OFMP PSC – ATTACHEMENT 1.

2019 MCSWG - SUMMARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Introduction

1. Representatives from Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand (NZ), Niue, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu met in Honiara, Solomon Islands from 1st to 5th April 2019 for the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Working Group (MCSWG22). Observers from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Secretariat, Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA), the Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Interpol and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also participated in the meeting.

2. The list of participants and observers is appended as Attachment 1.

3. There were no apologies received.

Agenda Item 1 - Opening

4. An opening prayer was delivered by the Tongan representative followed by an introductory remark from the FFA Director of Fisheries Operations who welcomed participants. He invited the DG to provide an opening remark.

5. The Secretariat’s Director-General (DG), Dr Manumatavai Tupou-Roosen, officially opened the meeting. Dr Tupou-Roosen acknowledged the significance of the meeting in providing an opportunity for Members to consider and discuss MCS issues and the important role of each Member had to conserve fish stocks including through the effective implementation of MCS activities. Participants were encouraged to actively engage in the meeting and reminded of the FFA platform of cooperation which could only be achieved by working together. MCS partners including INTERPOL WCPFC, US/NOAA, PEW, as well as CROP agencies such as SPC were welcomed. Members recognised that it was FFA’s 40th anniversary and this presented an opportunity for Members to take stock of how far they had achieved their objectives in implementing MCS measures to combat IUU fishing. The recent award granted to FFA for the FIRST PRIZE in the International Stop IUU Competition in Bangkok was a clear demonstration of the cooperative work that Members had made, and a reminder of why Members do what they do to ensure stock sustainability for future generations.

22nd MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE WORKING GROUP MEETING

FFA Conference CenterHoniara, Solomon Islands

1-5 April 2019

Agenda Item 2 - Election of Chair

6. The meeting confirmed the nomination of Samuel Lanwi of Marshall Islands as Chair of the meeting.

Agenda Item 3 - Adoption of the agenda

7. The agenda, appended as Attachment 2, was adopted.

Agenda Item 4 - Setting the Scene and Planning

a) IUU Award – Brief introduction and video

8. The Secretariat provided an overview of FFA’s submission for the International MCS Network’s Stop IUU Fishing Award. The submission demonstrated FFA’s Integrated MCS Framework and the cooperative work by FFA, the Secretariat, Members and partners. FFA was successful in taking first prize out of nine submissions.

9. The Secretariat explained that the competition criteria required a tangible impact in reducing IUU; the application of innovation and creative solutions, feasibility and cost effectiveness, potential for sharing and implementing pilot projects, and educational best practice which also involved sharing of MCS practices that are new and not widely known.

10. FSM commended the Secretariat for the achievement made and emphasised that the award also provided a track record of what FFA had done over the past years. It dispelled the concern about overfishing and the collapse of the stock by reiterating the contribution of existing and robust MCS measures currently in place. The award also provided a challenge for MCS to become more cost effective and suggested that the video was circulated widely to demonstrate FFA ‘s success in MCS activities.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) FFC commend the FFA Secretariat for raising the profile of the FFA Integrated MCS framework in the international MCS forum through the first prize award in the International Stop IUU Competition in 2019; and

(ii) The Secretariat share the video and materials presented as part of the FFA submission to the Competition with Members for wider use.

b) Review of MCSWG21 Meeting Outcomes

11. The Secretariat presented a brief overview of the recommendations and outcomes from MCSWG22 presented to FFC106 in Nauru in May 2018, and the specific endorsement and directions provided on certain outcomes which included:

Progress the work on maritime boundaries; Observer safety and use of emerging technology; Progressing the draft IMS Strategy and MCS Strategy; Development of EM standards for longline and assistance in national

implementation of ER; Finalise the review of the ISMIS policy; Progress work on the POI strategy;

Update and share information on SSFV Strategy, and provide contacts for information intelligent sharing;

Progress work on international process for transhipment, development of observer book for carriers and support Ocean 5 projects; and

HMTCs changes for registration process.

MCSWG22 noted the FFC106 endorsement of the MCSWG21 Meeting Outcomes, and the status of implementation.

Agenda Item 5 - RMCSS

a) Overview of RMCSS: responsibilities (Members/Secretariat) and implementation status

12. The Secretariat provided background information on the RMCSS, as the guiding MCS policy document for the membership. The Secretariat emphasised Members’ efforts in addressing IUU fishing through targeted MCS initiatives that are underpinned by the RMCSS. The RMCSS is in the first year of implementation and was the result of three years of extensive consultation with the Members.

13. The Secretariat noted the importance that:

Members are engaged and kept abreast of the current implementation status, including specific activities requiring national action and leadership;

Available opportunity to review the RMCSS performance indicators in the context of their further improvement and refinement; and

Need to support the proposed RMCSS continuous improvement cycle, including annual monitoring and 5-yearly review components (IUU quantification and RMCSS review).

b) Critical assessment of RMCSS IUU Indicators – utility, strengths, weaknesses and improvements

14. The Secretariat outlined work undertaken to assess the RMCSS IUU indicators (Attachment C of the RMCSS). The Secretariat noted that whilst activity monitoring is required at both national and regional levels, there is also a need for strategic monitoring of how the membership is progressing in the achievement of the RMCSS’ goal to reduce of IUU fishing in Pacific tuna fisheries. The Secretariat also provided an overview of the proposed RMCSS continuous improvement cycle, including annual monitoring and 5-yearly review components including the IUU quantification and RMCSS review). The RMCSS continuous improvement cycle, and overarching IUU indicators was considered in more detail under Agenda Item 23.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) FFC note the implementation status of the Regional MCS Strategy in Year 1 of its implementation (2018/19). Current activity monitoring identifies that the Secretariat and Members have commenced most of the required activities under the RMCSS, however continued attention, efforts and resources at both the national and regional level are required to progress and complete each activity;

(ii) FFC endorse the RMCSS continuous improvement cycle. This will ensure the Secretariat and Members continue to effectively implement, monitor and review the existing RCMSS, while also assessing the nature, scope and value of IUU fishing in Pacific tuna fisheries to inform future MCS strategies and policies.

(iii) FFC support the work of the Secretariat in undertaking a baseline evaluation of the RMCSS overarching performance indicators and confirm the importance of any collected data and analyses being kept and distributed to Members to inform any further evaluations; and

(iv) the Secretariat revise the RMCSS overarching performance indicators (Attachment C of the RMCSS) to more effectively guide the strategic monitoring of FFA Members’ regional performance in reducing IUU fishing in Pacific tuna fisheries.

Agenda Item 6 - FLOW Outcomes

15. The Secretariat provided a summary of the FLOW workshop outcomes (25-28 February 2019) where participants considered an overview of the methodology needed to establish standards and processes for licensing system.

16. MCSWG acknowledged the importance of having standardised terms and conditions for crew on fishing vessel, noting that better terms and conditions for crew on fishing vessels would ensure their safety and welfare. It also recognised the need to reduce pollution from fishing vessels, the importance of licensing data provided to FFA noting that licensing data forms part of the analysis for the Compliance indexing of fishing vessels on the RSP.

17. MCSWG noted that it was required to provide guidance on the recommendations from the FLOW workshop and that there was a need to develop two checklists; one for marine and ports and another for fisheries. It was noted that one Member included crew safety considerations in their port and marine checklists.

18. MCSWG recognised the need for a national consultation to identify agency roles and responsibilities for crew safety and encouraged the Secretariat to explore more opportunities and benefits in this approach.

