I:\FSI\15\14.doc For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION 15th session Agenda item 14

FSI 15/142 March 2007

Original: ENGLISH

ILLEGAL, UNREGULATED AND UNREPORTED (IUU) FISHING AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION A.925(22)

Draft joint FAO/IMO document to be submitted to the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters

Note by the Secretariat

SUMMARY Executive summary:

This document contains a draft joint FAO/IMO document prepared in co-operation with the FAO Secretariat for review by the respective appropriate Bodies of the two Organizations prior to its submission to the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters

Action to be taken:

Paragraph 5

Related documents:

MSC 82/10 and MSC 82/INF.10

1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-second session (29 November to 8 December 2007), was presented with information on a draft joint FAO/IMO document prepared by the IMO and FAO Secretariats on the issues proposed to be addressed in the context of the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters (MSC 82/10 and MSC 82/INF.10). 2 Having agreed in principle with the issues proposed to be addressed in the context of the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters, MSC 82 invited Members to participate actively and to make submissions to the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters on any subject of interest to them, bearing in mind that this meeting may be a unique opportunity to promote and achieve the entry into force of IMO instruments related to fishermen and fishing vessels safety. 3 MSC 82 agreed, subject to MEPC 56�s concurrence, that participants from Argentina, Canada, China, Denmark, Liberia, Norway, the Republic of Korea and Turkey would represent IMO at the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters to be held in Rome, Italy, from 16 to 18 July 2007. 4 Attached is a revised version of the annex to document MSC 82/INF.10 for further review by the Sub-Committee and MEPC 56. Action requested of the Sub-Committee 5 The Committee is invited to note the information provided in the attached annex and decide as appropriate.

***

FSI 15/14

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX DRAFT JOINT FAO/IMO DOCUMENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND JOINT

IMO/FAO WORKING GROUP ON IUU FISHING AND RELATED MATTERS Introduction .............................................................................................................................2 Historical Co-operation between FAO, ILO and IMO in Safety of Fishing Vessels .................2 Fishermen�s Training and Certification ......................................................................................4 The Joint FAO/IMO Ad Hoc Working Group on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Related Matters .......................................................................................................5 Expert Consultation to Review Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. ........................................................................................................7 Technical Consultation to Review Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing....................................................................................................................8 Consideration of IUU Fishing by the IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI)..................................................................................................................8 Entry-into force of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol����������������.12 SOLAS ...........................................................................................................................23 MARPOL and GESAMP..........................................................................................................25 Other IMO instruments .............................................................................................................26 FAO Code of Conduct ..............................................................................................................28 The FAO Compliance Agreement (1993).................................................................................29 Port State Control (IMO) or Port State Measures (FAO) .........................................................30 Factors Influencing FAO/IMO Collaboration ..........................................................................31 Areas of Possible Co-operation between FAO and IMO..........................................................32 Annex 1 1993 Torremolinos Protocol � Summary of responses received from Member

Governments (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 1) Annex 2 Fishing vessel fleet � Summary of data provided by FAO (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 2) Annex 3 Fishing vessel fleet � Resolution adopted by the Regional seminar on

implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol for States of the East/South/South East Asia region (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 3)

Annex 4 Fishing vessel fleet � Analysis of Lloyd�s Register Fairplay (LR-F) database (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 4)

Annex 5 Fishing vessel fleet � Methodology of statistics based on the LR-F database (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 5)

Annex 6 Fishing vessel fleet � Discrepancies among the data provided by different sources (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 6)

Annex 7 Fishing vessel fleet � Estimated size of the current world fishing vessel fleet (C 93/4/Add.2, annex 7)

Annex 8 International Maritime Organization Mandate and Areas of FAO Interest Annex 9 FAO Mandate in Fisheries and Areas of IMO Interest Annex 10 Timeline of FAO/ILO/IMO Cooperation Annex 11 IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme (Circular letter No.1886/Rev.3)

(Extract) Annex 12 IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner Identification Number Scheme

(Circular letter No.2554/Rev.1) (Extract)

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 2

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

INTRODUCTION 1 There has been long standing co-operation between the Secretariats of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) since the early days of the organizations. This co-operation has been formulated by the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was agreed in IMO resolution A.103(IV). This was further formulated in IMO resolution A.116(V) which included the International Labour Organization (ILO) in its co-operative work with FAO and IMO. This co-operation has been seen in the context of IMO in its general mandate for Safety at Sea and Protection of the Marine Environment, the ILO work on labour standards and working conditions in the fishing industry, and the FAO mandate for fisheries in general. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the co-operation between primarily IMO and FAO with a view to assisting participants of the second Joint IMO-FAO Working Group on IUU fishing and Related Matters (JWG) to identify which areas of co-operation have been effective, which areas should be continued and strengthened, which area have been less effective, and also to identify new areas for fruitful co-operation. HISTORICAL CO-OPERATION BETWEEN FAO, ILO AND IMO IN SAFETY OF FISHING VESSELS 2 A resolution adopted by the Committee on the Conditions of Work in the Fishing Industry, which was convened by ILO in December 1962, to study certain aspects of working conditions of a practical international code dealing with the navigational, operational and occupational aspects of safety of fishing vessels and fishermen, urged the ILO in collaboration with FAO and IMCO1 to examine the possibility of establishing a suitable body to prepare such a code. 3 Considering that it was desirable to operate within their respective fields of competency, in order to extend the scope of the proposed safety code for fishing vessels to make reference to all aspects of the safety of fishing vessels and fishermen, the three organizations subsequently entered into an agreement with respect to the principles of co-operation and the areas of mutual interest and responsibility in the fields of fishing vessels and fishermen. 4 Following the above agreement, draft contributions to the Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels were prepared by FAO, the ILO and IMCO. It was agreed that the Code should be divided into two parts � Part A for skippers and crews and Part B � for fishing vessels builders and owners. 5 The contributions of the three Organizations to Part A of the Code were consolidated into a single draft by representatives of the three Secretariats who met at IMCO Headquarters in London in January 1968, and the final text of Part A of the Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels was adopted by a joint FAO/ILO/IMCO Meeting of Consultants on Safety on Board Fishing Vessels held at ILO Headquarters in Geneva from 4 to 13 September 1968. 6 A second joint FAO/ILO/IMCO Meeting of Consultants was held in February 1974 at IMCO Headquarters and agreed on amendments aiming at the improvement of the contents of the text and achieving consistency with Part B. These amendments were incorporated into Part A.

1 Originally the International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), the Organization changed its title to

the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1982.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX

Page 3

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Part B of the Code, which covers safety and health requirements with respect to the construction and equipment of fishing vessels adopted by the second joint FAO/ILO/IMCO Meeting of Consultants was published by IMCO as a separate booklet. 7 The safety of fishing vessels had been a matter of concern to IMO since the Organization came into existence, but the great differences in design and operation between fishing vessels and other types of ships had always proved a major obstacle to their inclusion in the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and Load Lines Convention. While other vessels load cargo in port, fishing vessels must sail empty and load their cargo at sea. Following IMO resolution A.369(IX) in 1975, the Council decided to convene a Diplomatic Conference to consider the adoption of a Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels. The 1977 Convention, adopted at a Conference held in Torremolinos, Spain, was the first-ever International Convention on the Safety of Fishing Vessels. 8 The 1977 Torremolinos Convention contained safety requirements for the construction and equipment of new, decked, seagoing fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, including those vessels also processing their catch. Existing vessels were covered only in respect of radio requirements. The Convention contained stability requirements for fishing vessels as well as chapters concerning construction, watertight integrity and equipment; machinery and electrical installations and unattended machinery spaces; fire protection, detection, extinction, and fire fighting; protection of the crew; life-saving appliances; emergency procedures, musters and drills; radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony; and ship borne navigational equipment. 9 In the 1980s, it became clear that the 1977 Torremolinos Convention was unlikely to enter into force, largely for technical reasons, and IMO decided to prepare a replacement in the form of a Protocol. The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) at its sixty-ninth session in November 1992 decided to convene an International Conference to consider the adoption of a Protocol relating to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977. This Conference met in March and April 1993 in Torremolinos. 10 Resolution 4 of the Conference requested IMO to review, as a matter of priority, the FAO/ILO/IMO Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels Part A and Part B. The Code of Safety for Fishing Vessels Part B addresses safety and health requirements for the construction and equipment of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over. MSC entrusted the revision of the Code to its Sub-Committee on Stability and Load lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) and recommended that recent developments in fishing vessel design and fishing vessel operations should be taken into consideration. The MSC also entrusted SLF to revise the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels that had previously been approved by MSC in 1979 which address vessels of 12 metres and over but less than 24 metres in length. In this regard, IMO was requested to invite FAO and ILO to participate in the revision. 11 The SLF 42 established an intersessional correspondence group for the revision of Part B of the Code and the Voluntary Guidelines. At SLF 45, in July 2002, FAO and ILO submitted a proposal to commence the revision of Part A. The Sub-Committee considered that unlike the current version, which was intended to be read by crew members on fishing vessels, the revised version should be directed primarily towards competent authorities, training institutions, fishing vessel owners, representative organizations of the crew and non-governmental organizations having a recognized role in crew members� safety and health and training. Competent Authorities would be encouraged to make use of the contents of the Code in the production of safety, health and training materials in an appropriate format to suit the particular needs of the fisheries of a country or region and in local languages.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 4

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

12 As well as the two main treaties, the Torremolinos Protocol and the STCW-F Convention, IMO has developed, in collaboration with FAO and the International Labour Organization (ILO), a number of non-mandatory instruments. These include the revised Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, 2005, and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels, 2005. 13 The revised Fishing Vessel Safety Code and Voluntary Guidelines � originally developed and approved in the 1970s � have been developed for use primarily by competent authorities, training institutions, fishing vessel owners, fishermen�s representative organizations and non-governmental organizations having a recognized role in fishermen�s safety and health and training. 14 Part A of the Code provides guidance on the development of national codes and fishermen�s education and training manuals and guidance on the safety and health of fishermen. Competent authorities will be encouraged to make use of the contents of the Code and the Voluntary Guidelines in the production of safety and health and training materials in an appropriate format to suit the particular needs of the fisheries of the country or region and in local languages. 15 Additionally, several resolutions and circulars addressing various aspects of fishing vessel safety have been developed over the years, while the development of safety standards for small fishing vessels has recently begun at IMO. As there are no international safety standards in place for these type of vessels and in many countries, national regulations, guidelines or standards for small fishing vessels are either non-existent or inappropriate, the proposed safety standards will complement the Code of Safety and the Voluntary Guidelines and will address the safety concerns specific to fishing vessels below 12 metres in length, and undecked fishing vessels of any size. It is anticipated that the standards will primarily be used by the relevant competent authorities to upgrade their national laws and regulations. FISHERMEN�S TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION 16 The General Conference of ILO adopted the Fishermen�s Competency Certificate Convention, 1966 (No.125) in order to establish standards of qualification for certificates of competency entitling persons to perform the duties of skipper, mate or engineer on board a fishing vessel. However this Convention has never come into force because of lack of ratification. 17 The Torremolinos International Conference of Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977 noted regulation 13 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention and adopted resolution 8 which invited IMO to extend its consideration of the problem of training and certification of crews of fishing vessels in co-operation with ILO and FAO. 18 In 1981 the sixth session of the joint IMO/ILO Committee on Training considered a proposal to prepare a document for guidance on fishermen�s training and certification. Following consultations between the executive heads of FAO, ILO and IMO it was agreed that the document for guidance should be prepared by a Joint FAO/ILO/IMO Working Group approved by the three Organizations. The first version of the Document for Guidance on Fishermen�s Training and Certification was the result of the joint work and was approved by the Governing Bodies of FAO and ILO and the MSC of IMO for publication.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX

Page 5

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

19 It was originally intended that requirements for crews on fishing vessels should be developed as a Protocol to the main Convention for Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), but after careful consideration it was agreed that it would be better to adopt a completely separate Convention. The 1995 International Conference on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F Conference) convened by IMO, met in London from 26 June to 7 July 1995. 20 The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, (STCW-F), 1995 is the first attempt to make standards of safety for crews of fishing vessels mandatory internationally. The STCW-F Convention is comparatively short and consists of 15 articles and an annex containing technical regulations. 21 In 1995 a joint working group, in co-operation with FAO and ILO, reviewed the Document for Guidance on Fishermen�s Training and Certification with particular reference to relevant resolutions of the STCW-F Convention. The outcome was a revised document entitled Document for Guidance on Training and Certification of Fishing Vessel Personnel, which was approved by FAO, ILO and IMO in 2000 and published on behalf of the three Organizations by IMO in 2001. THE JOINT FAO/IMO AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED (IUU) FISHING AND RELATED MATTERS 22 The Working Group was established as a result of the call made by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which met in April 1999, highlighting the issue of flag and port State responsibilities and the need for FAO and IMO to co-operate on solving problems relating to IUU fishing. Subsequently the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 54/32, inter alia �called upon IMO, in co-operation with FAO, and ....... to define the concept of the genuine link between the fishing vessels and the State......�. IUU fishing was raised at FSI 8 in London, 24 to 28 January 2000. The Sub-Committee, realizing that IMO, and in particular the Sub-Committee itself, could provide assistance to FAO on this matter, but recognizing the need for a policy decision on the issue, agreed to refer the matter to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and the MSC for further guidance on how the issues involved could be incorporated in the Sub-Committee�s work programme. The Sub-Committee further recommended that the two parent Committees consider the formation of a joint FAO/IMO Ad Hoc Working Group and invited FAO to submit a relevant document, including draft terms of reference for such a joint group, to MSC 72 in May 2000. 23 Accordingly, FAO presented a document to the MSC suggesting draft terms of reference for a Joint Ad Hoc Working Group which could provide advice to the two Organizations without incurring excessive unplanned expenditure. The Joint FAO/IMO Ad Hoc Working Group on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Related Matters were held in Rome from 9 to 11 October 2000. The Governments of Australia, Chile, Japan, Malta, Philippines, South Africa, United States of America and the European Community represented FAO at the Working Group. The Governments of Argentina, Canada, China, Denmark, Liberia, the Republic of Korea and Turkey represented IMO. The Secretariat of ILO was also represented. Five other FAO Member States and two international non-governmental organizations attended as observers.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 6

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

24 The following is a summary of the results of the Working Group.

The Ad Hoc Working Group: i) recognized the need to enhance implementation of flag State responsibility and to

focus on fisheries issues, to the extent that this was possible, including through regional fisheries management organizations;

ii) endorsed the need to ensure that the flag State link the registration of a fishing

vessel with its authorization to fish; iii) urged closer collaboration between relevant agencies in national administrations

to ensure that there was a clear linkage between the registration of a fishing vessel and the authorization to fish;

iv) recognized that in the case where a vessel is fishing in the jurisdiction of another

State cooperation between the flag State and the coastal State was imperative, and in particular, the need to ensure that the flag State continued to exercise effective control over that vessel;

v) agreed that it would generally be inadvisable to deregister a vessel that failed to

comply with the authorization to fish as this practice could have the effect of exporting the problem;

vi) agreed that as a general principle all States should give full effect, through

national law and regulations, to existing rights and obligations under international law;

vii) agreed that States should be encouraged to ratify, accept or accede to, as

appropriate, existing legal instruments that relate to matters of effective flag State control;

viii) agreed that consideration should be given to how the IMO number scheme might

be applied to fishing vessels not currently subject to this requirement in order to enable vessels to be traced regardless of changes in registration or name over time;

ix) noted that the majority of fishing vessels were not covered by IMO conventions

either because fishing vessels were specifically excluded, or because they were outside the size limitations, or because the flag States were not party to the relevant instruments;

x) recognized the possibility of controlling vessels engaged in the trans-shipment

and transport of fish and resupply of fishing vessels, as they are subject to port State control with respect to maritime safety, pollution prevention and living and working conditions;

xi) stressed that States, in the exercise of their sovereignty over their ports in

accordance with international law, had considerable scope to introduce domestic legislative measures to deal with foreign fishing vessels entering or leaving their ports;

FSI 15/14 ANNEX

Page 7

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

xii) recognized that the mechanism of international or regional MoUs relating to port

State control of fishing vessels could be used as an important and effective tool for enhancing fisheries management, and for addressing the issue of IUU fishing;

xiii) agreed that FAO in co-operation with relevant international organizations should

consider the need to develop measures for port State control, having particular reference to all matters related, inter alia, to the management of fisheries resources, taking into account and encompassing, as appropriate, the IMO port State control procedures reflected in the document entitled �Procedures for Port State Control of Fishing Vessels�; and

xiv) noted that implementation of port State control would require close co-operation

between maritime and fisheries administrations.

