (2012) varies according to their condition (wet or dri ed), quality (four recognised grades) and their position in the supply chain. Robust data was collected for the first two levels of the supply chain but was lacking for the higher levels (main buyer to exporter). Guitarfish fins were on the whole, twice as valuable as shark fins and therefore both in demand and a fishing target. Since 2012 the average value of shark fins has dropped. Trade in shark meat is also well establishedin Madagascar, with meat sold into a supply chain that serves mainly local and national (provincial) markets but can also be exported to the Comoros. Shark meat does not fetch a high price compared to other fish or meats but can be an important supplementary source of income or nutrition in some cases. Generally fresh meat is sold and consumed locally whilst dried salted meat is bought by collectors and transported to inland urban markets in Madagascar. Some dried shark meat is also exported. ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées ASH Aut orité Sanitaire Halieutique BAD Banque Africaine de Dévelopement CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCPS Cellule de la Coordination de la Politique Sectorielle/MPRH CLB/VOI Communauté Locale de Base/Vondron’Olona Ifatony CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COI Commission de l’océan Indien COS Certificat d’Origine et de Salubrité CSP Centre de Surveillance des Pêches CMS Convention on Migratory Species DGRH Direction de la Gestion des Ressourc es Halieutiques/MPRH DPRH Direction de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques/MPRH DRPR Direction Régionale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations RFMO Regional Fishery Management Organization GEF Global Environnement Facility GTZ Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit IPOA Sharks – International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreport ed JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency, Agence Japonaise de Coopération Internationale MAEP Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche MGA Malgasy Ariary MNP Madagascar National Parks (previously ANGAP) MPRH Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques NGO Non Governmental Organisations SWIOFP/OISO South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project, Programme de l’Océan Indien Sud- Occidental UNGA United Nations General Assembly WIO Western Indian Ocean WWF World Wild Fund fo r Nature 6 A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar 7 8 A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar Foreign commercial fishing fleets have also been prevalent in Malagasy waters since at least the 1980’s and primarily target shark and larger pelagic fish, with significant shark bycatch for those fisheries not directly targeting sharks. Almost none of the sharks caught are landed in Madagascar. IUU fishing within Madagascar’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a well-established issue, with the shark fishery specifically targeted by both licensed and unlicenced vessels. Despite the significant pressures on Madagascar’s shark fishery and the enormous socio-ecological and economic value of the trade, the country has no coherent or functioning shark conservation strategy or legislation. The lack of a national strategy is largely due to deficiencies in data on fishing effort, catches, landings and discards in all commercial fisheries for sh ark. This is compounded by a paucity of information on shark ecology, fisheries status and the socioeconomic value of the trade throughout Madagascar. Furthermore, in isolated coastal areas with little infrastructure, the sale of high value dried shark fins has been one of the few ways local Malagasy fishermen can earn cash. In this context, the diverse and unconnected stakeholders have no basis or motivation to enact meaningful conservation measures, particularly when economic imperatives outwe igh any other consideration. In a country as poor as Madagascar, even minor poverty relief is important, leading fishers to continue shark fishing despite low catches and diminishing returns for fishing effort, further threatening the future of the fishery. There is an urgent need to actively and aggressively manage Madagascar’s shark fishery. The rapid decline of sharks is likely to have several negative socioeconomic and ecological impacts, including the loss of livelihoods and protein for tho se people who rely on them and potentially altering the trophic structure of marine and coastal ecosystems. However, putting in place conservation measures and enforcing regulations remains a formidable challenge. Much of Madagascar’s fishery takes place in remote fishing grounds scattered over thousands of kilometres of coastline; the fishers are highly mobile and move great distances to seek productive fishing grounds; the government lacks the means to monitor these fisheries and enforce regul ations; and the markets are informal and closed. Significant steps must be taken in order to effectively prevent the collapse of Madagascar’s shark fishery. A widespread campaign to regulate both international and local shark fishing must occur simultaneously for any significant positive change to occur. For this to take place scientifically robust data must be collected over the long term. For any national conservation strategies to be implemented effectively, they should be based on data colle cted through participative monitoring and implemented at the national level. Such strategies should apply to artisanal and traditional fisheries, as well as to international commercial fishing vessels operating within the EEZ. Madagascar’s existing locally-managed marine areas are a vehicle through which coastal shark management strategies could be implemented. However an increase in both technical and logistical capacity will be required for effective management at the local, regional and natio nal level, together with strong enforcement support to LMMAs. Although it is recommended that the government develops appropriate national legislation and put in place proper monitoring and export restrictions, the onus remains heavily on the international community, with global legislation driving the regulation or lack of regulation of the global shark trade. Particular attention needs to be paid to those countries with distant water fleets / vessels operating within Madagascar’s EEZ, both leg ally and illegally. Without proper regulation of their shark fishing effort, partly through RFMO’s, little progress can be made.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.