MCSWG22 recommended the endorsement of FLOW outcomes as follows:

(i) Members include in their fisheries legislation provisions that limit marine pollution caused by fishing vessels at sea;

(ii) Task the Secretariat to work with the Data Collection Committee (DCC) on reviewing the draft standards developed at FLOW 2017 and FLOW 2019. Develop the 3 pilot e-licensing systems for Members that currently do not have electronic systems, in consultation with DCC; and

(iii) Task the Secretariat to build an authorisation data mart in consultation with DCC.

Agenda Item 7 - ROCW Outcomes

19. The Secretariat presented the ROCW outcomes, highlighting key issues that required attention which included:

Observer Insurance – need to agree on one of the 3 Options provided and endorsed by FFC106;

Gen 3 Report and WCPFC Pre-Notification Process; SPC needs for Observer Data and Biological Sampling; Observer Carrier Transhipment Form; National Emergency Action Plan (EAP) which only operates in 7 Members and

the urgent need for the others to establish it; IATTC/WCPFC Cross Endorsement Training which involves only 1 IATTC trainer,

therefore the need to coordinate the training to enable wider participation and funding support;

Observer deployed outside of FFA Region (US Treaty); Observer Payment Delay (US Treaty); and Standardising Observer Rates in the Region (Solomon Islands Proposal);

20. MCSWG noted that there existed several reasons for delays in observer payments. These included issues related to bank account details, receipt of reports and reconciliation of advance payments. Work was being done with ANZ bank to reduce payment delays, acknowledging all required information and reports must be complete first.

21. MCSWG was informed of a proposal to standardise the wages for Observers. ROCW19 agreed it was not possible to dictate a regional rate, however MCSWG22 was asked to consider a standardised minimum pay rate and tasked the Secretariat to review Observer pay rates offered by RFMOs and national Observer programmes across the world.

22. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) recognised the issue of Observer safety and the length of time taken to implement NEAPs and the lack of adequate safety gear issued to Observers. WWF encouraged participant to determine why implementation is an issue and what resources are required to implement NEAPs.

23. In response, the Secretariat confirmed that the Observer safety training video was recently released and this will instruct Observers on how to use safety gear and with this MRAG was awarded the contract to procure and distribute Observer safety equipment to relevant programmes.

24. In response to a recommendation from the ROCW of the need for the WCPFC to maintain an official contact list for the purpose of Gen3 reporting and pre-notification processes, the WCPFC Secretariat informed meeting participants that a list of official contacts including contact details for authorized MCS entities and personnel as well as national observer coordinators is available on the WCPFC website. It was also noted that the WCPFC inter-sessional working group (IWG) on observer is considering issues related to observer data flow and pre-notification processes, amongst others. The IWG is open to other participants and any person seeking to participate in this are encouraged to contact the IWG Chair.

25. One Member noted the proposed ROCW process for pre-notification must include Coastal States. It was also noted that the RMCSS contains metrics on Observer placement, trip coverage and the Gen3The Secretariat confirmed these metrics were not discussed at the recent ROCW. However, these will be further

discussed later in the meeting, as they continue to form part of ROCW’s involvement in the future.

26. Another Member recognised the importance of Observer insurance and sought more clarification on this, as well as on the requirements of a standardised regional pay rate for Observers, noting the different rates applied at the national level.

27. The Secretariat confirmed that further discussions were required on insurance and sought direction on a suitable date to have this discussion. The Secretariat also confirmed that the ROCW19 did not believe a regional pay rate was possible, but it considered that establishing a minimum pay standard would be helpful, taking into account the rates that are applied by other RMFOs for future consideration.

MCSWG22 recommended the following in relation to ROCW19 outcomes:

(i) On the observer insurance project, Members are encouraged to advise the Secretariat of suitable dates for national consultation as agreed at FFC106;

(ii) The need for the WCPFC to maintain an official contact list for the purpose of Gen 3 reporting and pre-notification processes for CCMs.

(iii) That SPC and FFA continue to integrate the different national and regional information systems to allow the systems to ensure compatibility.

(iv) NOP coordinators to support SPC’s efforts in the collection of biological samples by distributing biological sampling kits to qualified Observers.

(v) Encourage NOPs to seek technical support from the Secretariat to review and develop their national EAPs;

(vi) WCPFC to facilitate cross-endorsement training for the NOPs with less number of CE Observers in collaboration with IATTC;

(vii) The Secretariat should reactivate its bank accounts in major ports like Majuro, Pohnpei and Pago Pago to facilitate timely payments to observers; and

(viii) The Secretariat to conduct a study on the different observer rates applied by other RFMOs and to do a comparison with the rates used by FFA national and subregional observer programme.

Agenda Item 8 - Persons of Interest

28. The Secretariat provided a summary of the outcomes of the POI workshop that was held prior the MCSWG22. The starting point in the POI Strategy is that it is not vessels that commit an offence but the people who operate the vessels. The background of the Strategy went back several years. The first POI workshop recommended that a broad range of people who operate fishing vessels should be included as much as possible, and to differentiate people based on the consequences of their activities. But for licence issuing, this should be a national matter to decide. For example, those who did not involve directly in an offence should be differentiated.

29. The Secretariat discussed 3 Categories of POI identified, taking into account the need to ensure the rights of individuals:

Category A: persons who are associated with a vessel that is denied registration on the FFA Vessel Register and therefore involves a regional consequence;

Category B: persons associated with a vessel that has committed a series of offences but the vessel had paid its due. This will involve implementation at the national level. The information will assist a decision to be made at the national level; and

Category C: persons associated with someone of interest and to watch. Again, this falls at the national level consideration.

30. The Secretariat discussed the concept of beneficiary ownership which refers to people who are hidden behind a company, yet they benefit from the company, that is under a corporate veil. Often ownership information is not readily available. A company may be owned by another company and the ownership extends to other companies owned by some other individuals. To identify POI in this situation is to identify beneficiary ownership. So any natural person that has 25% ownership would be regarded as a POI.

31. MCSWG noted that it was possible to get the information, but this can be best collected through the licensing application process. Members have maximum leverage to get this information from vessels when they apply for a licence. Flag States have a role to play because they need to verify some of these information. However, this can be complicated when persons have more than one name but this can be addressed by providing an identifying number as provided in the passport, driving licence, tax number, etc. These are unique numbers identification (UPI).

32. In response to a query on who should determine the category of a person, the Secretariat advised that the information sharing under the NTSA already included information on POI. The Secretariat also emphasised that it should not have discretion over this matter.

33. MCSWG noted the concern by a Member who, though supported the objective of the POI approach, cautioned against the spill-over effect on individuals who have nothing to do with vessels which may have been blacklisted and the restriction to licence vessels which are already on good standing.

34. In response to the question on the criteria for the POI categories and how different they are from IUU listing in RFMOs and whether vessels are listed first in RFMO IUU list (Category A (iii) criterion), the Secretariat referred to the proposed categories and advised that vessels need to be listed first on the RFMOs registers before they can be considered for a POI Category A.

35. The Secretariat advised that the summary of the proceedings of the second POI Workshop that considered POI issues was being finalised and it will be circulated after it has been finalised.

MCSWG22 recommended FFC support the outcomes of the 2nd Persons of Interest Workshop and task the Secretariat to continue to progress the POI work.

Agenda Item 9 - Electronic Monitoring

a) New developments and implementation of current projects

36. The Secretariat provided an overview of regional developments in Electronic Monitoring (e-Monitoring) and the implementation of Electronic Monitoring Systems (EMS).