EXPERT CONSULTATION TO REVIEW PORT STATE MEASURES TO COMBAT ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED (IUU) FISHING 25 The Consultation was held at FAO Headquarters from 4 to 6 November 2002 and was attended by eight experts in their personal capacities and two resource persons. 26 It was noted that port States might, on the basis of objective and non discriminatory criteria, set out conditions of entry to their ports or deny access to their ports by foreign fishing vessels that have engaged in, or supported, IUU fishing. However, it was observed that, in cases of distress and force majeure vessels have a right of access to ports under customary international law. In addition, there might be bilateral or multilateral agreements or trade-related arrangements providing for reciprocal free access to ports. It was also observed that denial of access to port in order to combat IUU fishing might not always be appropriate in practice for combating IUU fishing. 27 An MoU should apply to all vessels engaged in, or supporting, fishing activities, including fishing vessels and vessels transporting fish and fishery products. Criteria for targeting specific vessels might be developed for a given MoU. For instance, vessels flying a �flag of non-compliance� (FONC) or vessels having a history of non-compliance established by a regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) could be particularly targeted. 28 The need for harmonized and co-ordinated approaches for inspection was discussed, and these approaches received wide support in the Consultation. The Consultation considered that the use of a unique fishing vessel numbering system* could be a useful tool for the effective implementation of a MoU on port State measures. It noted that such a system is applied in IMO for numbering merchant ships. 29 The Consultation also observed that a harmonized system of certification of fishing vessels, including the clear identification of the vessels� owners and managers**, could be useful to facilitate the inspection of vessels in port States. 30 Following the discussions on, and the in-depth review of, the elements that might be included in regional MoUs the Expert Consultation elaborated a draft Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

* Draft Circular letter No.1886/Rev.3 is set out at annex for reference. ** Draft Circular letter No.2554/Rev.1 is set out at annex for reference.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 8

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

TECHNICAL CONSULTATION TO REVIEW PORT STATE MEASURES TO COMBAT ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING 31 On the recommendation of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) at its twenty-fifth session, a Technical Consultation was convened to Review Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing which was held at FAO Headquarters from 31 August to 2 September 2004. 32 All Members supported the concept of port State measures to combat IUU fishing and the FAO process that was being followed. The Consultation agreed that there was a need for a suite of model provisions to implement port State measures. Some Members pointed out that this approach did not exclude the need to prepare in the future an international instrument on the rights and obligations of port States. 33 Some Members stated that they had reservations about the MoU as a means of implementing the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPOA-IUU) as it would create a further bureaucratic layer and that its establishment would be a lengthy process. They pointed out that RFMOs and their members already enjoy the necessary competence to adopt resolutions and regulations and that they should be encouraged to agree on the relevant port State measures to be taken in their respective regions. They supported the view that the Technical Consultation adopt a draft resolution as a model to this effect. 34 Other Members considered that the elaboration of an international instrument providing general rules on port State inspections was needed to serve as a reference for action in the field of control of foreign fishing vessels. Therefore, they supported the adoption of a set of recommendations, as proposed by the Technical Consultation describing basic and minimum port State measures, to be forwarded to COFI in 2005. Subsequent action could be taken either through the adoption of regional MoUs or through RFMOs, or at the level of individual port States, as appropriate. CONSIDERATION OF IUU FISHING BY THE IMO SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION (FSI) 35 FSI 9 recalled that, FSI 8 had considered the issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and had recognized the need for a policy decision on whether the Sub-Committee could provide assistance to FAO on the matter and had referred it to the MSC and MEPC for further guidance. 36 The Sub-Committee noted that MEPC 44 and MSC 72 had agreed that IMO should, as requested by the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), provide assistance to FAO in dealing with IUU fishing in respect of safety of, and prevention of marine pollution from, fishing vessels and other related issues. The Committees, recalling that there was an agreement of co-operation between IMO and FAO on matters of mutual interest (resolution A.103(IV)), agreed to the establishment of a joint FAO/IMO working group on the subject. 37 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the first Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters held in Rome from 9 to 11 October 2000 (FSI 9/15) and noted that the above report contained proposed measures, relating to Member States� responsibility either as flag State or port State.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX

Page 9

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

38 Following further discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed that:

.1 the check list of measures to deal with IUU fishing proposed in appendices F and G of the report relate to fisheries management and are outside the competence of the Organization;

.2 there is no legal basis for extending existing port State control provisions in

IMO�s instruments to fishing vessels as the two Conventions regulating fishing vessels (1993 Torremolinos Protocol and 1995 STCW-F Convention) are not yet in force;

.3 the Organization can co-operate with FAO to develop a port State control regime

of its own through sharing of experience and expertise on the matter; and .4 the Organization can be of further assistance to FAO by promoting the ratification

by its Member States of the aforementioned instruments to bring them into force at an early date.

39 The Sub-Committee recognized that there were many safety and environmental protection issues relating to illegal fishing, which were within the purview of IMO, and the consideration of which would be of assistance to FAO. 40 At FSI 10, having noted that no submissions had been made by Members clearly stating the problems they have identified and making specific proposals on actions requested of the Organization and having discussed the matter further, the Sub-Committee:

.1 took into account the relevant request of the Assembly in resolution A.925(22) on

Entry into force and implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and the 1995 STCW-F Convention; and

.2 noted that, in the context of the present item on IUU fishing and related matters,

an opinion was expressed that IMO might assist FAO in developing their port State control procedures.

41 The Sub-Committee noted that SLF had dealt with technical aspects relating to fishing vessels and fishermen safety and was revising the fishing vessels safety Code and voluntary Guidelines. However, noting that entry into force and implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and 1995 STCW-F Convention may significantly contribute to the reduction of the loss of lives of fishermen, the Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the MSC to expand the item to include consideration of the implementation of resolution A.925(22) and to modify the title of the work programme item to read �Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and implementation of resolution A.925(22)�, with a target completion to 2005. In this regard, it was agreed that the work to be undertaken would include the investigation of the difficulties associated with the ratification and implementation of the relevant instruments and development of proposals for appropriate action to remedy the situation. 42 FSI 11 considered the information contained in documents FSI 11/11 and FSI 11/INF.7 (FAO) on the activities that have taken place since FSI 10, in particular, that the Expert Consultation to Review Port State measures to combat IUU fishing had prepared guidelines and principles for the establishment of regional Memoranda of Understanding on port State measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and, on planned activities which were to take place later in 2003.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 10

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

43 In 2004, with regard to the implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol and the 1995 STCW-F Convention, FSI 12, being accordingly informed by the Secretariat, noted that the approved Technical Co-operation Sub-Programme for Maritime Safety for the biennia 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 for incorporation in the Organization�s Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme (ITCP), contained the following safety-related technical co-operation activities carried out and planned by the Maritime Safety Division:

.1 regional seminars on implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol for States of the East/South/South East Asia region and for States of the Latin America region scheduled in 2004;

.2 regional workshops for the promotion of a safety culture among artisan fishermen

and the training of trainers for States in the South Pacific and for the Caribbean region scheduled for 2004;

.3 regional seminars/workshops on implementation of the STCW-F Convention

scheduled for the Islamic Republic of Iran, in 2004, for Agadir, Morocco from 3 to 10 April 2004 and for Grenada, in the last quarter of 2004; and

.4 a regional seminar/workshop on implementation of the STCW-F Convention held

in Havana, Cuba, in September 2003, for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela.

44 The Sub-Committee noted that the thirty-second session of the FAO Conference adopted resolution 6/2003 on 9 December 2003 concerning Agenda Item 9: Progress Report on Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Fishing and that the Resolution 6/2003 was calling the attention of the FSI Sub-Committee more particularly to its operative paragraphs 10 and 11, as follows:

�Invites relevant competent international organizations to study, examine and clarify the role of the �genuine link� in relation to the duty of flag States to exercise effective control over ships flying their flag, including fishing vessels; Encourages States, the FAO, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), RFMOs and other relevant competent international organizations dealing with maritime issues to co-operate in the development of measures to combat IUU fishing, including through the sharing of information.�

45 After discussion of the item, the Sub-Committee reiterated its support to the work of FAO in relation to IUU fishing acknowledging that the experience of the Organization regarding port State control activities and flag State compliance-related issues would be of assistance to this United Nations Specialized Agency. 46 FSI 13 recalled that FSI 12 had invited the MSC and MEPC to recommend that the FAO stimulate further co-operation between itself, IMO and the regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) by organizing a second meeting of the Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters. Having noted MEPC 51�s concurrent decision, MSC 78 had agreed to the Sub-Committee�s recommendation and instructed the Secretariat to communicate with FAO accordingly.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 11

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

47 The Sub-Committee considered document FSI 13/15 (FAO) on the activities that have taken place since FSI 12 and, in particular, on the outcome of a Technical Consultation to Review Progress and Promote the Full Implementation of the International Plan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and the IPOA for the Management of Fishing Capacity, and of another Technical Consultation to review port State measures to combat IUU fishing. 48 The representative of FAO stated that, according to information from FAO Members and regional fishery bodies (RFBs), the occurrence and scope of IUU fishing was not abating. He referred to United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/59/25, which included a call for FAO and IMO to address substantive issues relating to the role of the port State, noting that such efforts included the elaboration of a draft model scheme on port State measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. 49 The representative of FAO informed that a Technical Consultation held in 2004 had approved a Model Scheme on Port State Measures to Combat IUU Fishing. He stressed the importance of the inter-organizational collaboration that had facilitated the participation of IMO and ILO in the Technical Consultation as resource persons to the FAO Secretariat. He also outlined the issues being considered at the twenty-sixth session of FAO�s Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and at a Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries in the context of the implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, stressing the fact that, both COFI and the Ministerial Meeting, which were being held concurrently with FSI 13, would consider potential areas of further collaboration between FAO and IMO. 50 Regarding the convening of a second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters, as proposed by FSI 12 and endorsed by the MSC and MEPC, the FAO representative affirmed his Organization�s strong commitment to progressing the preparatory work for this meeting which could be convened in 2006. 51 Regarding specific proposals on issues to be considered by the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters, and taking into account the fact that concurrent discussions on this issue were being held by COFI and the above-mentioned Ministerial Meeting, the Sub-Committee agreed that the Secretariats of the two Organizations should continue their co-ordination so as to present to the MSC and MEPC proposals on the possible schedule and agenda for a second session of the joint working group and on the possible composition of delegations representing the two Organizations. ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL

BACKGROUND INFORMATION � CRITERIA FOR THE ENTRY INTO FORCE

1993 Torremolinos Protocol � Article 10

(1) The Present Protocol shall enter into force 12 months after the date on which not less than 15 States have either signed it without reservation to ratification, acceptance or approval or have deposited the requisite instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in accordance with article 9, the aggregate number of whose fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over is not less than 14,000.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 12

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

(2) For States which have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of the present Protocol after the requirements for entry into force thereof have been met but prior to the date of entry into force, the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the present Protocol or three months after the date of deposit of the instrument, whichever is the later date.

(3) For States which have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession after the date on which the present Protocol entered into force, the present Protocol shall become effective three months after the date of deposit of the instrument.

(4) After the date on which an amendment to the present Protocol is deemed to have been accepted under article 11, any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited shall apply to the present Protocol as amended.

1995 STCW-F Convention � Article 12

(1) The Convention shall enter into force 12 months after the date on which not less than 15 States have either signed it without reservation to ratification, acceptance or approval or have deposited the requisite instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in accordance with article 11.

(2) For States which have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of the Convention after the requirements for entry into force thereof have been met but prior to the date of entry into force, the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention or three months after the date of deposit of the instrument, whichever is the later date.

(3) For States which have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession after the date on which the Convention entered into force, the Convention shall become effective three months after the date of deposit of the instrument.

