User menu
(Objection received from India: does not apply on India. Resolution 18/01 remains binding on India.)
The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC),
CONSIDERING the objectives of the Commission to maintain stocks in perpetuity and with high probability, at levels not less than those capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including the special requirements of developing States in the IOTC area of competence;
BEING MINDFUL of Article XVI of the IOTC Agreement regarding the rights of Coastal States and of Article 87 and 116 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea regarding the right to fish on the high seas;
RECOGNISING the special requirements of the developing States, particularly Small Island developing States in Article24, of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea of December 1982, relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks(UNFSA);
RECALLING that Article 5, of UNFSA entitles the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks are based on best scientific evidence available and with special reference to Resolution 15/10 for a stock where the assessed status places it within the red quadrant, and with an aim to end overfishing with a high probability and to rebuild the biomass of the stock in as short time as possible;
FURTHER RECALLING that Article 6, of UNFSA and IOTC Resolution 12/01 On the implementation of the precautionary approach, requires the States to be cautious during the application of precautionary approach when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and this should not be a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures;
CONSIDERING the recommendations adopted by the KOBE II, held in San Sebastian, Spain, June 23 – July 3 2009; implementing where appropriate a freeze on fishing capacity on a fishery by fishery basis and such a freeze should notconstrain the access to, development of, and benefit from sustainable tuna fisheries by developing coastal States;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the recommendations adopted by the KOBE III, held in La Jolla, California, 12- 14 July 2011; considering the status of the stocks, each RFMO should consider a scheme for reduction of overcapacity in a way that does not constrain the access to, development of, and benefit from sustainable tuna fisheries, including on the high seas, by developing coastal States, in particular Small Island Developing States, territories, and States with small and vulnerable economies; and Transfer of capacity from developed fishing members to developing coastal fishing members within its area of competence where appropriate;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the report by International Council for the Exploration of Sea and FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (2006), Gillnets are considered to be one of the least catch controllable and least environmentally sustainable gears;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the recommendations of the 18th Scientific Committee held in Bali, Indonesia, 23 – 27 November 2015 and the 21st session of the Scientific Committee held in Seychelles, 3 – 7 December 2018, that the catches ofyellowfin tuna have to be reduced by 20% of the 2017 levels to recover the stocks to levels above the interim target reference points with 50% probability by 2027 as specified in Kobe II Strategy Matrix;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the management advice of the 21st session of the Scientific Committee on the limitations and uncertainties in the stock assessment;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the concern of the 20th Session of the Working Party for Tropical Tuna held in Seychelles, 29 October – 3 November 2018, the change in strategy by increase of usage of FADs by the purse seine vessels to maintain catch level targets has led to a substantial increase of juvenile yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna;
NOTING THAT supply vessels contribute to the increase in effort and capacity of purse seiners and that the number of supply vessels has increased significantly over the years;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the call by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 70/75 upon the States to increase the reliance on scientific advice in developing, adopting and implementing conservation and management measures and to take into account the special requirements of developing States, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as highlighted in the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway;
NOTING THAT Article V.2b of the Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission give full recognition to the special interests and needs of Members in the region that are developing countries, in relation to the conservation and management and optimum utilization of stocks covered by this Agreement and encouraging development of fisheries based on such stocks;
FURTHER NOTING THAT Article V.2d requires the Commission to keep under review the economic and social aspects ofthe fisheries based on the stocks covered by this Agreement bearing in mind, in particular, the interests of developing coastal States. This includes ensuring that conservation and management measures adopted by it do not result in transferring, directly or indirectly, a disproportionate burden of conservation action onto developing States, especially Small Island Developing States;
RECOGNIZING FURTHER the interactions that occur between the fisheries for yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna;
CONSIDERING paragraph 12 of Resolution 16/01 [superseded by Resolution 17/01, then by Resolution 18/01, then by Resolution 19/01] that allows the Commission to review this Interim Plan before 2019;
ADOPTS, in accordance with the provisions of Article IX, paragraph 1 of the IOTC Agreement, the following:
Application
Catch limits
Over catch of annual limit
Supply Vessels
Gillnet
Administration
[1] Catch of Indonesia is based on the national reports submitted to the Scientific Committee
[2] For the purpose of this resolution, the term “supply vessel” includes “support vessel”
[3] The subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall not apply to flag States which use only one supply vessel