37. MCSWG noted that several Members have started using EMS, and one Member had fully implemented e-Monitoring. The Secretariat explained that the objectives for implementing EMS varied in the membership. However, there was general agreement that EMS is important for LL fisheries, particularly as a tool to supplement/complement areas where observer coverage is low, and on vessels that carry out transhipment in the high seas.

38. MCSWG further noted that the objective of EM had not been agreed by WCPFC, and that CCMs had differing views. It emphasised the need for clearer regional policy guidance regarding EM.

b) MCSWG consideration of MCS and compliance components of EM activities

39. The Secretariat presented proposals to progress work on the EM policy framework which were discussed and supported by MCSWG, including the need to clarify the objectives for E-monitoring implementation to achieve a clear strategy to advance EM in the WCPFC process.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC provide clear policy guidance on FFA’s regional objectives for electronic monitoring. This should include any distinction or difference in approach within the FFA membership and in the WCPFC forum.

Agenda Item 10 (a) - FFA Vessel Register

40. The Secretariat provided an update on the FFA Vessel Register and noted that foreign-flagged vessels must be on the WCPFC Regional Fishing Vessel (RFV) Register before they can be included in the FFA Vessel Register. As at February 2019, 1,150 vessels of all gear types were flagged to Members and represented 21% of the vessel on the Register. The registration fee was US$3,203 per vessel per annum which included an annual inflation index of 1.6%. Domestic vessels were given a 45% discount if they fished solely in their own waters. The FFA levy was US$200 per vessel with 50% discount for Members’ longline vessels (LL) and the Observer levy which varied based on the gear types. The Secretariat advised some on-going work which included the development of an online vessel registration system.

41. The Secretariat explained additional registration requirements which included unique vessel identifiers (UVI) which was also a requirement under the WCPFC CMM 2013-04 for vessels of 100 GRT or more and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) numbers which are issued free of charge by the IMO. A total of 2,251 vessels (89.5%) have provided with IMO numbers.

42. MCSWG noted that the Secretariat consulted with the WCPFC RFV to determine if a vessel was qualified for Good Standing on the FFA Vessel Register and

that vessel registration details can be accessed publicly on the WCPFC and FFA websites. It also noted concerns by some Members that sometimes vessels might be registered as active on the national flag register administered by another Department yet they have bad fishing record in the Department of fisheries which should disqualify them from renewal.

43. MCSWG discussed the annual regional inflation index and the need for the FFA Director-General to have discretion over its application, especially when such an increase might not be required if there was a budget surplus from the previous year or revenue increased as more vessels were registered.

44. MCSWG recognised the contribution of the observer levy in complementing funding support for regional observer trainings delivered by SPC to Members but noted the potential for conflict with the national observer levy that some Members rely heavily on for the development of their national observer programme.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC consider whether it is appropriate to grant the FFA Director-General the discretion to apply the regional inflation index to the vessel registration fee only when necessary and needed to be increased to meet the annual budgetary requirements.

Agenda Item 10 (a) – VMS

45. The Secretariat provided an update on the status of the VMS, including an overview of key aspects of the VMS operations, data sharing arrangements, national VMS assistance, VMS reporting/non-reporting status, MTU type approvals, VMS Services, provision of WCPFC in-zone VMS data and an update of key VMS work progressed during the 2018-2019 financial year.

46. The Secretariat further advised that the authorised VMS users were able to monitor the vessels under the data sharing arrangements in the NTSA which contributed to strengthening regional cooperation. In the enhancement of data sharing, a review of the types of data and information for sharing was identified as a priority activity. This would require clarification of the data’s classification in the ISMS Policy document under ‘’Table 1: Information Security Classification Guidelines’’.

47. MCSWG noted that the VMS programme had available funds to assist in meeting the cost of internet connectivity for national VMS operations in add in addition to assistance in developing cost recovery mechanisms for some Members in monitoring their smaller domestic vessels.

MCSWG22 recommended support for:

(i) The VMS operations and encouraged Members to utilise the VMS financial support provided by the Secretariat to complement their national MCS budgetary requirements;

(ii) Task the Secretariat to carry out further investigations into the VMS non-reporting status of the vessels in Good Standing;

(iii) Task the Secretariat to carry out the necessary work needed in phasing out the use of DNID based MTUs that require a lot of administration tasks and often cause the non-reporting issues, and report the outcome to MCSWG23;

(iv) Task the Secretariat to provide FFC outcomes of the ISMS Policy review, including to:

(a) Identify the types of data and/or information to be made available for sharing; and

(b) Allocate appropriate classification of the data and/or information identified.

(v) Task the Secretariat to provide advice on suitable MTUs that meet the monitoring needs of three Members (Samoa, Tonga and Cook Islands) and their relevant vessels’ capabilities, including the consideration of fixed airtime costs category for small-scale domestic vessels.

Agenda Item 11 - MCSWG22/ Maritime Boundaries

48. The Secretariat presented an overview of the Maritime Boundaries Delimitation (MBD) project which involved extensive technical consultation with Members on the delineation of basepoints to establish their maritime baselines, territorial seas, contiguous zones, EEZs and where appropriate the Continental shelfs in accordance with the UNCLOS requirements.

49. The MCSWG noted the following:

The collaborative work between the Secretariat and SPC-GEM under the Service Level Agreement (SLA) concluded in 2015 to import agreed maritime boundaries of the Members into the FFA VMS lines for the purpose of MCS operations and enforcement at the national level;

The review of the current SLA to incorporate additional tasks that were identified with a view to extend the work between the Secretariat and SPC-GEM to enable the completion of the remaining tasks at the earliest opportunity;

The Guidelines on the process and pathways for the delineation of maritime boundaries from the initial technical work required for the establishment of baselines to legislation of the boundaries and publishing of the agreed boundaries at the UN DOALOS;

Eleven Members had authorized SPC-GEM to provide their maritime boundary datasets to the Secretariat; and

Available funds to assist four Members which have not completed their maritime boundaries and continued to require technical assistance from SPC-GEM.

50. The MCSWG acknowledged the positive work of SPC-GEM and the Secretariat for their outstanding work in delivering the project. It was particularly noted that SPC-GEM had provided much need support for difficult maritime boundary negotiations between States.

MCSWG22 recommended that Members:

(i) take note of the funding assistance available to Members to support their national efforts in negotiations and delineations of their maritime boundaries; and

(ii) continue to support the ongoing collaborative work between FFA and GEM(SPC) to provide the maritime boundaries data and information of Members to the Secretariat to improve the availability of official Pacific maritime boundary information and data within the VMS applications and other MCS tools.

Agenda Item 12 - Transhipment monitoring and reporting

51. The Secretariat provided an update on transhipment developments and priorities in the region which included WCPFC’s adoption of CMM 2009-06 to improve the monitoring and control of transhipment on the high seas, the establishment of an Intersessional Working Group (IWG) to inform the review of CMM 2009-06 with the United States and RMI leading the IWG as co-chairs, and the need to determine the scope of the review for the IWG TOR.

52. MCSWG noted that a project was being developed by FFA, SPC and PEW to improve the data collection fields, protocols and reporting procedures for submission of transhipment catch data, as collected by observers monitoring longline transhipments.

53. MCSWG also noted that a recent study undertaken by PEW indicated that transhipment management in the WCPFC area is compromised by a lack of reporting information, non-compliance with the reporting requirements and non-standardised reporting responses. The report recommended that WCPFC needs to improve the monitoring and control of transhipment and that the findings of the report should be taken into consideration in reviewing CMM 2009/06.