(4) After the date on which an amendment to the Convention is deemed to have been accepted under article 10, any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited shall apply to the Convention as amended.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 13

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Status as at 31 January 2007

SFV

Pro

toco

l 93

STC

W-F

Con

vent

ion

95

Num

ber

of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s of 2

4 m

etre

s (b

ased

on

data

in

anne

x 7,

num

ber

used

fo

r th

e st

udy)

Bulgaria x 4 Cuba x 22 Denmark x x 328 Germany x 66 Iceland x x 251 Ireland x 131 Italy x 611 Netherlands x 240 Norway x x 346 Russian Federation x 1736 Saint Kitts and Nevis x Spain x 991 Sweden x 74 Syrian Arab Republic x Ukraine x 135 Faroe Islands x Total 4935

STUDY ON AMENDING THE ENTRY-INTO-FORCE PROVISIONS OF THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL 52 The IMO�s Council, at its ninety-second session, in considering the Secretary-General�s report on the status of conventions and other multilateral instruments in respect of which the Organization performs functions, shared his concerns over the slow pace of acceptance of the Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977, and instructed the Secretariat to study the legal and practical implications of amending the entry-into-force provisions of that Protocol, taking into account the reported reduction in the size of the world fishing vessel fleet since 1993, and to report its findings to C 93. 53 In the context of the regional seminars on implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol mentioned in paragraph 43, Member States shared their concern regarding IUU fishing and agreed that an early entry into force of the Protocol would enhance measures being developed to combat IUU fishing. Estimated size of the current world fishing vessel fleet 54 To facilitate the aforementioned study, the Secretary-General communicated with 153 Member States on the numbers of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (as defined in the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol) flying their flags. Similar information was also requested from FAO.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 14

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

55 In addition, the Secretary-General sought the views of Member States and FAO on the reasons some States have been reluctant to ratify the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol so that Council could have a clear presentation of the issues involved when considering what action, if any, the Organization should take in this respect. 56 Forty-two (42) Member States and FAO responded to the Secretary-General�s request. A summary of the data received, by the time of writing, from Member States is set out in annex 1, while the information provided by FAO is summarized in annex 2. 57 In addition to the above information, the Secretariat also took into account fishing vessel fleet statistics provided by countries participating in the Seminar on the Implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol held in Beijing, People�s Republic of China, from 21 to 24 September 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the �Beijing Seminar�), which was organized by the Organization under its technical co-operation programme. The resolution of the seminar reporting the data presented by participating countries is set out in annex 3. 58 In order to provide the most accurate assessment of the size of the world fishing vessel fleet, the Secretariat also collected statistics from the Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay (LR-F) Database (May 2004), as contained in annexes 4 and 5. The information obtained from that database was used to provide fishing vessel fleet estimates for those Member States that have yet to provide the information requested by the Secretary-General. 59 Based on all the data collected by the Secretariat, the size of the current world fishing vessel fleet is estimated to be 56,789 vessels.2 Details of the methodology used to arrive at the aforementioned estimate are set out in annex 7. For comparison purposes, it should be noted that the number of fishing vessels under the flags of the ten States which have so far expressed their consent to be bound by the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol is 3,060 vessels, which comprises 21.9% of the 14,000 vessels currently required for the Protocol to enter into force. Implications of above estimated figure 60 The estimated world fishing vessel fleet size (56,789) shows a considerable increase since 1993, when the size of the world fishing vessel fleet of 24 metres in length and over had been estimated to be 28,000 vessels. The relevant entry-into-force provisions of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol were developed based on that number (i.e. �the aggregate number of whose fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over is not less than 14,000�), in line with the relevant provisions of the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977. Taking into account the estimated increase in the size of the world fishing vessel fleet since 1993, the relevant requirement of the aggregate number of fishing vessels in the 1993 Protocol (i.e. �not less than 14,000 vessels�) corresponds, in today�s figures, to approximately 25% of the current world fishing vessel fleet. Legal analysis of amending the entry-into-force provisions of the 1993 Protocol 61 Article 10 of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol provides that the Protocol shall enter into force 12 months after the date on which �not less than 15 States have either signed it without

2 Taking into account the margin of error of ±10.3% for data obtained from the LR-F database, as calculated in

annex 6, the above estimate could vary in between 56,312 to 57,266.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 15

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval or have deposited the requisite instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in accordance with article 9, the aggregate number of whose fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over is not less than 14,000.� Only ten States have ratified this instrument to date and, since the Protocol has not yet entered into force, article 10 itself, cannot be amended since the amendment provisions themselves are not legally effective. 62 Under the circumstances, the only practical alternative for bringing the substance of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol into force, would be for a conference to adopt a new Convention or Protocol with lower entry-into-force provisions, leaving unaltered the essential technical provisions of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. 63 However, before proceeding with the convening of a conference, consideration should also be given to the question of whether the reluctance of States to ratify the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol is attributable solely to its entry-into-force provisions or whether there are additional factors influencing States in their decision not to ratify. In such an event, it will, of course, not be sufficient merely to amend the entry-into-force requirements. In addition, if a conference were to adopt a new Convention or Protocol to reduce the entry-into-force requirements, that conference would also have to adopt a resolution calling on States which have ratified the 1993 Protocol to denounce it and ratify the new instrument and for other States only to ratify the new Convention or new Protocol. Practical assessment of the reluctance of States to ratify the 1993 Protocol 64 While the Member States approached by the Secretary-General were also invited to identify reasons for the reluctance to ratify the Protocol, the Secretariat has received only a small number of responses to this invitation, which are also set out in annex 1. The reasons provided are as follows:

.1 exposure of fishing vessels to port State control is a major factor in some States� reluctance to ratify the Protocol;

.2 the entry-into-force of the Protocol also involves a large administrative burden on

the Parties; .3 a significant change in fishermen�s attitudes is needed for a change in fishing

vessel safety; .4 ratification and subsequent implementation of the Protocol would place a financial

burden on the industry, which some States believe they could not shoulder; and IMO should consider contacting other relevant UN organizations since the financial problem mentioned above cannot be solved by IMO alone;

.5 some States are of the view that the safety of their fishing vessel fleets is already

adequately covered by national regulations; and .6 some States do not have the legislative authority to inspect and certificate fishing

vessels under their flags.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 16

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

65 In this regard, FAO suggested that the reasons for not ratifying the Protocol were similar to those which had led to the lack of ratification of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995 (STCW-F 1995). The reasons stated therein, which would also be relevant to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, include the following:

.1 the trading industry is internationally orientated; it is estimated that 90% of maritime trade is international. On the other hand, FAO estimates that 90% of fishing activity is conducted within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and thus countries generally regard fisheries as primarily a domestic issue. Furthermore, the vast majority of these vessels are under 24 metres in length. There is therefore little motivation for maritime/fisheries administrations to ratify an international instrument which would be either inapplicable or irrelevant to the majority of their fishing vessels;

.2 in many countries, the management of fisheries is devolved to a provincial or state

level and this sometimes makes it difficult for the national governments to ratify international standards;

.3 the fishing industry is very dependent on the �share fishing� method of

remuneration and only in the larger vessels there is union representation. The vast majority of crew members work on fishing vessels as casual workers or in self-employed status. The lack of a clear employer/union interaction does not lead to the same demands for common international standards, particularly when comparing the difference between developed and underdeveloped countries. In many developing countries there is little political pressure to invest in safety at sea, particularly when limited resources are available to meet the needs of competing priorities;

.4 some countries, which ratified the 1977 Torremolinos International Convention,

are reluctant now to ratify the less stringent 1993 Torremolinos Protocol; and .5 some States have concerns over the costs associated with compliance and

enforcement of the Protocol. 66 In addition to the reasons given above, FAO noted that the present entry-into-force requirements were related to the number of vessels over 24 metres in each country which had ratified the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. National fleet sizes change continuously and it might never be straightforward to determine whether the conditions for entry into force had been fulfilled. Therefore, FAO suggested that an alternative approach would be to make entry-into-force provisions dependent on ratification by a given number of countries. Conclusion 67 In light of the above analysis, the following factors may be considered relevant:

.1 according to the reported number of fishing vessels and the analysis based on the LR-F database, the estimated number of fishing vessels of 24 metres and over currently stands at 56,789;

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 17

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

.2 out of the above estimated world fishing vessel fleet of 24 metres and over, one country possesses 53.3% of the total number of fishing vessels of 24 metres and over;

.3 the various sources of statistical data relating to the world fleet of fishing vessels

which exist today use, for the purpose of recording data on fishing vessels, a variety of different criteria and none of them appears to use as a criterion the length as defined in regulation I/2(5) of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol;

.4 in order to estimate the current number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length

and over, the statistical data available need to be �interpreted and converted�, a process which entails errors in estimation;

.5 national fishing vessel fleet sizes change over time and it is not a straightforward

exercise to determine the volume of the world fishing vessel fleet and national fishing vessel fleets at any given time, in an effort to confirm whether the fleet size requirement in the conditions for entry-into-force of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol have been met; and

.6 the entry-into-force provisions of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol cannot be

amended. However, a new Convention or Protocol with different entry-into-force provisions could be considered with a view to adoption at an ad hoc conference.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL 68 Member States attending the above-referred seminars on the implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol also provided some input on the technical and legal difficulties which might have worked as a deterrent for the entry into force of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, as described in the following paragraphs. Some references are made to the two sets of regional guidelines which have been submitted to IMO, i.e. Guidelines for the Safety of Fishing Vessels of 24m in length and over but less than 45m in length Operating in the East and South East Asia, (hereinafter referred to as the �Asian Guidelines�); and Council Directive 97/70/EC setting up a harmonized safety regime for fishing vessels of 24m in length and over adopted by the Council of the European Union 11 December 1997 , (hereinafter referred to as the �EU Directive�). Technical issues 69 Narrow beam design: in some countries, the legislation on the fishing management is based on the vessels� tonnage measurement, as in SOLAS, instead of the vessels� length as provided for in the Protocol. In other countries such regulations are based on the power of the main engine. The former has lead to a �narrow beam� design of fishing vessels and consequently there is less space on board for equipment, piping, etc. as required by the Protocol. This �narrow beam� design could be the main reason for most of the technical difficulties that some countries have encountered. 70 Existing vessels: with regard to the application of chapters IX and X of the Protocol, as well as chapter 5 of the Asian Guidelines, to existing vessels, a suitable period of grace could be given to those vessels and be considered. The purpose of such a period is for the equipment to be fitted on board in the next dry-dock survey or three years after the entry into force date of the Protocol, whichever is later.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 18

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

71 Port State control: with regard to Article 4 of the Protocol on port State control, when a fishing vessel were to be subject to port State control, the port State control officer (PSCO) should be able to communicate with at least one of the crew members. If that is not possible the skipper should be given the opportunity to seek assistance from interpreters, if necessary. The PSCO should assist in this regard. However, this is only a matter for the PSC procedures, such as the ones contained in resolution A.787(19), and not an issue in relation to the implementation of the Protocol. 72 Survey intervals: with regard to regulation I/6 on survey intervals, the Administrations should be allowed to use the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC), which is now the prescribed system in the SOLAS and Load Lines Conventions, as amended by their 1988 Protocols, in lieu of the current system of survey and certification in that regulation. This item should not be a difficulty in relation to the implementation of the Protocol and should be dealt with as soon as possible after the entry into force criteria of the Protocol have been met. A provision should be added to allow that certificates, which are issued before the HSSC system comes into force, remain valid until they expire. 73 Stability: with regard to regulation III/2 on the minimum stability criteria, some of the stability criteria could be too stringent for vessels of �wide beam� design, such as purse seiners. The minimum stability criteria for offshore supply vessels contained in the Code on Intact Stability could be used as an alternative. This item should not be a difficulty in relation to the implementation of the Protocol since the regulation allows the Administration to apply other stability criteria if it is satisfied that operating experience justifies departures therefrom. 74 With regard to regulation III/12 on the bow height and recommendation 4 of attachment 3 to the Final Act of the 1993 Torremolinos Conference, the criteria of the recommendation could be too stringent for vessels that are of a limited gross tonnage due to marine resources protection purposes. This item should not be a difficulty in relation to the implementation of the Protocol since the recommendation was referred to in a footnote which does not form part of the Protocol (see Foreword to the 1995 Consolidated edition of the Protocol). A study could be carried out on the sea states in the regions in order to develop criteria for bow height that could serve as an alternative to the ones contained in recommendation 4. This study should take into account the operation in the summer and winter zones (as they are specified in the Load Lines Convention), respectively. 75 Machinery and electrical installations and periodically unattended machinery spaces: there would not be any particular problem related to chapter IV of the Protocol on machinery and electrical installations and periodically unattended machinery spaces. 76 Fire protection, fire detection, fire extinction and fire fighting: with regard to fishing vessels built of glass reinforced plastic construction, such vessels may not be able to comply with many of the provisions of chapter V of the Protocol and some of the provisions contained in chapter 3 of the Asian Guidelines. In case of vessels built of glass reinforced plastic construction and to which chapter V of the Protocol applies, the provisions of that chapter should be amended. Chapter 3 of the Asian Guidelines could be referred to wherever possible. On the same issue, a further study of fire protection provisions applicable to vessels of glass reinforced plastic (GRP) construction would need to be carried out. In this regard, it should be noted that the matter has already been raised in the FP Sub-Committee (see document FP 47/16, paragraphs 6.13-6.14).

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 19

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

77 With regard to the methods of protection as defined in regulation V/1, the provisions contained in chapter V refer to one or more of these methods and are considered as being too stringent. These provisions could instead be applied to vessels as follows:

.1 Method IF: Vessels of 60 metres in length and over; .2 Method IIF: Vessels of 75 metres in length and over; and .3 Method IIIF: Vessels of 75 metres in length and over.

78 With regard to Methods IF, IIF and IIIF, an alternative could be that it could be left to the satisfaction of the Administration to decide what length limits should apply in the regulations of Chapter V of the Protocol. 79 With regard to chapter 3 of the Asian Guidelines, i.e. the chapter concerning the fire-protection issue, this item should not be a difficulty in relation to the implementation of the Protocol. 80 Life-saving appliances: with regard to the life-saving appliances, the provision of chapter VII of the Protocol should not cause any difficulty in relation to the implementation of the Protocol. However, referring to the �narrow beam� design issue, regulation VII/5(3)(b) might cause difficulty in cases where a rescue boat or a survival craft, used as a substitute for the rescue boat, needs to be recovered by means of davits. 81 Radiocommunications equipment: the provisions of chapter IX of the Protocol apply to both new and existing fishing vessels of 45 metres in length and over. The entry into force of the Protocol would, therefore, have a great impact within States with large fishing fleets. The radiocommunications equipment is expensive and it would cause difficulties if the whole existing fleet had to be retrofitted within a short period of time. 82 Regarding the provisions of chapter IX of the Protocol in general as well as chapter 5 of the Asian Guidelines, many fishing vessels operate in groups of four to five vessels accompanied by one vessel-in-command and only the vessel-in-command is fully equipped with radiocommunication equipment as provided for in the chapters mentioned. It would be too stringent to require that fishing vessels, which were accompanied by a vessel-in-command, were fully equipped in accordance with chapter IX of the Protocol and such vessels should only be provided with radio equipment as provided for in paragraph 5.2.3 of the Asian Guidelines. 83 Regulation IX/14(7) of the Protocol requires that on vessels engaged in sea areas A3 and A4, the availability of maintenance shall be ensured by using a combination of at least two methods, such as duplication of equipment, shore-based maintenance or at-sea electronic maintenance capability. Some domestic regulations only require one maintenance method and this arrangement was reported as having not caused any problems. This requirement might, therefore, be too stringent and the minimum number of maintenance methods should be to the satisfaction of the Administration. However, the minimum number of methods should be at least one. 84 Regulation IX/15 of the Protocol require that the radio personnel shall be holders of certificates specified in the Radio Regulations. These regulations require that the holders are able to communicate in English. In case of fishing vessels that operate in coastal waters of the flag State, this requirement might be too stringent and could only apply for fishing vessels engaged on voyages in sea areas A3 and A4. An alternative could be that this is left to the Administration to decide as is provided for in paragraph 5.14 in the Asian Guidelines.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 20

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

85 With regard to chapter IX in general and the language skills in particular, much of the information related to the radiocommunications is in English only, such as the printout of the NAVTEX system. This issue would require further consideration. 86 Shipborne navigational equipment and arrangements: the provisions of chapter X of the Protocol apply to both new and existing fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over. With regard to regulation X/3(9) on the echo-sounding device, a reference could be made to fish-finding devices in the event that they could be used as echo-sounding devices for the purpose of measuring the depth of water under the vessel. A sentence, similar to the one contained in paragraph 10.1.6 of the revised Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, Part B, stating that: �Where fish-finding devices are fitted they could be used for that purpose� could be added at the end of regulation X/3(9) of the Protocol. Legal issues 87 Ratification process: tedious ratification processes as, sometimes, required by the respective national legislations. In some countries, this is exacerbated by the need to translate the Protocol into the national language before this can be deliberated internally and submitted to a higher authority for ratification. Furthermore, in many cases, matters concerning the safety of fishing vessels and fishermen may not be afforded the level of priority by governments needed to speed up the ratification process. 88 Existing Fisheries Acts and, in some cases, in the Maritime or Shipping Act, within the legislative procedures, there are no clear references to the Protocol being brought forward for attention, thus individual States might require guidance, at the national level, from IMO to address legal matters. 89 Regional Guidelines: regional guidelines make provisions for vessels of 24 metres and over but less than 45 metres in length and the provisions in the EU Directive are more stringent than the Asian guidelines. Prior to the 1993 Torremolinos Conference that prepared the Protocol, many of the States within the European Union had ratified the 1977 Torremolinos Convention. Thus the EU Directive draws heavily on the 1977 Convention and it is, in part, more stringent than the Protocol. The EU Directive is so styled that the Member States cannot allow fishing vessels built to lower standards to fish in their waters or to land fish in their ports. 90 Furthermore, the EU Directive applies to seagoing fishing vessels of 24 metres and over flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Community, such vessels are not confined to operating in waters under the jurisdiction of Member States. 91 The Asian Guidelines could be given a formal recognition, bearing in mind that the guidelines include acceptance by the Parties of Chapters I, II, III, VI, VIII and X of the Protocol. Therefore, although there may be no need to amend existing primary legislation due to the ratification procedure for IMO instruments. The same would not be the case for amendments to regulations in relation to the provisions set out in the Asian Guidelines giving an interpretation of the provisions of Chapters IV, V, VII and IX of the Protocol for application to vessels of less than 45 metres in length, but greater than 24 metres in length.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 21

