The following are key points from Commission discussions that clarify how a category is set for an obligation and therefore the form of its associated Audit Point. This in turn determines the expected framing for responses to Audit Points for the Implementation (IM), Reporting (RP), and Quantitative Limits (QL) categories of obligations.
Secretariat reviews of responses to Audit Points that must be verified are reviewed using wider sources of information. A ‘Verify note’ is included in the CMR for relevant obligations to confirm the type of information included in the assessment. Where the review identifies inconsistencies or missing information, the CCM will be asked to provide additional clarification. For further detail on CMR verify notes see TCC20 Paper 25 Available Data for Verifying Compliance.
Implementation (IM)
Obligations that require CCMs to take control or action over its vessels, operators, masters or crew (e.g. ‘CCMs shall ensure that its flagged vessels…’) are best treated as Implementation obligations. This is because these obligations require CCMs to exercise control over their vessels, masters or crew, and require national binding measures to enable it to do so, along with appropriate monitoring controls.
Where monitoring is difficult, but the obligation requires implementation of certain action/s, the Implementation form of the Audit Point can be created without the monitoring component
For example, Observer Safety CMM 2017-03 07 and 08 Category: Implementation (IM)
Where a limit is to be met but is not framed as a specific allocation for a CCM/s it is framed as an Implementation obligations rather than a Quantitative Limit
For example, CMM 2023-01 21, the maximum number of FADs Category: Implementation (IM)
Reporting (RP)
Once implementation is confirmed, the mechanism is not likely to change frequently and so the obligation may not need to be reviewed frequently or can be reviewed as the Reporting form. Only CCMs that have “Compliance Issues” should report annually until assessed as “Compliant”.
Obligations that require CCMs to report on an action or activity are Reporting obligations and responses must describe their actions and/or what happened in the reporting year.
Obligations that require CCMs to complete an activity in the reporting year (e.g. ‘CCMs shall…’) but provide some qualification that uses non-binding language e.g. ‘to the extent practicable’ or ‘where possible’ or when to use identified guidelines) are best treated as Reporting obligations. This is because a CCM still has a binding obligation to take a particular action but has some discretion considering particular circumstances.
For example, Port State Measures CMM 2017-02 26 Category (RP) - CCMs shall, to the extent practicable, encourage the use of ports of SIDS in order to increase the opportunity to undertake inspections, and participation of SIDS in fisheries for WCPO tuna stocks.
Obligations that require specific action from a CCM national authority or its officers (e.g. inspectors) are best treated as Reporting obligations rather than implementation obligations. This is because CCMs do not generally have national binding measures requiring their CCM authority or officials to take specific action; instead, they implement or require such action as part of national procedures or policies.
For example, flag State control through CMM 2018-06 17 – requiring implementation of a prohibition on activity by unauthorized vessels and a description of how the national authority ensures authorised vessels are on the RFV and unauthorised vessels are not breaching the prohibition on fishing for, retaining, transhipping or landing HMFS in the Convention Area beyond areas of national jurisdiction.
Obligations requiring CCMs to cooperate are best treated as Reporting obligations.
Where the required action under an obligation is triggered by an event and that monitoring is difficult as relates to a reportable event, this is best treated as a Reporting obligation.
For example, Observer Safety CMM 2017-03 03-06 Category: Report (RP)
When language in the obligation is not binding but relates to an obligation that is important to ensure the objective of the CMM it would be a Reporting obligation.
For example, ‘if practicable’ but relates to use of guidelines for Sea Turtles CMM 2018-04 04 Report (RP)
Where a binding obligation relates to confirmation a statement, annual plan or a report on a required activity or action of a CCM has been submitted or whether an explanation or description of certain situations it is taken to be a Reporting obligation.
For example – Shark CMM 2022-04 17 requirement for a management plan for longline fisheries targeting sharks to be submitted in AR Pt2 and CMM Pacific Bluefin Tuna CMM 2023-02 11 requiring a description of actions to prevent commercial transactions of BFT and its products that undermine the CMM.
Quantitative Limits (QL)
These obligations typically relate to a baseline (where one exists) and then to the actual report against that baseline for the relevant Reporting Year e.g. number of vessels and/or catch. All required data and information reflected in the Audit Point must be shown in the response.