54. MCSWG agreed that there was a need to better monitor and control transshipping and recognized the complexity of the issue. It also recognized the linkages with catch documentation scheme (CDS) and labour conditions of crew at sea, and encouraged active participation in the IWG work.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) Members commit to proactively engage in the review of CMM 2009-06 through participating in the WCPFC intersessional working group as it provides Members with a rare and valuable opportunity to strengthen high seas transshipment monitoring and reporting;

(ii) Members continue to develop and consider analyses of transhipment activity in the WCPO, including through participation in regional projects, to ensure that the membership is in an informed position to advocate for targeted and effective regulation of transhipment activities; and(iii) Members continue to lead in strengthening in-zone measures to address potential IUU activity resulting from transhipment activity. This includes sharing information & experiences amongst the membership at national and regional workshops and

identifying specific activities or work areas that would benefit from regional collaboration.

Agenda Item 13 (a) - IMS Updates & RIMS-5 Outcomes and ISMS Update

55. The Secretariat provided an overview of the FFA IMS (iFIMS, TUFMAN and RIMF) and the RIMS-5 outcomes held in March 2019 in Honiara prior the MCSWG22. In the recent review of the IMS, the following issues were raised:

Staff resources (shortage of trained staff), quality of internet access, capacity building and training, consideration of user needs, securing data (back-up or infrastructure capabilities); and

IMS security concerns; 74% raised inefficient procedures and processes and 63% raised inefficient infrastructure and 46% noted the unauthorised use of IMS data. The App Slack was promoted as a tool to facilitate communication between users and SPC and FFA and is now being used as the application for the fisheries help desk.

56. The RIMS-5 outcomes focussed on technical issues with TUFMAN2 and the work done by the DCC and other IMS projects (PSM/CDS/FLOW) which provided directions for the Secretariat to further assist Members in improving their national systems.

57. MCSWG noted that RIMS-5 had many recommendations and these would need to be considered in parallel with the IMS recommendations. It was agreed that IMS policy development in the RMCSS would provide guidance on how ISMS policies are developed.

58. In response to a query on participation at workshops like the RIMS, the Secretariat advised that whilst the selection of candidates was done at the national level, it was important that suitable candidates participate actively, especially in technical meetings that involve ICT standards and development which must be satisfied at the national level.

59. MCSWG noted that a strategy was being developed and RIMS-4 had tasked the Secretariat to recruit an expert to work with the Secretariat in progressing the development of this strategy which related to RMCSS Objective 2.2.

60. The Secretariat will conduct an IMS review and the findings, together with that from the ISMS review, will progress the development of the regional IMS strategy.

Agenda Item 13 (b) - RIMF-2 Update

61. The Secretariat presented an update on the Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF).

62. MCSWG noted recent developments of the RIMF-2 and the current work by the Secretariat in improving the system. Over the coming 12 months, the Secretariat will work on the following:

Continue to migrate Members’ information to RIMF-2 and roll out new modules for MCS, NTIS and FQD;

Continue working with FSM and Samoa on the BOJAK rollout and later to other Members. This work focussed consolidating FFA IM products and the introduction of an industry portal; and

Undertaking an ICT infrastructure upgrade which included work on the installation of a disaster recovery system, completion of Phase 1 of the work involving security of Members’ data stored at the Secretariat, and replication of all data in a back-up data storage system.

63. MCSWG also noted the need to have good control of data, especially at the national level in the construction of national ICT infrastructure. Given that the data sets are stored at various Agencies (FFA, SPC, PNA) it was important to know what security policy and measures to adopt to ensure full control over their national data sets.

64. In response to what policy to adopt at the national level to ensure the data is protected, the Secretariat encouraged Members to adopt an ISMS policy and follow the ISO 27001 standard to manage data.

65. MCSWG commended the Secretariat’s work and supported the resourcing of the RIMF-2 including the trainings required.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC:

(i) Approve the outcomes of RIMS-5, provided in Attachment 3 of the RIMS-5 Record; and

(ii) Note the following:

a) The progress on the coordination and resourcing of RIMF-2 and the national IMS developments;

b) The Continuation of the migration of the NIMS and RIMF to a new consolidated (RIMF-2) platform which is expected to be finalised in the near future, with concern that this work (and associated RIMF-2 development and maintenance) will require dedicated resourcing after the conclusion of the NZIMS Project in June 2019; and

c) The resourcing of the work of the ICT team to continue to upgrade the FFAC ICT infrastructure in the preparation for the Solomon Islands coral sea fibre optic

cable.

Agenda Item 14 - Data Coordination Committee

66. The Secretariat provided a brief overview on the outcomes of the 11th Meeting of the Tuna Fishery Data Collection Committee (DCC-11) held on 20-24 August 2018 in Brisbane, and attended by representatives from SPC, FFA Secretariat, PNAO, WCPFC Secretariat and CCSBT Secretariat. It referred to key issues discussed which included:

Need for recommendations on the ER and EM data standards to be considered by the SPC Heads of Fisheries and FFC meetings;

Need to progress regionally standardized forms with DCC, noting that this task was being implemented in parallel with the on-going work of identifying areas where ER developments and implementation can be progressed; and

Review of the DCC Strategy.

67. MCSWG noted that the increase in focus on electronic data and real time reporting should provide an opportunity for fisheries administrations to also increase their focus on data analysis.

68. One Member advised of their concern with the slow progress towards EM/ER implementation and that they were not moving ahead on this. They proposed that DCC should consider a regional template that could assist Members in moving towards EM and ER implementation.

69. The Secretariat advised that while DCC has a role in facilitating the EM/ER process, it does not consider policy decisions and as such the correct forum to consider these would be the SPC Heads of Fisheries, FFC or WCPFC meetings.

Noting, in particular, the importance of the Data Collection Committee to assist FFA Members implement and transition to electronic reporting and electronic monitoring, MCSWG22 recommended that FFC endorse the DCC11 Record.

Agenda Item 15 – Emerging Technologies

70. The Secretariat provided an overview on new and emerging MCS technologies that were being explored regionally. It provided a brief report on the SAFET Conference held from 13-16 February 2019, Bangkok which was attended by some Members and the Secretariat. The Conference discussed key topics which included; catch documentation and traceability, unmanned surveillance, genetics, biochemical markers, spectrometry, e-monitoring, artificial intelligence and machine learning, integrated satellite imaging & tracking, cryptocurrencies and block-chain, and data management solutions. The key themes of the Conference which were relevant to the Members were:

A comprehensive approach is required to the integration of emerging technology (legal, policy, technical, contextually appropriate);

Importance of standards for data capture, storage, transmission and sharing;

Cost is a major barrier, with a need to consider sustainability and incentives for users;

Some emerging technologies, currently connected to food safety, may have a useful MCS application (e.g. DNA samplers); and

Need to build on existing systems rather than creating new ones.

71. MCSWG noted the need for MCS practitioners and service providers to work together and discuss the technology demands and supply to enable the production of effective tools for MCS purposes.

72. MCSWG also noted several new technologies which could be used by Members to assist in MCS data analysis and these included;

Machine learning which simply uses algorithms and statistical models for computer systems without the use of specific instructions;

UAVs to supplement surveillance capacity which Niue is currently trialling; and Hydrophones as a potential queuing mechanism.