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

92 Since not all countries within East and South East Asia have attended the Tokyo Conference in 1997, the 2004 Regional Seminars on implementation of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol for States of the East/South/South East Asia region stressed the need to encourage those States that were not present at that time, to consider acceptance of the provisions of the Asian guidelines. This might be accomplished through IMO sending a mission to those countries to assist them in understanding the implications of implementing the provisions guidelines and how their agreement might be accomplished. 93 The Seminar noted the need for further work to be carried out to establish the standards to be applied to vessels of 24 metres in length and above but less than 45 metres in length registered in the region, but operating, or intending to operate on the high seas and, or in waters under the jurisdiction of a State other than those of the flag State. The group noted the need for IMO to consider facilitating a meeting of the countries that have accepted the Asian Guidelines and those countries invited to consider their agreement to the guidelines as mentioned above, in order to develop uniform standards for such new vessels. 94 Vessel measurement: there is a wide variety of measurement systems in place, using the vessels� length (not necessarily in the metric system), gross tonnage and horsepower, on which national legislations are based. 95 Awareness and Co-ordination: there may be a lack of awareness among the main stakeholders in the fisheries sector of the very existence of the Protocol and regional guidelines. In addition, there are differences in the allocation of responsibilities for the regulation of the fisheries sector. Consequently, in a number of instances, co-operation between the maritime and fisheries sector, which is so vital in the pre-ratification process, was, at times, ineffective. Furthermore, this low level of co-ordination does not guarantee appropriate representation to important IMO meetings/seminars/workshops/training. Revision of the Torremolinos Protocol 96 The above-referred seminars identified that certain chapters of the Protocol might be redundant as a consequence of new technology that has been introduced since 1993. Thus, in considering ratification of the Protocol, the States concerned should seek assurance that there would be no conflict between the Protocol and other IMO instruments, for example, as set out in resolution 10 of the Torremolinos Conference in 1993, in relation to chapter V of SOLAS, 1974. 97 In this context, there might also be a need for a clear interpretation of the inspections to be carried out by Administrations, in relation to port State control, and related training, and of the links between inspections on safety, security and fisheries management. 98 Following the preparation of the study on amending the entry-into-force provisions of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol presented in document C 93/4/Add.2, the most appropriate way forward appeared to be the entry into force of the Torremolinos as a prelude to the development of amendments to address the various areas of difficulties identified. 99 At FSI 13, in respect of the very few ratifications of the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, the opinion was expressed (FSI 13/23, paragraph 15.16) that many more countries would ratify this instrument if there was a moratorium on port State control for the initial years of its entry into force.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 22

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

100 As a possible course of action for amending the Protocol after its entry into force, Member States attending the above-referred seminars identified the following processes: .1 the Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessel

Safety (SLF) to carry out a study on the sea states in the region in order to develop criteria for bow height, that would be alternative to the ones contained in recommendation 4 of the 1993 Torremolinos Conference. This study should take into account the operation in the summer and winter zones (as they are specified in the Load Lines Convention), respectively;

.2 the Sub-Committee on Fire Protection (FP) to review the provisions of chapter V

of the Protocol applying to vessels of glass reinforced plastic (GRP) construction using chapter 3 of the Asian Guidelines as a basis for the revision and, possibly, that a further study of fire protection provisions applicable to vessels of glass reinforced plastic (GRP) construction be carried out;

.3 the Sub-Committee on Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR)

to review the proposal that the provisions of chapter IX of the Protocol in general, as well as, chapter 5 of the Asian Guidelines were considered to be too stringent for individual fishing vessels working in a group where the vessel-in-command of the operation is fully equipped in accordance with chapter IX of the Protocol. Plus the recommendation that such vessels should only be provided with radio equipment as provided for in paragraph 5.2.3 of the Asian Guidelines.

.4 COMSAR to review the proposal that, in relation to regulation IX/14(7) of the

Protocol, which applies to sea areas A3 and A4, the requirement for maintenance is too stringent and that the minimum number (at least one) of maintenance methods should be to the satisfaction of the Administration;

.5 COMSAR to review the proposal that, in relation to regulation IX/15 of the

Protocol, the requirement to communicate in English, in case of fishing vessels that operate in coastal waters of the flag State, was too stringent and that this requirement should only apply to fishing vessels engaged on voyages in sea areas A3 and A4;

.6 the Sub-Committee on Navigation (NAV) to review the proposal that, with regard

to regulation X/3(9) of the Protocol, a sentence, similar to the one contained in paragraph 10.1.6 of the revised Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing Vessels, Part B, stating that: �Where fish-finding devices are fitted they could be used for that purpose.�, be added at the end of regulation X/3(9) of the Protocol; and

.7 SLF to consider the recommendation that IMO should give consideration to the

provision of guidance to States in relation to the translation of the Protocol and other related IMO instruments into the language required for the purpose of promulgating and or amending, national legislation.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 23

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Support to Member States to become Parties to the Protocol 101 Following the following intervention at FSI 13 (document FSI 13/23):

�15.16 The delegation of Vanuatu, while reaffirming its full support to FAO�s attempts to prevent IUU fishing, reported that Vanuatu had suffered from IUU fishing in its large exclusive economic zone as it did not have the resources to prevent illegal fishing. It indicated that its own fishing vessels fleet was monitored using LRIT and catches and that no Vanuatu fishing vessels were even suspected of fishing illegally. In respect of the very few ratifications of the two IMO Conventions regulating fishing vessels (1993 Torremolinos Protocol and 1995 STCW-F Convention), the delegation of Vanuatu expressed its belief that many more countries would ratify these Conventions if there was a moratorium on port State control for the initial years. Based on the port State control officers� expertise to identify deficiencies on board cargo ships giving ground to their detentions, it assumed that, if similar PSC standards were to be applied to the inspection of fishing vessels, many fishing vessels would be detained and the industry would suffer.�,

a technical co-operation activity was identified in order to prepare additional support to Member States and developing countries, in particular, to become Parties to the Protocol. A team of Consultants would be requested to prepare a report developing legal and technical conditions for a wider accession to the Protocol. In doing so, the Consultants would also make use of the Guidelines for the safety of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over but less than 45 metres in length operating in the East and South-East Asia region. SOLAS 102 The primary objective of IMO is to regulate technical matters affecting shipping engaged in international trade. This is done through a series of multilateral treaties which address different aspects of the operation of ships. Over the years IMO has developed an efficient and effective system of formulating treaties that enter into force which greatly benefit the shipping industry and the maritime community. IMO also operates a continuous programme of updating and revising, in the light of emerging needs or following an analysis of the results of casualty investigations, existing treaties or adopting new ones when the circumstances so dictate. This is done, depending on the nature or extent of the amendments, broadly speaking either by means of Protocols, which require explicit acceptance before they enter into force, or by amendments which enter at pre-determined dates in accordance with the provisions stipulated in the treaty to be amended. A classical example is the 1974 SOLAS Convention which, since it entered into force on 25 May 1980, has more than 50 sets of amendments the vast majority of which is already in force. In addition, new chapters have been added to address specific issues which were not envisaged at the initial drafting stage. The number of State Parties stands at 156 and it applies in excess of 98% of the world fleet. The first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) was adopted in 1914, in a response to the loss of the �Titanic�. However, following the eruption of the First World War it never entered into force. This attempt was followed by the adoption of the 1930 SOLAS and the 1948 SOLAS Convention. The 1960 SOLAS Convention was the outcome of the first major conference convened by, at that time, the newly established IMCO (the former name of IMO). During the 1960�s IMCO, in an effort to keep the 1960 SOLAS Convention current, adopted a series of amendments thereto. However, the process for the entry into force of the amendments envisaged in the 1960 SOLAS Convention made their materialization impossible. As a result, IMCO adopted the 1974 SOLAS Convention which is still applicable today as indicated above.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 24

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

103 Fishing vessels have been historically excluded from the scope of application of the 1960 and the 1974 SOLAS Convention except so far as aspects related to the safety of navigation. In general, the 1960 and 1974 SOLAS Convention, as well as their predecessors applied to ships engaged on international voyages namely a voyage commencing in a port located within the territory of a State where the convention applies and ending in a port located within the territory of another State which may or may not be a Contracting Government. At the time of the development of the 1960 and 1974 SOLAS Conventions, fishing vessels went to sea from their home port and return to the same home port without calling anywhere else. Thus, the �international voyage� model was not easy to apply to them and hence their operation, in terms of safety requirements, was left to be dealt with through respective national legislations. However, as they share the same operational environment with other ships the provisions of SOLAS chapter V on Safety of navigation and the 1972 COLREGs Convention were made applicable to fishing vessels. Until 1 July 2002, the provisions of SOLAS chapter V were made applicable to �all ships on all voyages, except ships of war ��. When the current version of SOLAS chapter V was adopted on 26 May 2000 and its scope was further expanded, a provision was included which allows Administrations, through reasoned decisions, not to apply certain specified requirements of the chapter to fishing vessels. 104 As already stated elsewhere, IMO developed separate multilateral treaty instruments, the 1977 SFV Convention and 1993 SFV Torremolinos Protocol, through which the safety of fishing vessels is addressed and in relation to matters regarding the training and certification of those serving on fishing vessels, it developed the 1995 STCW-F Convention. In addition, over the years and as indicated elsewhere, IMO developed in co-operation with FAO and ILO a variety of guidelines related to fishing vessels and fishermen. IMO always had, as an integral part of its mandate, the duty to make travel and transport by sea as safe as possible. Thus, in the post �9/11� period, IMO expanded the scope of application of the 1974 SOLAS Convention to include therein security-related provisions. SOLAS chapter XI-2 on Special measures to enhance maritime security which is supported by the International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code. SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code address the use of a ship as a weapon and the use of a ship as a means for transporting either persons intending to cause a security incident or their means, such as weapons or other dangerous substances or devices or parts thereof, for such an incident. In addition, they address, in a limited way the use of a ship in a lawful trade for the purpose of generating funds to finance terrorist activities. Although history attests to the use of fishing vessels, during the post Second World War period and until very recently, as means of transporting weapons and perpetrators, IMO decided to exclude fishing vessels from the application of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and leave the matter to be dealt with by each State individually on the basis of assessment of the perceived security threats. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, fishing vessels operating within or entering port facilities which are required to comply with SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code are expected to meet specific security requirements contained in the respective approved port facility security plans. 105 FAO have been involved in promoting Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for a number of years and it is expected that in the near future over 100 fisheries Administrations will be using VMS to monitor their fishing fleets. VMS is likely to be an area of active collaboration with FAO advising IMO in how fishing vessels can be included in SOLAS or the ISPS Code. Given that IMO Members are now experimenting with satellite based AIS, the compatibility of VMS with AIS will have to be addressed. The possibility of reducing the costs of VMS by using VHF would also greatly reduce the costs of fisheries Administrations or fishing vessels in their VMS reporting requirements. An associated issue that will have to be addressed is the confidentiality of the positions reported by the fishing vessels, as this can sometimes be financially very sensitive information.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 25

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

106 The use of Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs), Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) and Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) by fishing vessels is not mandatory under any IMO Convention. Nevertheless many Administrations have implemented measures to make GMDSS and EPIRBs mandatory under national maritime legislation. Fisheries Administrations have implemented VMS regulations for fisheries management that are similar in operation to LRIT or maritime VRS. Considering that these latter means are likely to be strengthened in the near future because of the threat of maritime terrorism, there is a need for close co-operation to ensure that the systems are mutually compatible. Search and rescue continues to be a matter for concern for fishing vessels, especially as the fatality rate for fishermen contributes to be very high in spite of better safety equipment and the increased use of helicopters for rescue. Modern communications equipment have taken the �Search� out of �Search and Rescue�. The implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code for the passenger and cargo ships has been very successful and national efforts to introduce similar systems to fishing fleets are encouraging. Much of this success has been due to the involvement of the owners and crews of the ships in safety issues, rather than relying solely on mandatory rules and regulations from maritime Administrations. MARPOL and GESAMP 107 Issues arising within FAO on marine environmental matters have generally been dealt with at GESAMP through the Fisheries Resources Division and not by attending IMO meetings in London. This is because the subject is the issue of the impact of marine pollution on the fisheries. However occasionally, FAO has to deal with the associated issue of the fishing industry contributing to the problem of marine debris with the loss or dumping of fishing gear. 108 The Issue of marine debris has been raised several times in recent years. Although fisheries are one of the �victims� of marine pollution, all too often they are the perpetrators of the problem by dumping or losing fishing gear. An additional issue is fishing vessels dumping garbage. These issues have been addressed in the past when FAO held an Expert Consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear with financial support from IMO (British Columbia, Canada, 1991). The Expert Consultation recommended that Administrations should set up a register of fishing gears which would assign a �mark� to each fishing gear, identifying the owner, which would be physically attached to the gear. In the case of any loss or dumping of fishing gear the source of the fishing gear could thereby be traced. Under normal operations, when the fishing gear was unfit for further use, the mark would be returned to the authorities, the record deleted from the register and the fishing gear disposed of onshore. 109 In this respect it is noted that resolution A/RES/60/30 of the UN General Assembly invited IMO to review MARPOL Annex V (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships), in consultation with relevant organizations and bodies, and to assess its effectiveness in addressing sea-based sources of marine debris. MEPC 54 invited delegations to submit proposals to review MARPOL Annex V for this purpose; and noted that the Secretariat was co-operating with FAO, UNEP and the GPA, regarding marine debris and, as requested in resolution A/RES/60/31, agreed to co-operate with FAO on discarded fishing gear � in particular through the Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 26

