At the Annual Meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in November 2000, it was decided to establish the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement (PECCOE). The first meeting of PECCOE took place between 27 February - 1 March. This brief report summarizes the main discussions.

At the last Annual Meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), in November 2000, the six contracting parties agreed to the establishment of a Standing Committee for control and enforcement - the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement (PECCOE). The main tasks of PECCOE, as determined at the Annual Meeting, are, inter alia: to review the implementation of the NEAFC Control and Enforcement Scheme ("the Scheme"); to report on compliance by contracting parties; to issue technical advice; and to monitor implementation of the non-contracting parties Scheme ("NCP Scheme"). Ordinarily, PECCOE is to meet once a year, in conjunction with the Annual Meeting, but the first session took place in London, between 27 February and 1 March, in order to discuss a number of preliminary and substantive matters in advance of the 2001 Annual Meeting.

As might be expected, much of the discussion was devoted to developing the organizational tasks of PECCOE and the relationship between PECCOE, the Secretariat and the contracting parties. At the Annual Meeting, NEAFC assigned various tasks to PECCOE and discussions centred on how to discharge these tasks. The distribution of tasks between PECCOE and the Secretariat and the form of reports to be prepared by the contracting parties were also discussed. However, there were also interesting and useful discussion on other matters, in response to requests that NEAFC had determined at the Annual Meeting. These included the possibility of amending or updating the Control and Enforcement Scheme and developing a catch reporting scheme to allow different components of the redfish stock to be distinguished. 

As regards the former issue - amendments to the Control and Enforcement Scheme - PECCOE both reviewed briefly its implementation so far and also considered the question of whether it should be updated or amended. (It is useful to recall that the NEAFC Scheme, which has many similarities with the procedures for control developed in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), was introduced in 1999 and deals with various aspects of monitoring, control and surveillance). Following a brief review and assessment of the Scheme, based on information provided by the parties, PECCOE concluded that, in general, the Scheme was operating satisfactorily, but that it was still in a ”running-in period” and there were still a number of problems of application. It therefore suggested that certain procedures, such as the reporting of catch and fishing effort and the submission of port inspection reports, would have to be tightened up by the contracting parties. On the question of amending or updating the Scheme, however, not all parties were agreed on the need for or desirability of making such changes. Thus while some delegations wished to discuss concrete proposals for amending the Scheme, others cautioned against piecemeal changes, arguing that the Scheme was a balanced package, which should not be disturbed by addressing specific items. They emphasized that the experience gained so far in implementation should first be reviewed more thoroughly and that amendments to the Scheme should be envisaged at a later stage where necessary. 

PECCOE was also asked by the Annual Meeting to consider the development of a catch reporting scheme which would allow the identification of separate redfish components. The composition of Northeast Atlantic redfish is subject to some dispute, with some parties (mainly Iceland) arguing that there are two separate stocks, at different depths, while other parties argue that there is only one stock. These differences have complicated the development of management measures for redfish. At the meeting, Iceland produced a new scientific analysis which, they argued, showed some indications of a difference in geographical distribution of the two components, although most delegations were not convinced that the analysis gave a basis for management of the two stocks separately. The Committee also offered answers to the specific requests of NEAFC relating to possible changes to the Scheme in order to introduce a catch reporting scheme which could allow catches of each of the components of redfish to be distinguished. Three possibilities were considered: the recording of depth of fishing; management measures based on geographical area; and management measures based on a calendar approach. As regards the former, most delegates appeared to agree that, in principle, a NEAFC catch reporting system to record fishing depth could and should be implemented and that information collected from such a system would be reliable if it was not in place to enforce management measures based on separate quotas for different depths but to collect information for scientific purposes. Problems were foreseen in using such a system for enforcement purposes. As regards the other two types of measures, it was agreed that scientific evaluations would have to be carried out before it can be determined whether management measures based on these approaches would in fact allow parties to distinguish the catches of each component. Furthermore, although the information recorded would be reliable, it would not be certain whether these approaches would allow the catches of each component to be distinguished. Ultimately, the discussions remained inconclusive. Some participants suggested that PECCOE should advise NEAFC to adopt measures that would make it compulsory for contracting parties to record the fishing depth in the pelagic redfish fishery in areas XII and XIV, according to the depth of the headline of the fishing gear. As this would, at least initially, not necessarily be for enforcement purposes, limiting the measures to recording fishing depth in log-books could be sufficient at this time and could give scientists the necessary information to make their evaluation of possible management measures, based on depth, areas or time. Other participants queried the need for any such measures, however.

Finally, the Committee also discussed possible amendments to the NEAFC Scheme in relation to the monitoring of access; the monitoring of activities; and inspection and surveillance and possible amendment to the NCP scheme. Some changes were made, but these consisted principally of editorial changes (although there were one or two proposals of substance that did not receive consensus). In addition some clarifications or interpretations of the Scheme were put forward. This highlights a potentially useful role for PECCOE, as it may prevent the occurrence of disputes where unclear or ambiguous wording is used in the text.

It is, of course, not possible after just one meeting to evaluate the effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness, of PECCOE. Its establishment, however, is clearly an important step forward in making NEAFC a more modern and more effective regional fisheries body. In many respects, the establishment of PECCOE was the next logical step in the development of NEAFC, which has become much more active in recent years. After a period of considerable dormancy, NEAFC has been more active since the mid-1990s and a number of new measures have been adopted. The development of these measures implies the need for a body to oversee implementation and enforcement of conservation measures. The discussions at the first meeting can be seen as useful, although it is clear that on some key issues there are likely to be some differences between the parties.

Chris Hedley
IFB Editor

Further links

Report of the 19th NEAFC Annual Meeting (November 2000) (Word file)

Control and Enforcement Scheme