73. MCSWG welcomed the information on new technologies and emphasised the need for Members to be smarter in the assessment of suitable technologies and maximising the opportunities available with new technologies.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) FFA Members undertake a collaborative and measured approach when considering and trialling emerging technologies, particularly through the sharing of information, challenges and successes;

(ii) Members recognise the primary importance of effectively utilising existing technologies, tools and processes prior to adopting emerging technologies; and

(iii) FFC support the Secretariat’s ongoing efforts to integrate machine learning and automated processes into FFA’s regional MCS systems.

Agenda Item 16 – KIOST project

74. The Secretariat provided an overview of the KIOST project which started in 2016. The project was financially supported by the Korean Institute of Ocean Science (KIOST) to support FFA’s exploration of remote sensing, including commercial satellite imagery, to support FFA’s MCS framework. The project has two key objectives:

Capacity development of staff understanding and engaging with SAR technology; and

Interaction opportunities for Members as part of regional operations.

75. MCSWG noted invaluable contribution of the project in providing a useful platform for the integration of SAR into the Regional Surveillance Picture and to facilitate targeted asset deployment.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC endorse the continuation of the “Remote Sensing Surveillance System for Supporting IUU Fishing Control Activities” project, noting the benefits and potential future application of satellite technology to Members’ MCS efforts.Agenda Item 17 – Review of the HMTCs

(a) Crewing and labour conditions

76. The Secretariat presented recommendations to amend the Harmonised Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) to include conditions for fishing vessel crew. The purpose of the amendment was to improve working conditions on fishing vessels operating in Members’ waters and increase employment opportunities. This can be achieved by adopting crewing regulations within the international context as there is

more global awareness of human rights issues on fishing vessels, taking into account social responsibility and market demands.

77. The Director-General informed that FFC welcomed the work to date, however, there was general agreement that employment opportunities for FFA nationals should be a priority. The HMTCs promote regional cooperation, set standards and rules for fishing, including minimum requirements for compliance.

78. FAO are also considered the same issue but based on due diligence by all stakeholders in the value chain. The support from PITIA to influence change in the criteria for MSC certification associated with crewing standards was noted.

79. MCSWG supported the proposal to include crew conditions and employment in the HMTCs and recognised that this might require amendments to legislation. The approach should focus on basic human right issues to form part of the conditions of employment and that this is applied to all fishing vessels. The proposal to impose minimum number and wage of crew was considered important but this may conflict with current legislation in some Members and would require further internal consultations.

80. MCSWG also considered the need to address the following:

Seaworthiness of vessels as it links to crew safety; Duration of fishing trips to ensure crew were not at sea for unnecessary

extended period; Defining the phrase ‘proper accommodation’ in legislation to clarify the

standard required; Responsibility of recruiting agencies and maintenance of current crew list; and Implication of applying the proposal on all vessels and the potential of

increased non-compliance, non-renewal or termination of licence and reduction of government revenue.

81. MCSWG recognised that whilst the HMTCs provide regional minimum standards, Members can impose higher standards.

82. The Secretariat provided a draft crewing conditions for discussion.

83. MCSWG spent considerable time discussing the draft conditions. It noted several concerns which included the prescriptive nature of the draft conditions which may invite different interpretations and the potential for oppositions, the need to ensure that the high standard of conditions already implemented by some Members were not eroded by providing leverage to DWFNs in relying on the minimum standards in the HMTCs, the implication on Members which have different priorities and whether they should be bound by the new conditions, and whether the HMTC provides a sufficient framework given that labour issues are decided not by the fisheries departments but by other arms of government such as the labour department. MCSWG also discussed whether the proposed conditions should form part of the MCS provisions in the HMTCs or become a separate provision.

84. The Secretariat clarified the authority of MCSWG and the process of approval, advising that the MCSWG is a sub-committee of the FFC and does not have the

powers to make decisions. But its recommendations, including any proposed amendments to the MTCs, will be submitted for approval by FFC.

(c) Additional licensing information

85. The Secretariat provided an update on the HMTCs following the adoption of few amendments by the FFC106 in 2018 and a proposal for additional amendments based on the 2019 FLOW outcomes and the recent discussion on the crewing and labour conditions in the previous agenda item.

86. MCSWG noted the following amendments which were adopted earlier by FFC106:

• New subparagraph (e) in paragraph 8, which requires the operator to provide: (i) a copy of the insurance coverage policy for an observer; and (ii) the associated certificates of currency for that policy to the observer provider and national fisheries authorities whom the vessels are licensed to fish in;

• The amendment to subparagraph 2.5 in Annex 4, which now include other Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) and related Organisations IUU Lists as to crosscheck fishing vessels against before granting good standing. Additionally, the provision, allows for the FFA to automatically reject any application for a vessel that is listed on one of the IUU lists; and

• New subparagraph 2.7 in Annex 4, to require all vessels that have UVI/IMO number to submit this when applying for Good Standing on the FFA Vessel Register.

87. MCSWG further noted that additional amendments were discussed and supported by the last FLOW held in March 2019 which included:

• Amend Annex 4, para 10.1, so as to make it clearer on the requirement for licensing information to be provided to FFA; and

• Further amend Annex 4, para 10.1. to add a new sub-section on crewing and labour conditions and to include a proposal for a minimum number of crew and wages, treatment of crew, list of crew and a new definition of ‘qualified crew’.

88. MCSWG noted the amount of data to be provided by Operators and whether there will be attempts to link these with other strategies, noting that additional data on the POI are also required. The Secretariat recognised the potential for duplication of the data provided but this will be addressed when agreement is reached on the minimum data requirements.

MCSWG22 recommended that the proposed amendments to the HMTCs, as agreed by MCSWG22, be endorsed by FFC. The agreed amendments are provided in Attachment 4.

Agenda Item 18 – NTIS Training

89. The Secretariat provided the outcomes of the NTIS-2 workshop held in Honiara from 25 – 29 March 2019 at which participants were provided training to access and enter data into the notification templates in the NTIS.

90. MCSWG noted the advanced progress of the NTIS and tasked the Secretariat to progress the work based on feedback obtained with a view to fully operationalise the NTIS by May 2019 in the next meeting of the parties of the NTSA. Although the NTIS was not fully operational yet, parties will continue to use existing NTIS processes, including emails and paper notifications.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC endorse the outcomes of the NTIS-2 workshop. The outcomes are provided in Attachment 5.

Agenda Item 20 – Report on Regional Operations

91. The Secretariat presented a report on RFSC activities since 2018, advising that a total of four operations were in 2018 which included personnel and assets provided by the Quadrilateral Partners (QUADs) - Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States, as well as other Agencies such as AFMA, NMCC-NZ, NOAA-USA, MPI of NZ, MBC of Australia, USCG and the Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centre (Pacific). A summary of the activities was provided:

Collaborative efforts with the National Headquarters (NHQ) of all Members saw the deployment of 33 Pacific Patrol Boats (PPB), 5 QUAD ships, 17 QUAD aircraft and 3 contracted Pacific Maritime Surveillance Program (PMSP) civilian aircraft. The operations resulted in 730 electronic detections, 318 sightings and 277 boardings;

Regional operations/exercises were carried out which included a Fleet Concentration Period involving Kiribati, Tuvalu and Republic of Marshall Islands. Operation SOLVAN (Solomon Islands and Vanuatu), Operation Frigate Bird (Nauru and Kiribati), Operation Tautai (Cook Islands, Kiribati and French Polynesia. These operations were supported by the QUADs partners; and

There was full introduction of the PMSP Regional Aerial Surveillance Program (RASP) with the provision of two Beechcraft King Air aircraft for use by Members.

92. MCSWG noted the value of regional cooperation in these operations and the need to continue the activities within the NTSA framework. The responsibility of the RFSC in this work extends beyond the duration of these operations as the monitoring of MCS activities continues throughout the year.