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

110 A recent development in the MEPC�s agenda has been the issue of ballast water and the extension of the regulations to fishing vessels over 500 gross tonnage or having ballast water capacity greater than 8 tons. Lesser conditions shall apply to vessels of lesser dimensions. Although earlier regulations under MARPOL were directed to prevent oil pollution by contaminated ballast water, more recent concerns have been the possibility of the introduction of invasive organisms carried from one port to another by the carriage in ballast water. FAO keeps a record of the introductions of invasive species. The FAO Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species (DIAS) was initiated by R. Welcome in the early 1980s. Initially it considered primarily only freshwater species and formed the basis for the 1988 FAO Fisheries Technical paper No.294. Today DIAS has been expanded to include additional taxa, such as molluscs and crustaceans, and marine species. The URL address is as follows: http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=collection&xml=dias.xml 111 Although FAO appreciates the concerns that led to the extension of ballast water regulations to fishing vessels, it does feel that the present approach of merely regarding fishing vessels as small versions of merchant ships and applying a top-down approach might be counter-productive. As highlighted earlier, there are fundamental differences between the operations of a cargo vessels and a fishing vessel. A cargo vessel generally takes its cargo on board at one port and steams to another port where it discharges its cargo. A fishing vessel on the other hand leaves a port and takes its cargo on board at sea and probably in 95% of fishing trips returns to the same port to discharge the fish. On the other hand, it is believed that the introduction of invasive species by small fishing vessels is a particular problem in South East Asia where small vessels have very extensive voyages and could carry invasive organisms into other ports. MARPOL has also taken into account the prevention of air pollution from ships by the adoption of the 1997 Protocol which incorporated into MARPOL the new Annex VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) and which entered into force on 19 May 2005. Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. The annex includes a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the sulphur content of fuel oil. Annex VI also contains provisions allowing for special SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAS) to be established with more stringent controls on sulphur emissions. In these areas, the sulphur content of fuel oil used onboard ships must not exceed 1.5% m/m. Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use any other technological method to limit SOx emissions. Deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances are prohibited, including halons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). New installations containing ozone-depleting substances are prohibited on all ships, but new installations containing hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are permitted until 1 January 2020. Annex VI also sets limits on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel engines. A mandatory NOx Technical Code, which defines how this shall be done, was adopted. The Annex also prohibits the incineration onboard ship of certain products, such as contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). At its fifty-third session in July 2005, the MEPC agreed on the need to undertake a review of Annex VI and of the NOx Technical Code with a view to revising the regulations to take account of current technology and the need to further reduce emissions from ships. Other IMO instruments 112 Of course the fishing industry is the recipient of the benefits of several IMO Conventions which do not require a substantial fisheries input from FAO or only an occasional input, but which are specifically designed to implement the IMO mandate for all vessels concerning marine safety and the prevention of pollution. These include the Convention on the International

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 27

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs). It should be noted that the COLREGs have the most extensive references to fishing vessels in any of the IMO Conventions in force and relate to the rules to avoid collisions between fishing vessels while fishing and fishing vessels and other vessels. In general they regard fishing vessels engaged in fishing as hampered vessels. In addition to the general rules for vessels engaged in fishing there is an entire annex devoted to the �additional signals for fishing vessels fishing in close proximity�. It should be noted that the FAO Expert Consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear in 1991 was specifically requested by IMO to address specific items within the COLREGs and some of the recommendations of that Expert Consultation were subsequently adopted by IMO in its amendments to the COLREGs in 1993. 113 The International Safety Management (ISM) Code�s origins go back to the late 1980s, when there was mounting concern about poor management standards in shipping. Investigations into accidents revealed major errors on the part of management and in 1987 the IMO Assembly adopted resolution A.596(15), which called upon the Maritime Safety Committee to develop guidelines concerning shipboard and shore-based management to ensure the safe operation of ro-ro passenger ferries. 114 The ISM Code evolved through the development of the Guidelines on Management for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, adopted in 1989 by the IMO Assembly by resolution A.647(16), and the Guidelines adopted two years later by resolution A.680(17), revised to its current form, the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management) (ISM) Code), which was adopted in 1993 by resolution A.741(18). 115 The principles and objectives of the ISM Code provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention, shifting the emphasis on to people. The success of its implementation depends to a great extent, on the continued commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals, at all levels, in the company and on board ships to which the ISM Code applies. 116 In support of IMO�s policy to enhance compliance with international standards, the Organization decided to introduce a means whereby flag States can assess their own performance, based on a number of agreed criteria, and then take steps to remedy any deficiencies that might be revealed. Resolutions A.912(22) on Self-assessment of Flag State Performance established a uniform set of internal and external criteria that can be used by Governments to obtain a clear picture of how well their maritime administrations are functioning. The form prepared for this purpose covers issues such as asking whether the Administration has the necessary laws, infrastructure and human resources in place to implement and enforce international maritime safety and pollution prevention instruments. 117 The Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme is intended to provide an audited Member State with a comprehensive and objective assessment of how effectively it administers and implements the key IMO technical treaties that are covered by the Scheme. 118 It is reasonably expected that the audit scheme will bring about many benefits, such as identifying where capacity-building activities (for example, the provision of technical assistance by IMO to Member States) would have the greatest effect and targeting the appropriate action would be greatly improved; the Member States themselves would receive valuable feedback, intended to assist them in improving their own capacity to put the applicable instruments into practice; and generic lessons learnt from audits could be provided to all Member States so that the benefits could be widely shared.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 28

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

119 Moreover, the results of the learning experience could be systematically fed back into the regulatory process at IMO to help make measurable improvements in the effectiveness of the international regulatory framework of shipping. 120 Hand in hand with the development of the audit scheme goes the adoption and constant review of a Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments (resolution A.973(24)) as well as the consideration of general human resource issues in the implementation of IMO instruments, i.e. surveyors, managers and other technical support personnel. 121 The go-ahead to develop the scheme was given by the IMO at its 23rd Assembly in November 2003 when it adopted resolution A.946(23) Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme. The resolution approved the establishment and further development of the scheme, to be implemented on a voluntary basis, and requested the IMO Council to develop, as a matter of high priority, procedures and other modalities for the implementation of the scheme. 122 The twenty-fourth Assembly in November � December 2005 adopted resolutions A.974(24) Framework and Procedures for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme and A.973(24) Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments which provides the audit standard. 123 The adoption of the framework and procedures for the scheme heralds a new era for IMO, in which the Organization has at its disposal a tool to achieve harmonized and consistent global implementation of IMO standards, which is key to realizing the IMO objectives of safe, secure and efficient shipping on clean oceans. 124 The scheme addresses issues such as conformance in enacting appropriate legislation for the IMO instruments to which it is a Party; the administration and enforcement of the applicable laws and regulations of the Member State; the delegation of authority in terms of the implementation of convention requirements; and the control and monitoring mechanism of the Member State�s survey and certification processes and of its recognized organizations. 125 A further resolution A.975(24) Future development of the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme requests the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to review the future feasibility of including, within the scope of the audit scheme, maritime security-related matters and other functions not presently covered and also to identify any implications of broadening the scope of the audit scheme. The IMO Council was requested to develop suitable provisions for the possible future inclusion of other issues (relating to safety, environmental protection and security) in the audit scheme, taking into account the experience gained from the implementation of the scheme. FAO Code of Conduct 126 The widespread introduction in the mid-seventies of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and the adoption in 1982, after long deliberations, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provided a new framework for better management of marine resources. The new legal regime of the ocean gave coastal States rights and responsibilities for the management and use of fishery resources within their EEZs which embrace some 90 per cent of the world�s marine fisheries. Such extended national jurisdiction was a necessary but insufficient step toward the efficient management and sustainable development of fisheries. Many coastal States continued to face serious challenges as, lacking experience and financial and physical resources, they sought to extract greater benefits from the fisheries within their EEZs.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 29

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

127 The Committee on Fisheries (COFI) at its nineteenth session in March 1991 called for the development of new concepts which would lead to responsible, sustained fisheries. Subsequently, the International Conference on Responsible Fishing, held in 1992 in Cancûn (Mexico) further requested FAO to prepare an International Code of Conduct to address these concerns. The outcome of this Conference, particularly the Declaration of Cancûn, was an important contribution to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in particular its Agenda 21. Subsequently, the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks was convened, to which FAO provided important technical back-up. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which was unanimously adopted in 1995 by the FAO Conference, provides the necessary framework for national and international efforts to ensure sustainable exploitation of aquatic living resources in harmony with the environment. 128 FAO has been widely disseminating the Code in various languages and is actively promoting its implementation. The Code has been published by FAO in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish. In addition FAO has been advised that, in a number of instances, Governments, industry or NGOs have taken the initiative to translate the Code into other languages. The Code is now available in more languages than any other FAO document. The promotion and implementation of the Code is being addressed at all the sessions of FAO fisheries bodies. FAO regards the implementation of the Code and the strengthening of regional fisheries bodies as being intrinsically linked. 129 The Code of Conduct refers directly to IMO in section 8.4.1

�8.4.1 States should ensure that fishing is conducted with due regard to the safety of human life and the International Maritime Organization International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, as well as International Maritime Organization requirements relating to the organization of marine traffic, protection of the marine environment and the prevention of damage to or loss of fishing gear.�

130 Further references to the IMO�s mandate are given in section 8.7 � Protection of the Aquatic Environment and section 8.8 - Protection of the Atmosphere which refer to issues under MARPOL. The FAO Compliance Agreement (1993) 131 In early discussions on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the need for management measures for vessels fishing on the high seas was recognized and this component was put on the �fast track�. In November 1993, the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas was adopted at the twenty-seventh session of the FAO Conference. This instrument was negotiated to prevent the circumvention of international fisheries regulations by �re-flagging� vessels under the flags of States that are unable or unwilling to enforce such measures. As such, the Compliance Agreement closes one of the last major loopholes to sound international fisheries management. 132 In August 2003, a Circular State Letter was sent to all the States which had accepted the Agreement informing them of the entry into force, on 24 April 2003, of the Agreement and reminding them of their obligations under Article VI of the Agreement. Article VI of the Agreement requires Parties to exchange information on vessels authorized by them to fish on the

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 30

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

high seas, and obliges FAO to facilitate this information exchange. In order to speed-up and facilitate the transmission of such information, contacts have been established with the responsible institutions/offices of each Party to the Agreement. There are now 34 ratifications to the FAO Compliance Agreement (including the EU on behalf of its 25 Member States) [and the database on fishing vessels authorized to fish on the high seas contains records of .... vessels]. Port State Control (IMO) or Port State Measures (FAO) 133 The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries refers to the action that a port State can undertake with regard to a foreign fishing vessel when it is within a port in the following manner. 8.3 Port State duties

8.3.1 Port States should take, through procedures established in their national legislation, in accordance with international law, including applicable international agreements or arrangements, such measures as are necessary to achieve and to assist other States in achieving the objectives of this Code, and should make known to other States details of regulations and measures they have established for this purpose. When taking such measures a port State should not discriminate in form or in fact against the vessels of any other State. 8.3.2 Port States should provide such assistance to flag States as is appropriate, in accordance with the national laws of the port State and international law, when a fishing vessel is voluntarily in a port or at an offshore terminal of the port State and the flag State of the vessel requests the port State for assistance in respect of non-compliance with subregional, regional or global conservation and management measures or with internationally agreed minimum standards for the prevention of pollution and for safety, health and conditions of work on board fishing vessels.

134 Although many of the IMO Conventions do not apply to fishing vessels, they do apply to fish carriers and to factory ships and these are subject to the full range of IMO Conventions with regard to the vessel�s criteria and operations. This extends to port State control and because it is believed that some of these vessels are involved in IUU fishing an effective port State control could be used to deter these vessels from indulging in these activities. 135 It is only outside EEZs, that FAO has followed the Convention route, when it adopted the FAO High Seas Compliance Agreement in 1993. However several attempts have been made to strengthen measures concerning IUU fishing. However there is a lack of control both on behalf of the flag States and the port States and it has been proposed that this should be tackled by port State measures. This is a similar process as the regime of port State control which enforces control over cargo and passenger ships with respect to IMO Conventions. The port State control of passenger and cargo ships is dependent on documentation supplied by the flag State or by recognized organizations as stipulated by international Conventions. In fact, the expansion of documentation required on board cargo and passenger ships has led to the IMO Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL), 1965. The purpose of the FAL Convention is to facilitate maritime transport by simplifying and minimizing the formalities, documentary requirements and procedures associated with the arrival, stay and departures of ships engaged on international voyages. IMO has developed eight standardized forms covering arrival and departure of persons and goods and is promoting the global use of electronic data interchange (EDI) to relay these forms between ports and ships. However the FAL Convention also deals with the prevention of unlawful acts against maritime safety and the control of illicit drug

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 31

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

trafficking. In fact, focussing on the facilitation of the clearances of foreign fishing vessels by including fishing vessels more explicitly in the FAL Convention might have more positive results than focussing on the control aspects. 136 However, there is one basic problem in that there are no instruments under which to impose control of fishing vessels. Hence the softer term �Port State Measures�. There have been proposals to tackle this issue by an International Plan of Action (IPOA) on Port State Measures which stipulate inspections of the catch, logbooks and other documentation. However there is no underpinning convention that these documents have to be carried onboard and it is unlikely that if they were carried they would reveal any illegal activity. There is the problem of the inspecting officer with regard to the documents that the flag States require its vessels to carry and a converse lack of knowledge by the skipper of the vessel as to which documents have to be carried to enter a port of a foreign country. Many of the controls over fishing on the high seas and with regard to straddling stocks are managed by Regional Fisheries Management Bodies (RFMBs), and controls could be exercized under these instruments but again there is the problem of an inspecting officer knowing which countries are signatory to the large number of RFMBs. It should be noted that the limited application of IMO instruments to fishing vessels and the lack of ratification of specific IMO fisheries-related instruments mean that inspections of foreign fishing vessels when in port States are very limited compared to the very comprehensive inspection of certificates carried by cargo and passenger ships. 137 One solution to the problem is for flag States and for port States to post their affiliations to regional fisheries management bodies and to supply details of the documents their fishing vessels have to carry on a website that is available to any port State. Conversely a port State should provide details of the requirements that fishing vessels should meet in order for them to be accorded access to their ports. This is the methodology that IMO is using to enable Administrations to tackle the difficult problem of sharing information in the ISPS Code. With regard to vessel registration and certificates of competency, many maritime Administrations maintain databases which include all such certification, including fishing vessels. Factors influencing FAO/IMO Collaboration 138 It must be pointed out that there are significant differences between FAO and IMO. IMO is mainly concerned with international shipping and marine pollution, so has a tendency towards Conventions between countries. FAO, on the other hand, is concerned with food and 80% of its effort is in agriculture and only 10% of its budget is in fisheries. Since UNCLOS which established EEZs of 200 nautical miles, 90% of the world fisheries are now under the control of national jurisdictions. 139 FAO is a much bigger organization but, as stated previously, only a small amount of FAO is concerned with seagoing activities (namely the Fisheries Department) and even within the Fisheries Department the linkages to IMO are within the Fisheries Technology Service with regard to fisheries operations and with Fisheries Resources Division with regard to the effects of marine pollution (GESAMP). Nevertheless, FAO, because of its much larger size, has a much more comprehensive system of representation in developing countries. 140 There are significant differences in the operation of fishing vessels as compared to the operation of cargo and passenger ships. The vast majority of fishing vessels leave port and return to the same port and, therefore, do not take part in �international voyages�, even though, they might have fished on the high seas, although it should be noted that most fishing vessels do not venture beyond their EEZs. In fact, UNCLOS, by creating a new maritime jurisdiction of EEZs

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 32

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

which are subject to coastal State jurisdiction, has accelerated this �nationalization� of fisheries in previous international waters. A significant decrease in distant water fishing vessels has been recorded since 1982 and a consequent increase in the fleets of coastal States with fisheries rich EEZs which were previously exploited by the then distant-water fleet. 141 With regard to technical co-operation with developing countries, both FAO and IMO have programmes, however such programmes have been significantly cut back since 20 years ago and much of the available funds are presently channelled through UNEP from GEF. The present reform process within the UN gives FAO and IMO an opportunity to review items of common interest and to agree on lines of communication. Areas of possible Co-operation between FAO and IMO 142 It is very important for the Torremolinos Protocol and the STCW-F Convention to enter into force and the two Organizations should devote more efforts to achieve this end. Non-ratification of these two instruments will lead to a lack of interest in the IMO Membership to tackle other issues in the fishing sector. The encouragement of co-operation between fisheries Administrations and maritime Administrations at a national level are believed to be the most effective means of increasing safety level for fishing vessels covered by the two above-mentioned IMO fisheries-related instruments and also for the safety of �non-convention� fishing vessels. The lack of a comprehensive system for the �management� of fisheries operations at a national level, including the management of safety has been suggested as one of the reasons for the non-ratification of Torremolinos Protocol and the STCW-F Convention. The maritime safety, marine pollution and registration issues are being dealt with by maritime transport ministries while the allocation of fisheries rights and the management of fisheries resources under other ministries. In fact it has been noted that in countries where both maritime and fisheries Administrations are under one Ministry, the implementation of the safety and marine pollution instruments by fishing vessels are greatly facilitated. 143 The IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme* has been proposed for several years to be adopted as a parallel measure by FAO, and several times this has been suggested, including a call by the FAO Ministerial Conference on Fisheries in March 2005. The Ministerial Declaration states inter alia:

�We call for the following new actions:..... to develop a comprehensive global record of fishing vessels within FAO, including refrigerated transport vessels and supply vessels, that incorporates available information on beneficial ownership, subject to confidentiality requirements in accordance with national law, .....�

IMO also developed a IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner Identification Number Scheme**. 144 The possibility of developing a comprehensive global record of fishing vessels within FAO has been the subject of a feasibility study and a paper is in preparation which will be presented to the FAO Committee on Fisheries in March 2007.

