Report of the 2nd IOTC Performance Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2013 the Commission agreed to undertake a 2nd performance review of the IOTC to:

1. a)  evaluate progress made on the recommendations arising from the 1st performance review;

2. b)  focus on the effectiveness of the Commission to fulfil its mandate, in accordance with the

   criteria set forth in Appendix I;

3. c)  evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks to the organisation (the review

   does not include an audit of the finances of the Commission).

As with the 1st performance review, the assessment criteria for the 2nd performance review closely follow those recommended by the 1st Kobe meeting in 2007, with some minor additions. The Panel has not addressed the detailed criteria point by point, but rather, used them as a basis for assessing progress against the general criteria. Thus the assessment of each general criteria is a combination of the detailed criteria and progress made in relation to recommendations by the 1st Performance Review Panel.

A table detailing the status of implementation (as of 12 December 2015) of each of the recommendations from the 1st performance review is provided at Appendix II.

The following are a subset of the complete recommendations from the 2nd Performance Review of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (PRIOTC02), which are provided at Appendix V.

Analysis of the IOTC Agreement against other international instruments

(para. 81) NOTING para 80, the PRIOTC02 RECOMMENDED that the Commission establish an ad-hoc Working Party on the Modernisation of the IOTC Agreement, based on the following scope:

1. a)  Develop proposed language for the IOTC Agreement that takes into account modern principles of fisheries management;

2. b)  Develop a multi-year Program of Work that outlines the specific priority issues to be discussed using the legal analysis contained in Appendix III of this report to inform the working party deliberations;

3. c)  Proposals to enable the participation of all fishing players with direct fishing interest in the IOTC;

4. d)  That all CPCs should participate in the Working Party and that funds be provided to support the participation of developing coastal States in the meetings;

5. e)  That the working group meet at least annually and to the extent possible progress its work inter- sessionally using electronic means.

FAO

(para. 233) The PRIOTC02 RECOMMENDED that the IOTC would be more appropriate as an independent entity. As such, as a matter of the highest priority, the Commission should decide whether the IOTC should remain within the FAO framework or become a separate legal entity, and as necessary, begin consultations with the FAO on this matter.

The consolidated set of recommendations arising from the PRIOTC02 is provided at Appendix V.