93. MCSWG commended the work of the Secretariat and supported the continuation of the RFSC activities, including the continued assessment of the RFSC performance.

MCSWG22 recommended that Members:

(i) Support RFSC’s role in planning and conducting of the four regional MCS operations;

(ii) Support the ongoing implementation of the Regional Aerial Surveillance Programme;

(iii) Commit to improve communications between NHQs and the RFSC during operations, including timely submission of Patrol Plans and Air Task Requests; and

(iv) Submit information regarding infringements during the operations and post-operation prosecution outcomes to the RFSC.

Agenda Item 21 – Overview Risk/Analysis-Hot spot mapping

94. The Secretariat provided an overview of the risk analysis assessment of the hot spot mapping using VMS data and explained that the primary purpose of this work is assist in planning and deploying surveillance assets more effectively.

95. MCSWG noted the positive contribution of heat maps in MCS operations, noting that these are derived from vessel pictures showing their density by area and by attributes such as vessel types and flags. Other information and data are used and these included historical FAD location and historical catch and effort data accessed from SPC. Heat maps can also be generated for vessel movements to reflect past activities and predict ‘hot spots’ to focus on for air and sea surveillance activities. Real time VMS data together with catch historical data can also assist in determining priority areas for air surveillance across the region.

96. MCSWG also noted that risk analysis assessment in regional operations is minimal therefore supported the need to continue to use heat maps to supplement and strengthen current MCS activities.

MCSWG22, acknowledging the contribution of heat maps to inform targeted MCS activities and recommended that Members utilise this product to support their MCS activities.

Agenda Item 22 – Update on Regional Aerial Surveillance Programme

97. The Secretariat provided an update on the Regional Aerial Surveillance Programme (RASP) which is a 30-year commitment by Australia in assisting with the monitoring of fishing activities in the region by providing aerial surveillance to detect IUU fishing. The programme will involve about 1,400 flying hours during the operations as well as and additional surveillance tasks that may be requested by Members. The primary communication exchange points for the programme were noted. These included an appointed Air Tasking Officer (ATO) at the national level whose role is the primary contact for formal request of the flight service and clearance of flight schedules for the operation. Within the Secretariat, the FFA ATO will determine the aircraft availability and liaise with the Air Liaison Officer (ALO) to determine the flight plans.

98. MCSWG discussed the programme activities, including the operations of a designated FFA aircraft, the appointment of staff in the Secretariat and at the national level to support implementation, national processes for clearance of flight schedules for the operations and the conclusion of MOUs between the Secretariat and each Member to clarify the specific tasks and roles of the stakeholders. Only 3 Members (Marshall Islands, Palau and Samoa) have concluded the MOU. Other Members were encouraged to conclude the MOU and seek the Secretariat’s assistance if required.

99. MCSWG noted that the information and data obtained during the operations are analysed by the Secretariat and the findings are forwarded to Members involved for enforcement action if required. Although the surveillance product is the intellectual property of Australia, the data collected is owned by a Member in whose waters such data was collected, and would only be accessed with the approval of that Member. The challenges of the programme were also noted and these included, limit of aircraft coverage, non-availability of fuel depots in certain ports, technical maintenance of the aircraft and internet connectivity, short notice requests and general implementation of the search and rescue (SAR) obligations, need for wider public awareness.

100. MCSWG supported the RASP initiative and encouraged Members to support the activities and noted that formal invitations had been made to designate the point of contact for the programme. Development of the Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) for the programme is underway with a draft already circulated for comments to be made by the 30th April 2019.

MCSWG noted the update on the Regional Aerial Surveillance Programme, the scheduling and related operational issues identified, the opportunities and interaction with the NTSA, and the review of the SOP with comments expected from the Members by the 30th April 2019.

Agenda Item 23 – RMCSS IUU Indicators

101. The Secretariat presented the RMCSS 2018-2023 indicators, noting that the RMCSS was formally endorsed at FFC106 in May 2018. For the first time, the indicators were populated using information sources which included the data provided by Members, SPC and those held by the FFA Secretariat since 2017. The role of the Quantification of IUU study was emphasised and the challenges faced were explained which included inconsistencies in the way data is collected, different interpretations and deficiencies in some indicators. Wider consultations were done in the development of RMCSS but some improvements are required to ensure the work is less burdensome.

102. The Secretariat advised that MRAG participated in this work by examining how the indicators can be improved and explaining the attributes of good performance indicators which may include the following:

• Meaningful and insightful – linked to key interest and sensitive to change;• Specific and measurable – precise and allow unambiguous monitoring;• Practical and feasible – readily available, not burdensome to collect; and• Reliable and replicable – able to be consistently measured across time and

States.

103. These attributes could be used to guide the work in the development of national strategies and performance indicators to monitor progress in the implementation of such strategies. Some guidelines in this work were discussed which included:

• Implementing a clear MCS continuous improvement framework with an annual monitoring cycle and 5-year planning cycle;

• Streamlining and reconfiguration of performance indicators to achieve outcome-based performance indicators;

• Reporting requirements were harmonised with performance indicators to maximise efficiency.

104. MCSWG discussed the opportunity provided in the RMCSS and the need to focus on obtaining baseline information in the first year of implementation and continued improvements over the years through a process of monitoring and evaluation.

105. MCSWG supported the work of the Secretariat but noted that more discussion on the matter was required.

MCSWG22 recommended that FFC endorse the RMCSS’ continuous improvement cycle. This will ensure the Secretariat and Members continue to effectively implement, monitor and review the existing RCMSS, while also assessing the nature, scope and value of IUU fishing in Pacific tuna fisheries to inform future MCS strategies and policies.

Agenda Item 24: Marine Domain Awareness

106. The Secretariat presented an overview on developments in regional security through Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) and highlighted the following:

Forum Leaders recognized the increase and complex security environment in the region in which threats cut across sectors and extend beyond national jurisdictions, and called for strengthening of information sharing;

Existing mechanisms and systems for exchange of information, and tools available to address IUU fishing (including through the RFSC and NTSA) can enhance MDA and address other transnational crimes;

The Regional Security Information Sharing (RSIS) workshop held in April 2018 agreed on regional principles that recognized the importance of data ownership, data security and data sharing to enhance implementation of the BOE Security Declaration of 2018;

The NTSA’s contribution in fisheries data sharing for broader law enforcement purposes and in providing a legal framework that could be developed for more effective information sharing;

Establishment of a Pacific Fusion Center (PFC) which builds on current regional frameworks to strengthen information sharing and the funding support by Australia. Current work included consultations on the design and set-up, independent feasibility study which reinforced the RSIS principles on data sharing, need to complement (not duplicate) existing efforts in data analysis capacity, and establishment of a Reference Group (comprised of representatives from the Members) to drive the PFC work;

107. INTERPOL made a presentation on its work which focuses on international coordination of police services and intelligent networking. It advised of its color coding system similar to the POI categorizing system where:

Red Code is similar to POI Category One persons wanted by national jurisdiction to serve sentence with a view for extradition;

Blue Code is similar to POI Category 2 and 3 type persons; and Purple Code Notice describes modus operandi and includes advice on vessels

that may be of interest due to drug trafficking, people smuggling, etc.

108. INTERPOL’s areas of assistance include facilitating information and intelligence exchange between members, investigative support teams and operational trainings for fisheries crimes investigators. The 2018 INTERPOL International Law Enforcement Cooperation in the Fisheries Sector provides guides on assistance to address IUU fishing and associated crimes.