* An extract of Circular letter No. 1886/Rev.3 is set out at annex 11 for reference. ** An extract of Circular letter No.2554/Rev.1 is set out at annex 12 for reference.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 33

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

145 The current development of communications technology with VMS, now developing into electronic fishing logbooks in FAO with the concurrent development of LRIT and AIS in IMO, is clearly relevant to the ISPS Code. The same communication equipment can be used with great effectiveness for port State control and port State measures as is evidenced by the use of EDI in the FAL Convention. 146 In the area of port State measures for fishing vessels, there have been further calls for progress. 147 In May 2006, the UN Fish Stocks Review Conference recommended to �(58.) adopt all necessary port State measures, consistent with article 23 of the Agreement, particularly those envisioned in the 2005 FAO Model Scheme on Port State Measures to Combat IUU Fishing, and promote minimum standards at the regional level. In parallel, initiate, as soon as possible, a process within the FAO to develop, as appropriate, a legally binding instrument on minimum standards for port State measures, building on the FAO Model Scheme and the IPOA-IUU.� 148 And the March 2006 UNGA Sustainable Fisheries Resolution �42. recognizes the need for enhanced port State controls to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, urges States to co-operate, in particular at the regional level and through regional and subregional fisheries management organizations and arrangements, and encourages States to apply the model scheme on port State measures endorsed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Committee on Fisheries at its twenty-sixth session in March 2005 at the national and regional levels, promote its application through regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements and bodies and to consider, when appropriate, the possibility of developing a legally binding instrument.� 149 The IMO and FAO Secretariats also identified the following areas of co-operation between the two agencies which could be explored on the basis of the outcome of the second Joint IMO/FAO Working Group on IUU Fishing and Related Matters: .1 co-ordinated Technical Co-operation activities; .2 exchange of delegations at respective meetings; and .3 crossed interventions of the Executive Heads of the Organizations at meetings;

and .4 possible holding of joint conference, including closer involvement of ILO. IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System 150 The Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) was launched mid-2005 when the IMO Secretariat issued Circular letter No.2639 to circulate the Manual for Administration on the use of reporting facilities together with the disclaimer. 151 Concurrently, the Secretariat disseminated by electronic means to all Member States with a valid email address their Administrator�s password. After the set up of specific accounts per module, Member States have access to the direct recording of, and amendment to, new and existing records. The management of the rights to access and use the GISIS electronic reporting facilities is left to the discretion of the Member States by using the administrative interface via the URL address: http://gisis.imo.org/Members.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 34

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

152 According to an analysis which was recently carried out by the Secretariat, 2,490 public user accounts have already been set up and an average of 3,132 pages of the website are viewed every day. The module containing ISPS Code-related data is, by far, the most visited. The modules on port reception facilities, casualties and recognized organizations are also visited on a regular basis and have already received a considerable amount of data, as entered by Member States and validated by the Secretariat. 153 There are currently four modules available to the IMO Members and to the public, i.e. maritime security, maritime casualties and incidents, recognized organizations and port reception facilities. Concerning the module on CAS, which is currently available to MARPOL parties only, a public web interface has been implemented in order to allow the public to access data only on active statements of compliance. 154 Further modules are under development such as the ones on port State control, contact points, piracy and armed robbery against ships, stowaway cases, illegal migrant cases and liquid substances in bulk under the IBC Code.

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 35

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 1

1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM MEMBER GOVERNMENTS

No. Member State Number

of vessels

Views on reluctance to ratify the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol

1 Argentina 482 No reasons provided.

2 Australia 141

Agreement needs to be reached in regard to the ratification of the Protocol with State/Territory maritime administrations before the national position can finally be established.

3 Bahamas 0 No reasons provided.

4 Belgium 63

The provisions of the Protocol have been incorporated in EC directive 97/70 and transposed into national law. Therefore, vessels have already complied with the provisions of the Protocol even if the country has not ratified it. Because of its small fishing vessel fleet, it will make no difference for the country to ratify the Protocol as to the entry into force of the Protocol.

5 Brazil 229 No reasons provided. 6 Cape Verde 18 No reasons provided. 7 China 28,6793 No reasons provided. 8 Costa Rica 12 No reasons provided. 9 Denmark* 328 No reasons provided.

10 Ethiopia 0 No reasons provided. 11 Finland 21 No reasons provided. 12 France 257 No reasons provided. 13 Germany* 66 No reasons provided. 14 Greece 234 No reasons provided. 15 Iceland* 251 No reasons provided. 16 Ireland* 131 No reasons provided.

17 Italy* 611 The delay in ratifying the Protocol by some other

European countries might be due to waiting for the mandatory EC Directive on fishing vessels.

18 Lithuania 55 No reasons provided. 19 Luxembourg 0 No reasons provided. 20 Madagascar 584 No reasons provided.

21 Marshall Islands 6 The ratification of the Protocol has not been sought since

it is believed that the safety of its vessels is ensured. 22 Mauritius 14 No reasons provided. 23 Mexico 482 No reasons provided. 24 Monaco 0 No reasons provided.

3 Figure reported does not include fishing vessels of Hong Kong, China and Macao, China. * Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. 4 Number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length overall and over. The actual number of vessels of 24 metres in

length would be less than 58.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 36

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

25 Myanmar 299 No reasons provided. 26 New Zealand 77 No reasons provided. 27 Netherlands* 240 No reasons provided. 28 Norway* 346 No reasons provided. 29 Pakistan 49 No reasons provided. 30 Poland 20 No reasons provided. 31 Qatar 0 No reasons provided.

32 Republic of Moldova 0 No reasons provided.

33 Romania 5 No reasons provided. 34 Saint Vincent

and the Grenadines

100 No reasons provided.

35 Slovenia 2 No reasons provided. 36 Spain* 991 No reasons provided.

37 Sweden* 74

A ratification and subsequent implementation of the Protocol would place a financial burden on the industry, which the State believes it could not shoulder. If that is a major factor, possibly IMO should contact other relevant UN organizations, since the financial problem is not the one that can be solved by IMO alone.

38 Tonga 11 No reasons provided.

39 United Republic of Tanzania

24 No reasons provided.

40 United States 1,496 The USCG does not have legislative authority to inspect and certificate US flag fishing vessels.

41 Uruguay 78 The process of ratifying the Protocol is under way.

42 Vanuatu 78

1. Exposure of their fishing vessel fleets to port State control (PSC) is the major factor in some States� reluctance;

2. The entry-into-force of the Protocol also involves

large administrative burden on Parties; 3. Significant change in attitude of fishermen is needed

for a step change in fishing vessel safety. Presently lower priority is given to the fishermen�s safety than catching fish.

Total 36,028

* * *

* Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 37

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 2

FISHING VESSEL FLEET

SUMMARY OF DATA PROVIDED BY FAO

The FAO statistics of world fleet of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over are based on the LR-F database*, with length overall as the basic criterion (using length between perpendiculars or registered length directly in the event of no length overall being given in the database). A summary of the statistics is as follows:

Criterion of statistics Number of vessels

Vessels of 24 metres in length overall and over 15,633Vessels of 24 metres in length between perpendiculars and over

1,424

Vessels of 24 metres in registered length and over 2,008Total 19,065

* * *

* The name of the database in FAO�s letter is �Lloyds Maritime Information Services (LMIS) database�, which is

the former name of the LR-F database. In general, this database only includes ships of 100 gross tonnage and upwards. Therefore, fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over but of less than 100 gross tonnage normally are not included in this database.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 38

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 3

FISHING VESSEL FLEET

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE REGIONAL SEMINAR ON IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL FOR STATES OF THE EAST/SOUTH/SOUTH EAST ASIA REGION

THE SEMINAR NOTING the request by the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization to provide the information on the numbers of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (as defined in the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol) to the IMO Secretariat by 15 September 2004, NOTING ALSO that the seminar could provide another opportunity after the above-referred deadline to collect the information requested from the participating countries, after clearance from their responsible national authorities, 1. REQUESTS the representatives of the IMO Secretariat to bring the information contained in the attached table to the attention of the Secretary-General for action as appropriate in the context of its preparation for the ninety-third session of the Council.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 39

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX

NUMBER OF FISHING VESSELS OF 24 METRES IN LENGTH AND OVER

(AS DEFINED IN THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL) FOR THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES OR REGIONS

Flag Number of vessels Note

(using different criterion)

China 24,003 Indonesia 4,447 (>60GT) Japan 2,591 Malaysia 448 Myanmar 291 Philippines 974 Republic of Korea 1,535 Russian Federation

1,736

Thailand 1,500 (>100GT) Viet Nam 1,300 (>=20m) Hong Kong, China 1,500 Macao, China 100 Total 40,425

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 40

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 4

FISHING VESSEL FLEET

ANALYSIS OF LLOYD�S REGISTER FAIRPLAY (LR-F) DATABASE

1 Taking into account the low response rate from Member States, the Secretariat decided to collect current statistics on the world fishing vessel fleet also from the LR-F Database* (May 2004), which has been deemed the best available data source since it provides data for the vast majority of countries.** 2 Having queried the aforementioned database, it was determined that the number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (as defined by the 1993 Protocol) entered into the LR-F database is estimated to be 17,344. A breakdown by country is set out in table 1 of this annex. However, it should be noted that only 21% of those vessels in the database had reported their registered length as defined by the Protocol. Therefore, the Secretariat developed a combined criterion using all reported lengths (i.e., registered length, length overall and length between perpendiculars) to arrive at the above figure. Details on the methodology used to obtain the above figure are set out in annex 5. 3 In this regard, the Secretariat noted that the data provided by FAO, as set out in annex 2, were also based on the LR-F database, which showed a total of 19,065 fishing vessels of 24 metres in length overall and over (using length between perpendiculars or registered length directly in the event of no length overall being given in the database). However, it should be noted that the differences among the abovementioned respective lengths were not taken into consideration in its statistics. Thus, the data provided by FAO were not used for this study. 4 It must be emphasized that the numbers contained in table 1 of this annex are estimated figures and do not reflect the actual number of fishing vessels reported from the relevant national authorities. It must also be pointed out that the reported number of fishing vessels for China differs greatly from those obtained from the LR-F database. 5 Nevertheless, the Secretariat considers that the estimated numbers of fishing vessels set out in the following table 1 provide very useful information to supplement those collected from Member Governments set out in annexes 1 and 3 (see also annex 7 for final estimated size of current world fishing vessel fleet). Margin of error between data from different sources 6 The Secretariat also compared the statistics obtained from the LR-F database with the data officially provided by Member States to determine the margin of error between them. Based on the methodology provided in annex 6, the Secretariat has calculated a margin of error of ±10.3%. However, it should be kept in mind that most Member Governments have not yet reported their official number of fishing vessels of 24 metres and over and these figures, once reported, could significantly alter the margin of error. * In general, this database only includes ships of 100 gross tonnage and upwards. Therefore, fishing vessels

of 24 metres in length and over but of less than 100 gross tonnage normally are not included in this database. ** It should be noted that there may be countries which have thousands more fishing vessels of 24 metres in length

and over than those listed in the LR-F database, which is based only on those vessels that are reported to Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 41

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

TABLE 1

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FISHING VESSELS OF 24 METRES IN LENGTH AND OVER (AS DEFINED IN THE 1993 TORREMOLINOS PROTOCOL) OF THE WORLD

BASED ON THE LLOYD�S REGISTER-FAIRPLAY DATABASE

IMO Member States

Country Number of Vessels Albania 1 Angola 73 Antigua and Barbuda 1 Argentina 353 Australia 88 Azerbaijan 11 Bahrain 3 Bangladesh 36 Belgium 79 Belize 224 Bolivia 24 Brazil 32 Bulgaria 4 Cambodia 29 Cameroon 27 Canada 170 Cape Verde 4 Chile 338 China 652* Colombia 13 Congo 12 Costa Rica 4 Côte d'Ivoire 16 Croatia 22 Cuba** 22 Cyprus 34 Democratic People�s Republic of Korea 37 Democratic Republic of the Congo 7 Denmark** 336* Djibouti 2 Dominica 4 Dominican Republic 2 Ecuador 113 Egypt 3 El Salvador 6

* There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 42

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Equatorial Guinea 38 Estonia 30 Fiji 8 Finland 21 France 171* Gabon 15 Gambia 1 Georgia 34 Germany** 72 Ghana 148 Greece 54 Guatemala 3 Guinea 25 GuineaBissau 13 Guyana 6 Haiti 1 Honduras 268 Iceland** 259 India 69 Indonesia 296 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 30 Iraq 7 Ireland** 117 Israel 1 Italy** 154 Japan 1,325 Kazakhstan 7 Kenya 9 Kiribati 2 Kuwait 27 Latvia 23 Liberia 1 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 50 Lithuania 43 Luxembourg 1 Madagascar 31 Malaysia 16 Maldives 6 Malta 7 Marshall Islands 10 Mauritania 133 Mauritius 25 Mexico 113 Mongolia 3

* There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 43

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Morocco 373 Mozambique 79 Myanmar 23 Namibia 113 Netherlands** 312* New Zealand 88 Nicaragua 1 Nigeria 80 Norway** 453* Pakistan 3 Panama 195 Papua New Guinea 12 Peru 446 Philippines 422 Poland 66 Portugal 158 Qatar 3 Republic of Korea 1,051 Romania 22 Russian Federation 1,858 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 73 Samoa 1 Sao Tome and Principe 4 Saudi Arabia 12 Senegal 134 Seychelles 16 Sierra Leone 29 Singapore 4 Solomon Islands 8 Somalia 4 South Africa 171 Spain** 917* Sri Lanka 15 Sweden** 81 Thailand 48 Togo 13 Tonga 7 Trinidad and Tobago 3 Tunisia 8 Turkey 11 Turkmenistan 7 Ukraine 135 Union of Comoros 7 United Arab Emirates 2*

* There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 44

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

United Kingdom 309* United Republic of Tanzania 5 United States 1,561 Uruguay 51 Vanuatu 38 Venezuela 63 Viet Nam 49 Yemen 13

Non-Member States

Country Number of Vessels Micronesia 4 Palau 1

Number of fishing vessels whose flag States are unknown: 1,327

World total 17,344

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 45

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 5

FISHING VESSEL FLEET METHODOLOGY OF STATISTICS BASED ON THE LR-F DATABASE

GOAL 1 To determine the number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (as defined in 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, hereinafter referred to as Ltp) for the world, based on Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay Database (Version: May 2004). KEY TO THE STATISTICS (THE CRITERION) 2 In pursuit of the above statistics, with the confirmation of Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay, it was found that the field �length as registered� (Lreg) in the database was the length as defined in the Protocol (Ltp). 3 However, Lreg still could not be a practical criterion since there were just 4840 out of a total of 23,102 fishing vessels with such data (with a coverage ratio of 21%). Therefore, an acceptable alternative criterion to that of �Ltp>=24m� had to be selected.

ALTERNATIVE CRITERION 4 The alternative criterion should cover the vast majority of all fishing vessels in order to provide meaningful set of statistics (i.e. with broad coverage) and should be a close approximation to �Ltp >=24m� (i.e. with high accuracy). Broad Coverage 5 In search of possible alternative criterion, it was found that, besides length as registered (Lreg), there were three other fields in the database relating to the size of ship, namely length overall (Loa), length between perpendiculars (Lbp) and gross tonnage (GT). The coverage of the above four fields in the database were: Loa Lreg Lbp Criterion of GT 16862 /23102= 73% (i.e. 16862 fishing vessels have such data)

4840 /23102= 21% 17335/23102= 75% 100% (i.e. all of the 23102 fishing vessels have GT reported)

Lreg or Lbp 21429 /23102= 93%

Lreg or Loa 21021 /23102= 91%

Combined criterion of Lreg, Lbp or Loa 22831 /23102= 99% (only 271 fishing vessels do not have any of these three lengths)

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 46

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

6 It was observed from the above table that both the �Combined criterion of Lreg, Lbp or Loa� and the �Criterion of GT� could provide satisfactory coverage the number of fishing vessels provided in the database (99% and 100% respectively), therefore, the two criterions were the only two possible criteria which could be examined for determining the accuracy of any criterion. High accuracy Accuracy of �Combined criterion of Lreg, Lbp or Loa� 7 This criterion was based on the idea that, owing to their similar nature, it was expected that a statistically persuasive figure of Lbp (say, Lbp=xxx m) corresponding to Lreg =24 metres could be ascertained, and the same was with Loa (say, Loa=yyy m). Once those figures were set, given the excellent coverage by Lreg, Lbp or Loa, the statistics could be gathered as per the following criterion: For fishing vessels .1 When Lreg is available, use Lreg>=24m; .2 When Lreg is unavailable,

if Lbp is available, use Lbp>=xxx m;

.3 When both Lreg and Lbp are unavailable, if Loa is available, use Loa>=yyy m. 8 To explore whether there was statistically significant correlation between Lbp and Lreg , as well as Loa and Lreg., full use of the available pairs of Lbp-Lreg and Loa-Lreg for fishing vessels in the database were used, which are represented in the following scatter diagrams:

Lreg vs Lbpbased on 745 available pairs of Lreg-Lbp for fishing vessels in LR/F Database

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

Lbp

Lreg

Average (Lreg/Lbp)=1.0401

Lreg=24m corresponds to Lbp=24/1.0401=23.07m

Figure 1

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 47

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Loa vs Lregbased on 680 available pairs of Loa-Lreg for fishing vessels in LR/F Database

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

Lreg

Loa

Figure 2

Average (Loa/Lreg)=1.1028

Lreg=24m corresponds to Loa=24*1.1028=26.47m

9 From the above scatter diagrams, which clearly shows the significant correlation between Lbp and Lreg, as well as Loa and Lreg, the following relationships were formulated:

Lbp=23.07 metres corresponds to Lreg=24 metres (based on 745 available pairs of data) Loa=26.47 metres corresponds to Lreg=24 metres (based on 680 available pairs of data)

10 As a result, the number of fishing vessels of 24m in length and over (as defined in the Protocol) was estimated, as per the �combined criterion of Lreg, Lbp or Loa�, as follows:

Lreg>=24m 2,830 Lbp>=23.07m (when Lreg is unavailable) 13,643 Loa>=26.47m (When both Lreg and Lbp are unavailable) 871 Sum 17,344*

Accuracy of �Criterion of GT� 11 Similarly, to gauge the feasibility of the �Criterion of GT�, the right figure of GT corresponding to Ltp =24m (i.e. Lreg =24m) had to be formulated. Again, the formulation utilized the available pairs of GT-Lreg to prepare a scatter diagram to see if there was significant correlation between them.

* With 271 other fishing vessels, which do not have any of the three lengths, neglected.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 48

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

GT vs Lregbased on available 3767 pairs of GT-Lreg for fishing vessels in LR/F Database

(for Lreg<=35m)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

Lreg

GT

Figure 3

12 Taking into account figure 3, it was determined not to be practical to have an acceptable figure of GT which could be deemed as equivalent to Lreg =24m. Therefore the �Criterion of GT� was not used for this study. SUMMARY 13 From the above analysis, the �Combined criterion with Lreg, Lbp or Loa� should be considered as a satisfactory alternative criterion with both excellent coverage and high accuracy to the original criterion of Ltp (Ltp>=24m). Thus, the statistics shown in paragraph 10 should be persuasive and acceptable for use in this study. 14 As our analysis was conducted based on the Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay Database, it should be noted that the accuracy of our statistics relies primarily on the completeness and reliability of that database.

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 49

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 6

FISHING VESSEL FLEET

DISCREPANCIES AMONG THE DATA PROVIDED BY DIFFERENT SOURCES

Country Number of vessels based on the LR-F

database

Number of vessels reported by Member

Governments Argentina 353 482 Australia 88 141 Bahamas 0 0 Belgium 79 63 Brazil 32 229 Cape Verde 4 18 Costa Rica 4 12 Denmark 336 328 Ethiopia 0 0 Finland 21 21 France 171 257 Germany 72 66 Greece 54 234 Iceland 259 251 Ireland 117 131 Lithuania 43 55 Luxembourg 1 0 Marshall Islands 10 6 Mauritius 25 14 Mexico 113 482 Monaco 0 0 Netherlands 312 240 New Zealand 88 77 Norway 453 346 Poland 66 20 Qatar 3 0 Republic of Moldova 0 0 Romania 22 5 Russian Federation 1,858 1,736 Slovenia 0 2 Spain 917 991 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 73 100 Sweden 81 74 Tonga 7 11 United Republic of Tanzania 5 24 United States 1,561 1,496

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 50

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Country Number of vessels based on the LR-F

database

Number of vessels reported by Member

Governments Uruguay 51 78 Vanuatu 38 78 Totals 7,317 8,068**

The margin of error between the data from the statistics based on the LR-F database and those reported by Member States is ±10.3%. It should be clarified that, in the final estimate of the size of the world fishing vessel fleet (see annex 7), for which both figures as reported by Member States and data obtained from the LR-F database are used, this margin of error only applies to data obtained from the LR-F database for countries that have not provided their figures, since figures as reported by Member States are legitimate.

* * *

** For normalization of calculation purposes, data of a few Member States are not included in this comparison

where there is a difference of more than 400 fishing vessels between number obtained from the LR-F database and figure reported by the Member State, or the relative difference between those two figures is more than ten times. The figures reported by Member States using criteria other than �24 metres in length and over (as defined in the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol)� are not included in this comparison either.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 51

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 7

FISHING VESSEL FLEET

ESTIMATED SIZE OF THE CURRENT WORLD FISHING VESSEL FLEET To obtain a more accurate estimated size of the current world fishing vessel fleet, it was considered appropriate to take the data provided by Member Governments (as contained in annexes 1 and 3) fully into account and use the statistics based on the LR-F database (as contained in annex 4) only in the event of no data received from Member States. To that end, a combined table of number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over on the basis of data provided by Member States and statistics based on the LR-F database is developed, as set out hereunder.

TABLE 1

COMBINED TABLE OF NUMBER OF FISHING VESSELS OF 24 METRES IN

LENGTH AND OVER ON THE BASIS OF DATA PROVIDED BY MEMBER STATES AND THE STATISTICS BASED ON THE LR-F DATABASE, AS GIVEN IN ANNEX 4

IMO Member States

Member States Number of vessels

based on the LR-F database

Number of vessels provided by Member

Governments

Number of vessels used for this study

Albania 1 1 Angola 73 73 Antigua and Barbuda 1 1 Argentina 353 482 482 Australia 88 141 141 Azerbaijan 11 11 Bahamas 0 0 0 Bahrain 3 3 Bangladesh 36 36 Belgium 79 63 63 Belize 224 224 Bolivia 24 24 Brazil 32 229 229 Bulgaria 4 4 Cambodia 29 29 Cameroon 27 27 Canada 170 170 Cape Verde 4 18 18 Chile 338 338 China 652* 30,279⇓ 30,279

* There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 52

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Member States Number of vessels

based on the LR-F database

Number of vessels provided by Member

Governments

Number of vessels used for this study

Colombia 13 13 Congo 12 12 Costa Rica 4 12 12 Côte d'Ivoire 16 16 Croatia 22 22 Cuba** 22 22 Cyprus 34 34 Democratic People�s Republic of Korea

37 37

Democratic Republic of the Congo

7 7

Denmark** 336* 328* 328 Djibouti 2 2 Dominica 4 4 Dominican Republic 2 2 Ecuador 113 113 Egypt 3 3 El Salvador 6 6 Equatorial Guinea 38 38 Estonia 30 30 Ethiopia 0 0 0 Fiji 8 8 Finland 21 21 21 France 171* 257 257 Gabon 15 15 Gambia 1 1 Georgia 34 34 Germany ** 72 66 66 Ghana 148 148 Greece 54 234 234 Guatemala 3 3 Guinea 25 25 GuineaBissau 13 13 Guyana 6 6 Haiti 1 1 Honduras 268 268 Iceland** 259 251 251 India 69 69 Indonesia 296 4,447⇓ 4,447 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 30 30

⇓ This includes also fishing vessels of Hong Kong, China and Macao, China, using figure as provided by China in

the letter to the Secretary-General (i.e. 28,679), and data reported to the Beijing Seminar for Hong Kong, China and Macao, China (1,500 and 100 respectively).

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. ⇓ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �> 60 GT� as the criterion.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 53

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Member States Number of vessels

based on the LR-F database

Number of vessels provided by Member

Governments

Number of vessels used for this study

Iraq 7 7 Ireland** 117 131 131 Israel 1 1 Italy** 154 611 611 Japan 1,325 2,591# 2,591 Kazakhstan 7 7 Kenya 9 9 Kiribati 2 2 Kuwait 27 27 Latvia 23 23 Liberia 1 1 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 50 50 Lithuania 43 55 55 Luxembourg 1 0 0 Madagascar 31 58↓ 58 Malaysia 16 448# 448 Maldives 6 6 Malta 7 7 Marshall Islands 10 6 6 Mauritania 133 133 Mauritius 25 14 14 Mexico 113 482 482 Monaco 0 0 0 Mongolia 3 3 Morocco 373 373 Mozambique 79 79 Myanmar 23 299⇓ 299 Namibia 113 113 Netherlands** 312* 240 240 New Zealand 88 77 77 Nicaragua 1 1 Nigeria 80 80 Norway** 453* 346 346 Pakistan 3 49 49 Panama 195 195 Papua New Guinea 12 12 Peru 446 446 Philippines 422 974# 974 Poland 66 20 20 # As reported to the Beijing Seminar. ↓ Number of fishing vessels of 24 metres in length overall and over. The actual number of vessels of 24 metres in

length would be less than 58. ⇓ As provided in the letter to the Secretary-General. The figure reported to the Beijing Seminar is not used. * There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 54

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Member States Number of vessels

based on the LR-F database

Number of vessels provided by Member

Governments

Number of vessels used for this study

Portugal 158 158 Qatar 3 0 0 Republic of Korea 1,051 1,535# 1,535 Republic of Moldova 0 0 0 Romania 22 5 5 Russian Federation 1858 1,736# 1,736 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

73 100 100

Samoa 1 1 Sao Tome and Principe 4 4 Saudi Arabia 12 12 Senegal 134 134 Seychelles 16 16 Sierra Leone 29 29 Singapore 4 4 Slovenia 0 2 2 Solomon Islands 8 8 Somalia 4 4 South Africa 171 171 Spain** 917* 991 991 Sri Lanka 15 15 Sweden** 81 74 74 Thailand 48 1,500⇓ 1,500 Togo 13 13 Tonga 7 11 11 Trinidad and Tobago 3 3 Tunisia 8 8 Turkey 11 11 Turkmenistan 7 7 Ukraine 135 135 Union of Comoros 7 7 United Arab Emirates 2* 2 United Kingdom

309* 309

United Republic of Tanzania

5 24 24

United States 1,561 1,496 1,496 Uruguay 51 78 78 Vanuatu 38 78 78 Venezuela 63 63

# As reported to the Beijing Seminar. ** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. ⇓ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �> 100 GT� as the criterion. * There is more than one ship registry in this country. For the purpose of this table, the total number of fishing

vessels as registered with those registries is reported, although, in reality, the vessels of overseas territories, if any, may be taken separately from those with the main registry of the country.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 55

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Member States Number of vessels

based on the LR-F database

Number of vessels provided by Member

Governments

Number of vessels used for this study

Viet Nam 49 1,300↓ 1,300 Yemen 13 13 Non-Member States Country Number of Vessels used for this study Micronesia 4 Palau 1

Estimated world total 56,7895

Taking into account the margin of error of ±10.3% for data obtained from the LR-F database as calculated in annex 6, the above estimate could vary in between 56,312 to 57,266. The number of fishing vessels of present ten Contracting States to the Protocol is 3,060.