109. MCSWG recognised the interaction between the work of INTERPOL and the NTSA, especially on data sharing in addressing illegal activities such as illegal trade of endangered species and the opportunity to enhance the PFC’s objectives. Non-INTERPOL members may seek assistance and act on the advice as their national laws permit.

110. MCSWG noted that the objective of the PFC is to address data gaps and add value to existing efforts to address security needs in the region by establishing better data sharing and coordination processes.

MCSWG22 recommended the Secretariat to be tasked to stay abreast with the maritime domain awareness developments, including the establishment of the Pacific Fusion Centre and to provide an update to MCSWG23.

Agenda Item 25 – PEUMP Overview of MCS Components

111. The Secretariat presented an overview of the PEUMP programme which is a 5-year programme funded by the EU under EDF 11, started in 2018 and will end in October 2022. Its objective is to “improve the economic, social and environmental benefits for 15 Pacific ACP States (P-ACPs) arising from stronger regional economic integration and the sustainable management of natural resources and the environment.” The programme provides direct assistance to regional organisations (SPC, FFA, SPREP, and USP) in six Key Result Areas (KRAs). The FFA Secretariat is responsible for two KRAs:

KRA 2 (Inclusive economic benefits from sustainable tuna fishing increased through supporting competent authorities and strengthening private sector capacities to create decent employment), and

KRA 4 (IUU fishing reduced through enhanced MCS of both oceanic and coastal fisheries; improved legislation; access to information; and effective marine area management).

112. MCSWG noted that PEUMP MCS activities are being implemented through the work programme of the Fisheries Operations Division (FOD) and other projects such

as the OFPM-2, World Bank PROP and the NZ PSM and CDS projects currently administered by the FFA Secretariat.

113. MCSWG recognised the contribution of the PEUMP towards the improvement of MCS systems and asked the Secretariat to provide a checklist of the type of assistance available under the programme for Members’ wider awareness.

114. PITIA expressed appreciation for the assistance available under the PEUMP programme and encouraged Members to advise their domestic fishing associations about the assistance.

MCSWG22 supported the on-going implementation of the PEUMP MCS component, noted that the project is a high priority in maintaining and building MCS capacity, and recommended that Members identify national priority activities requiring support from the project.

Agenda Item 26 – Port State Measures

115. The Secretariat presented an overview of key recent regional developments on the Port State Measures (PSM) and highlighted the outcomes of the second Regional Port Monitoring Workshop (RPMW-2) held from 4-8 March 2019 in Honiara. The major outcome was the development of a Draft Regional PSM Framework which key elements are provided:

Port entry request and authorisation process requires minimum information before port entry permission is granted;

When non-compliance or IUU fishing is suspected, Port States should prioritise permitting port entry for the purposes of inspection rather than denying port entry;

Vessels are required to provide a notice of port entry and where the fish was caught to the coastal States and flag State;

116. Other outcomes included the need for the Secretariat to assist in the development and review of national PSM Strategies, the details of the PSM process, the link to the RMCSS, the importance of different data sources to inform the risk assessment process, such as coastal State’s information in determining the legality of catch and vessel information on areas fished and supplemented by authorisation to fish from Port States.

117. MCSWG noted the need to improve the template for implementation of the PSM at the national level by adding new columns to capture additional information such as target dates. The need to have in place data-sharing agreements/arrangements before the PSM is implemented was noted.

118. MCSWG also noted the potential for contradiction of the guidelines between the RMCSS and the PSM work plans where the RMCSS outlines development of regional PSM standards while the PSM project undertakes to develop a regional PSM framework. Further discussion will be arranged between the Secretariat, Members and the PSM Project donor to address the problem.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) Members note the direct linkages to the Catch Documentation and Enhancing Compliance in Pacific Tuna Fisheries (CDEC) Project;

(ii) FFC endorse the Regional PSM guiding Framework developed during the 2nd Regional Port Monitoring Workshop to inform future project activities and implementation;

(iii) Members continue to actively participate and engage in the PIPSM project, including through the ongoing identification of key areas of national interest, in order to ensure maximum benefits to the FFA membership;

(iv) FFC endorse the outcomes of the 2nd Regional Port Monitoring workshop; and

(v) Members continue to actively participate in the FAO technical working groups and meetings on PSMA issues and implementation.

Agenda Item 27 – CDS Project

119. The Secretariat provided an update on the CDS project funded by New Zealand. This is a 5-year project which complements the PSM in combatting IUU, improve traceability and improve market access requirements. Some work had been done to assist in identifying elements for a regional framework within which national work can be developed.

120. The Secretariat further explained the CDS implementation at the global level which included the FAO’s voluntary guidelines for CDS (VG-CDS) and similar work by the IATTC. CDS implementation is complex and Members were encouraged to participate in the project to enable delivery of the activities at the national. Such project activities included electronically based monitoring which verifies and validates catches and adds values to existing MCS systems.

121. MCSWG noted the experience of PNG in the implementation of the CDS which recognised monitoring of fishing activities as the major challenge and the need to set up a monitoring regime for transhipment. The regime would include training of Observers on transhipment processes at sea and at port, general understanding of key legislation for enforcement, and the involvement of Industry in the training. A harmonised approach to implementation of the CDS was emphasised.

122. MCSWG also noted the need for collaboration with regional bodies and stakeholders to ensure compatibility of operating systems to implement the CDS, especially at the national level.

123. The Secretariat presented the draft definition of the regional e-CDS framework for discussion and advised that it will continue to work on the WCPFC CDS draft standards based on Members’ feedback on how to proceed with it.

MCSWG22 recommended that:

(i) Members note the direct linkages between CDEC and the PIPSM project activities;

(ii) Supported the draft definition of a Regional e-CDS framework to inform future CDEC project activities and implementation; and

(iii) Members note the various areas of the CDEC project requiring Members’ active participation and engagement, including ongoing identification of key areas of national interest, in order to ensure maximum benefits to the FFA membership.

Agenda Item 28 – WCPFC MCS Issues & Developing Priorities for TCC14

124. MCSWG discussed this matter in closed session.

Agenda Item 29 – WCPFC CMR and Part 2

125. WCPFC led a Closed session for Members on WCPFC reporting requirements.

126. The Secretariat thanked WCPFC for the valuable information that came out of the session and encouraged Members to work with the Commission concerning their reporting needs.

Agenda Item - 30 CMR

127. MCSWG discussed this matter in closed session.

Agenda Item 31 - Regional Training Updates

128. The FFA Secretariat provided an update on the various FFA-led regional training events in 2018. There were 28 MCS related trainings conducted, involving a total of 602 participants of which 130 were females. Update on the Fisheries Officers Leadership Programme currently underway in 2019 was also provided.

129. SPC presented a brief on the SPC Certificate IV Course for Coastal which is based on the FFA MCS Certificate IV Course, but focussed on Coastal fisheries. The course involved 16 students in Cohort 1 and 30 students in Cohort 2. It further advised of the seafood safety training available for Members and the potential for development of a similar course for voluntary fish wardens which is being discussed internally.

130. MCSWG noted the need for the Secretariat to provide the trainings schedule in the year ahead to assist in planning for participation by the Members. The Secretariat advised that a web-page on FFA trainings is being developed on the FFA website which will assist Members in accessing the information directly. The information will also include funding arrangements and details of the trainings.

131. MCSWG also noted the successful observer training under the PIRFO conducted in Samoa and the high rating accorded to the training which will encourage local institutions to deliver the same training at the national level.