↓ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �>=20 m� as the criterion. 5 It is considered that the number of fishing vessels whose flag States are unknown, namely 1,327, as obtained

from the LR-F database (see annex 4), should have already been largely covered by data reported by Member Governments, therefore that number is not included in the estimate of world fishing vessel fleet.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 56

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

TABLE 2

COUNTRIES WITH MORE THAN 100 FISHING VESSELS OF 24 METRES IN LENGTH AND OVER ON THE BASIS OF DATA PROVIDED BY

MEMBER STATES AND THE STATISTICS BASED ON THE LR-F DATABASE

No. (ranked) Country Number of Vessels

1 China 30,279# 2 Indonesia 4,447⇓ 3 Japan 2,591 4 Russian Federation 1,736 5 Republic of Korea 1,535 6 Thailand 1,500⇔ 7 United States 1,496 8 Viet Nam 1,300∃ 9 Spain** 991 10 Philippines 974 11 Italy** 611 12 Argentina 482 13 Mexico 482 14 Malaysia 448 15 Peru 446 16 Morocco 373 17 Norway** 346 18 Chile 338 19 Denmark** 328 20 United Kingdom 309 21 Honduras 268 22 France 257 23 Iceland** 251 24 Netherlands** 240 25 Greece 234 26 Brazil 229 27 Belize 224 28 Panama 195 29 South Africa 171

# Figures provided by Member States are shown in bold. ⇓ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �>60 GT� as the criterion. ⇔ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �>100GT� as the criterion. ∃ As reported to the Beijing Seminar, using �>=20 m� as the criterion. ** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 57

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

No. (ranked) Country Number of Vessels 30 Canada 170 31 Portugal 158 32 Ghana 148 33 Australia 141# 34 Ukraine 135 35 Senegal 134 36 Mauritania 133 37 Ireland** 131 38 Namibia 113 39 Ecuador 113

* * *

** Contracting State to the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. # Figures provided by Member States are shown in bold.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 58

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 8

IMO�S MANDATE AND AREAS OF FAO INTEREST

* * *

Subject Active FAO Collaboration

Passive FAO Collaboration

Marine Safety Torremolinos Protocol Yes Non-Convention Safety of Fishing Vessels Yes STCW-F Yes Non-Convention Fishermen�s Training and Certification

Yes

GMDSS and Marine Communications Yes SAR Yes ISM Code Maritime Security ISPS Code Yes Monitoring of All Vessels (Maritime Security) Yes IMO Number Yes Marine Environment Marine Debris (General) Yes Marine Debris (Fishing Gear) Yes Ballast Water GESAMP Yes Invasive Species GESAMP Fishing Operations Fish Carriers and Factory Ships Yes Port State Control (Fishing Vessels) Yes Legal Genuine Link Yes

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 59

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 9

FAO�S MANDATE IN FISHERIES AND AREAS OF IMO INTEREST

Subject Active IMO

Collaboration Passive IMO Collaboration

Fisheries Operations Monitoring of Fishing Vessels (Fisheries management)

Yes

Unique Identifier for Fishing Vessels Yes IUU Fishing Yes Port State Measures (Fishing Vessels) Yes Registration of Fishing Vessels Yes

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 60

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 10

TIMELINE OF FAO/ILO/IMO CO-OPERATION

Agreement of Cooperation between FAO/IMO (IMO Resolution 103) 1965 MOU between FAO/ILO/IMO (IMO Resolution 116) ??? Guidelines on Safety of Fishermen and Fishing Vessels Part A 1968 Guidelines on Safety of Fishermen and Fishing Vessels Part B 1974 Guidelines for the Standards of Construction of Small Fishing Vessels Torremolinos International Convention on the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1977 1977 Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels

1979

Document for Guidance on Fishermen�s Training and Certification. 1993 Torremolinos Protocol to the International Convention on the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1977

1993

1995 Convention of the Standards of Training and Certification of Fishermen (STCW-F)

1995

Document for Guidance on Fishermen�s Training and Certification (Revision) 1998 Guidelines for Safety of Fishermen and Fishing Vessels Part A and Part B (Revision)

2006

Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels (Revision)

2006

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 61

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 11

IMO SHIP IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SCHEME

Ref. T1/14.01 Circular letter No.1886/Rev.3* 11 December 2006 To: All IMO Member States

Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 United Nations and Specialized Agencies Intergovernmental Organizations Non-governmental Organizations in consultative status

Subject: Implementation of resolution A.600(15) � IMO ship identification number scheme

The IMO ship identification number scheme was introduced in 1987 through adoption of resolution A.600 (15), as a measure to enhance ship safety and security. It aimed at assigning a permanent number to each ship for identification purposes. That number would remain unchanged upon transfer of the ship to other flag(s) and would be inserted in the ship�s certificates. Following adoption of new SOLAS Chapter XI (in particular regulation 3 thereof) by the 1994 SOLAS Conference, the implementation of the scheme became mandatory for all ships as of 1 January 1996.

As explained in resolution A.600(15), the IMO Ship Identification Number is made of the three letters �IMO� in front of the Lloyd�s Register (LR) Number (seven digits) and shipbuilders/shipowners are encouraged to provide details of all new orders to Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay (LRF) to facilitate the assignment of the LR number at the earliest opportunity which, for the majority of ships, becomes the IMO number on completion. It can be obtained by contacting the relevant LRF Service or IMO.

In order to facilitate, in the case of existing ships, the assignment of the IMO number, and to avoid unnecessary delays, flag Administrations as well as shipowners/operators are recommended, prior to forwarding their request to IMO or the LR Service, to verify (through checking the ship�s documentation) whether the LR number has already been assigned to specific ship(s) of their concern. It should be borne in mind that that number, originally issued by the LR Service in charge of a central database, may have been provided to a classification society or the shipyard concerned. Following this, the flag Administration should enter the IMO number (IMO + the seven-digit LR number) in the ship's relevant certificates.

If the LR number for a particular existing ship cannot be identified, and in the case of a new ship, requests to obtain the IMO number should be addressed to the LR Service or to IMO, as advised below. These requests will be responded to as quickly as possible. However, the increasing number of requests and the related verification work may result in relatively short delays that should be taken into account by the flag Administration when issuing certificates.

* Extract.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 62

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

Requests as mentioned above can be submitted on the following website

www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com or addressed (preferably by fax) to the appropriate LRF Service at the following address:

Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay Ltd. Lombard House, 3 Princess Way, Redhill, Surrey RH1 1UP, United Kingdom Tel: (+44) (0) 1737 379043 Fax: (+44) (0) 1737 379040

together with the information on the individual ships concerned, as detailed in the annex.

Should there be any difficulty in contacting the appropriate LRF Service, requests (including information on the ship concerned as detailed above) should be addressed to IMO (Maritime Safety Division � IPC Section � facsimile: +44 (0)20 7587 3210).

* * *

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 63

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

ANNEX 12

IMO UNIQUE COMPANY AND REGISTERED OWNER IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER SCHEME

Ref. T1/14.01 Circular letter No.2554/Rev.1* 7 February 2007 To: All IMO Member States

Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974

United Nations and Specialized Agencies Intergovernmental Organizations Non-governmental Organizations in consultative status

Subject: Implementation of IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner Identification

Number Scheme (resolution MSC.160(78)) GENERAL 1 The IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner Identification Number Scheme was introduced through the adoption by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), at its seventy-eighth session (12 to 21 May 2004), of resolution MSC.160(78), as a measure to enhance maritime safety, security and environmental protection, and to facilitate the prevention of maritime fraud. Its purpose is to assign a permanent number for identification purposes to each company and/or registered owner managing ships of 100 gross tonnage and above engaged on international voyages. Additionally, Administrations are invited to participate in the scheme to the extent they desire by assigning an IMO unique company and registered owner identification number (hereinafter, referred to as �Number�) to each company and/or registered owner managing ships of 100 gross tonnage and above not engaged on international voyages. The procedures for the implementation of resolution MSC.160(78) were circulated by means of Circular letter No.2554, dated 24 June 2004. 2 The Committee, at its eightieth session (11 to 20 May 2005), adopted the proposed new SOLAS regulation XI-1/3-1 on the company and registered owner identification number and amendments to SOLAS regulation XI-1/5 on the continuous synopsis record (resolution MSC.194(80)), which should be deemed to have been accepted on 1 July 2008 and should enter into force on 1 January 2009. 3 MSC 80 also adopted amendments to the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code) (resolution MSC.195(80)) and to the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code) (resolution MSC.196(80)) introducing references to the company and registered owner identification number.

* Extract.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 64

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

4 MSC 80 agreed that the procedures for the implementation of resolution MSC.160(78) outlined in Circular letter No.2554 should be reviewed and revised as necessary by the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI), at its fourteenth session (5 to 9 June 2006). 5 The Committee, at its eighty-second session (29 November to 8 December 2006), considered the outcome of the review by FSI 14 of the procedures for obtaining the Numbers, and the procedures in place for maintaining the integrity of the scheme. This resulted in the addition of a web service, revised data exchange procedures between Administrations and Lloyd�s Register-Fairplay (LRF) and the reporting of the name-style of registered owners as recorded by national Administrations in their jurisdiction. The Committee approved the present circular letter, noting the concurrent decision by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), at its fifty-fifth session (9 to 13 October 2006). Having also considered that the operational aspects of the numbering scheme may need to be further developed, based on the experience gained, the Committee requested the Secretariat to make any necessary adjustments, in co-operation with the manager of the scheme, in order to improve the service to be provided to Member States. PRINCIPLES 6 The IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner Identification Number Scheme is managed, in parallel with the IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme (resolution A.600(15)) and procedures for the implementation thereof (Circular letter No.1886/Rev.3), without charge by LRF. The scheme may assign Numbers to companies and/or registered owners of ships not required to have IMO ship identification numbers. 7 The Number is a LRF number, allocated at the time of issuance of the documents detailed in paragraph 6 of the Annex to resolution MSC.160(78) or registration of a ship not required to have these documents. The Number consists of seven digits assigned by LRF. The label begins with the letters �IMO� followed by either �Company� or �Registered Owner�, then, followed by the seven digits. 8 �Company� has the same meaning as in SOLAS regulation IX/1. �Registered owner� is the owner specified on a ship�s certificate of registry issued by an Administration. 9 New companies and/or registered owners managing ships covered by the scheme are assigned a Number by LRF when their ship is registered with a flag Administration. For existing companies and/or registered owners, the Number should be assigned at an early convenient date, such as when any document detailed in paragraph 6 of the Annex to resolution MSC.160(78) is issued or renewed. 10 Once assigned, the Number remains unchanged for a company and/or registered owner. When companies and/or registered owners merge, as a matter of general policy, LRF assigns the Number of the larger company and/or registered owner to the new amalgamated entity, while the Number of the smaller entity is frozen and not re-used. 11 LRF maintains a full history audit trail of changes to company and/or registered owner information, with the date of each change recorded. LRF maintains the history of companies and/or registered owners of ships on its database.

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 65

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

12 LRF operates under ISO 9001:2000 quality assurance and is ISO certified for the provisions of publishing and information services to the shipping industry. In order to maintain the integrity of the Numbers in circulation amongst the maritime community, the Administrations should, to the extent allowed by their national law, not publish these Numbers, or allow the Numbers to be viewed or downloaded from their websites, other than on a company-by-company basis. 13 Contracting Governments to SOLAS retain the right to assign the management of the system to another organization in the future or to manage it by itself. If LRF cannot continue to maintain the scheme for any reason, all related information acquired from the scheme should be transferred to the Organization. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER OF INFORMATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF NUMBERS ON AN INDIVIDUAL COMPANY/REGISTERED OWNER BASIS 14 Original information about a company and/or registered owner is collected by the Administration at the time of registration. It is the same information as that routinely collected by Administrations as part of their registration process, namely:

.1 company/registered owner name-styles; .2 country/State of incorporation (registration); .3 date of incorporation; and .4 full address (operational and registered address) and contact details. LRF records

the operational address of companies and registered owners. The operational address can be the address of a head office or a branch office, or a care-of address for the registered owner or company which has been issued with a Document of Compliance (DOC) and managing the ship for which communication details are provided, hereafter called �DOC Company�. The LRF database also records the registered address of registered owners but only under the conditions in paragraph 22.

15 During the registration of a ship, the Administration should contact LRF to determine the Number to be assigned to the company or registered owner, either through the present methods established for obtaining Numbers on an individual basis, as described in paragraph 17, or, preferably, through the fleet data exchanges (see paragraphs 18, 19 and 20). 16 Numbers can also be obtained by recognized organizations (ROs) authorized to issue Safety Management Certificates and Documents of Compliance on behalf of Administrations, and by registered owners and companies, for submission to the Administration. 17 The methods for obtaining Numbers on existing registered owners and companies, for assigning a Number to registered owners or companies that have not previously been assigned a Number and for communicating corrected company details on existing records, on an individual basis, are as follows:

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 66

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

.1 a free website (www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com) which allows registered users to

look up Numbers, by using the available �Search� facility. When the companies or registered owners cannot be identified through the �Search� function, authorized data providers should request the assignment of new Numbers or provide corrective information on existing records. The website has a free user registration system to enhance both the security of the site and the information;

.2 paper request forms (annexes 1 and 2); and

.3 a free web service for Administrations to facilitate the provision of individual

company and registered owner data from LRF to flag Administrations in an electronic format for ship registration purposes (sections 1.1 and 1.2 of annex 4).

LRF would confirm the updated company information received with the appropriate Administration. STANDARDIZED REGULAR ELECTRONIC DATA EXCHANGE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS AND LRF ON A FLEET BASIS 18 When choosing this recommended option, Administrations would implement a regular electronic data exchange procedure with LRF on a fleet basis (as detailed in section 2 of annex 4, together with the data fields that Administrations should provide electronically (annex 3)) to enable LRF to maintain the integrity of the scheme. The exchanges provide a mechanism to communicate, per ship, changes to registered owners and companies and their IMO Numbers, on a registered fleet basis, and thus synchronise the information held on the registered fleet by both the Administration and LRF. 19 The regular electronic data exchange procedure on a fleet basis includes a standardized two-way flow of data between flag Administrations and LRF on the registered fleet, either by spreadsheet or extensible markup language (XML) file (section 2 of annex 4). 20 LRF would derive the updates to the registered fleet through electronic comparison with its database. New and updated Numbers would then be returned to the flag Administration in an updated spreadsheet or XML file. 21 Regarding the addition of a second company name field, the LRF database records the name-style of registered owners as provided by Administrations for companies registered in their national jurisdictions. LRF can only receive the contents of this field in the XML data format detailed in section 2 of annex 4, since this format should have agreed character sets that are consistent with both the LRF database software and the software of organizations to which LRF supplies data (annex 4, paragraph 2.9). 22 The LRF database also records the registered address of registered owners as provided by Administrations for companies registered in their national jurisdictions. LRF can only receive the contents of this field in the XML data format detailed in section 2 of annex 4, since this format should have agreed character sets that are consistent with both the LRF database software and the software of organizations to which LRF supplies data (annex 4, paragraph 2.9).

FSI 15/14 ANNEX Page 67

I:\FSI\15\14.doc

CONSULTATION ON NUMBERS 23 The LRF website (www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com), with a free user registration system to enhance both the security of the site and the information available, allows registered users to look up Numbers, by using the available �Search� facility, and Administrations, ROs and companies to communicate corrected company details on existing records. 24 Administrations assume no duty to examine, correct, change, alter, or modify information contained on the LRF free website, or to notify LRF of incorrect information contained on the website. Administrations are not liable for mistakes or errors in the information on the website. This website is also available to companies and/or registered owners, who may use it when completing continuous synopsis records (CSR) (resolution A.959(23)). 25 The Numbers can also be obtained by contacting the national ship registry of the State, the flag of which their ships are entitled to fly or LRF at the following address:

Lloyd�s Register � Fairplay (LRF) Lombard House 3 Princess Way, Redhill Surrey RH1 1UP UNITED KINGDOM Telephone : (+44) 1737 379000 Fax : (+44) 1737 379001 Web : www.lrfairplay.com

Email : owners-data-feedback@lrfairplay.com 26 The Numbers are also available on the free public website of Equasis (www.equasis.org).

____________