MCSWG22 recommended that the FFA Secretariat provide Members with an annual training schedule to assist with Members’ and the Secretariat’s training scheduling and planning.

Agenda Item 32 – Outcomes and Recommendations

132. The Secretariat provided the draft outcomes and recommendations in a single set of documents based on the discussion. It advised that the draft record of proceedings will be circulated later for consideration out of session.

MCSWG22 adopted the recommendations and agreed to consider for adoption the draft Summary Record of Proceedings out of sessions.

Agenda Item 23 - Closing

133. The meeting was closed with remarks from the FFA Director-General in which she thanked the participants for their constructive contribution and the positive outcomes.

Agenda Item 24 - Next Meeting

134. The next meeting will be held in Honiara, Solomon Islands. The Secretariat will advise the dates and other logistical arrangements when these have been confirmed.

Attachment 1

PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY22nd MCS Working Group Workshop (MCSWG22)

Honiara, Solomon Islands

1-5 April 2019

AUSTRALIA

Mr Fraser McEachanManager, Int’l Compliance PolicyAFMAfraser.mceachan@afma.gov.au

Ms Emily LawsonSenior Policy OfficerAFMAemily.lawson@afma.gov.au

Ms Sophie FisherAg. Assistant Director – Pacific Security CooperationDFATsophie.fisher@dfat.go.au

Mr Mark ShrewsburyAnalyst - Pacific Security CooperationDFATmark.shrewsbury@dfat.gov.au

COOK ISLANDS

Ms Latisha MauiObserver CoordinatorL.Maui@mmr.gov.ck

Mr Andrew JonesMCS & Licensing Managera.jones@mmr.gov.ck

FIJI

Mr Rupeni DranivesiFisheries OfficerMinistry of Fisheriesdranivesi.rupeni@gmail.com

Mr Bolatagane Soronakadavusoronakadavu.bolatagane@gmail.com

FSM

Mr Justino HelgenActing Assistant Director – ComplianceNORMAjustino.helgen@norma.fm

Mr Mohammed KuttyAsst Attorney General – DOJmchuuk.fsm@gmail.com

Mr Mathew ChigiyalDeputy DirectorNORMAmathew.chigiyal@norma.fm

Mr Tosuo Irons JnrObserver DebrieferNORMAtusuojr.irons@norma.fm

Ms Sarah LenelFisheries Compliance Adviserlenelsarah@gmail.com

KIRIBATI

Ms Mbwenea TeiokiPrincipal Compliance OfficerMFMRDmbweneat@mfmrd.gov.ki

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Mr Helmar LejjenaVMS/Compliance OfficerMIMRAhlejjena@mimra.com

Mr Samuel K LanwiDeputy DirectorMIMRAskljr@mimra.com

Mr Laurence E. Edwards IILegal AdvisorMIMRAledwards@mimra.com

NAURU

Mr Malgram DowaboboAssistant Observer CoordinatorMFMRmdowabobo@gmail.com

Mr Dominic ReweruAssistant Catch Data OfficerMFMRdomreweru3@gmail.com

Mr Ace CapelleSenior FisheriesNFMRAacecapelle@gmail.com

NEW ZEALAND

Mr Steve LockSenior Compliance AnalystMPISteve.Lock@mpi.govt.nz

Ms Justine DuderPacific Fisheries AdvisorMPIJustine.Duder@mpi.govt.nz

Mr Jeff DunlopPacific Fisheries AdvisorMPIJeff.Dunlop@mpi@govt.nz

Mr Mark NicholsonPacific Fisheries AdvisorMPIMark.Nicholson@mpi.govt.nz

NIUE

Mr Launoa GatauaActing Principal Fisheries OfficerDAFFlaunoa.gataua@mail.gov.nu

PALAU

Mr McQuiston TemolCompliance Officermcquiston.temol@gmail.com

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Ms Glenda BarryCompliance OfficerNFAgbarry@fisheries.gov.pg

Mr Adrian NanguromoManager – Observer ProgramNFAananguromo@fisheries.gov.pg

28

Ms Martina RagagaloManager – ComplianceNFAmragagalo@fisheries.gov.pg

Mr Alois KinolManager – CDSNFAakinol@fisheries.gov.pg

SAMOA

Mr Yohni FepuleaiSenior Fisheries OfficerMAFyohni.fili@gmail.com

Mr Tai TapuInspector – Policetait.tapu684@gmail

SOLOMON ISLANDS

Ms Nester NalanguMFMRNNalangu@fisheries.gov.sb

Ms Jan Oli PituCFO – Offshore ManagementMFMRjpitu@fisheries.gov.sb

Mr Marsh MaebiruSenior Fisheries OfficerMFMRMMaebiru@fisheries.gov.sb

Ms Bethlyn EteSFO – LicenceMFMRBEte@fisheries.gov.sb

Mr Francis TofuakaloDDOMFMRFTofuakalo@fisheries.gov.sb

TOKELAU

Mr Solomua IonatanaFisheries Access ManagerTFMAtualen@gmail.com

TONGA

Ms Losaline Lotoa’aheaPrincipal Fisheries Officer – ComplianceMinistry of Fisherieslosilini@gmail.com

Mr Poasi NgaluafeDeputy CEO – ComplianceMinistry of Fisheriespoasi@tongafish.gov.to

TUVALU

Mr Manuao TaufiloSenior Fisheries Officer - MCSMNRmtaufilo@gmail.com

Mr Saifoloi TalesiVMS OfficerMNRkctsaifoloi@gmail.com

Mr Tupulaga PoulasiPrincipal Fisheries OfficerMNRtupulagap@tuvalufisheries.tv

VANUATU

Mr Yakar SilasMinistry of Fisheriesysilas@vanuatu.gov.vu

29

OBSERVERS

Mr John MaefitiExecutive SecretaryPITIAjmaefiti@pacifictuna.org

Mr Ian FreemanCoastal MCS AdviserSPCianf@spc.int

Ms Ariella D’AndreaCoastal Legal AdviserSPCAriellad@spc.int

M Malakai VakautawalerMaritime Boundaries AdviserGEM, SPC

Mr Filimoni YayaGeo-Spatial Technical OfficerGEM, SPC

Ms Ana TaholoAssistant Compliance ManagerWCPFCana.taholo@wcpfc.int

Mr Alfred ’Bubba’ CookWWFa.cook@wwf.org.nz

Mr Stuart BebanCriminal Intelligence AnalystINTERPOLs.beban@interpol.int

Ms Aurelie Buthod-GarconLegal PractitionerINTERPOL

Mr Terry BooneVMS Program ManagerNOAA Office of Law Enforcementterry.boone@noaa.gov

Ms Martina SagapoluDeputy Special Agent in ChargeNOAA Office of Law Enforcementmartina.sagapolu@noaa.gov

Mr James LandonDirectorNOAA Office of Law Enforcementjames.landon@noaa.gov

Mr Pete SouthernAdvisorFisheries MCS and EnforcementInternational Fisheries Compliance Specialistlobztar1@gmail.com

FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY

Dr Manu Tupou-RoosenDirector-Generalmanu.tupou-roosen@ffa.int

Mr Matt HooperDeputy Director-Generalmatt.hooper@ffa.int

Mr Allan RahariDirector Fisheries Operationsallan.rahari@ffa.int

Mr Pio ManoaLegal Counselpio.manoa@ffa.int

Mr Sakaio ManoaManager, ITsakaio.manoa@ffa.int

30

Mr Kaburoro RuiaMultilateral Treaty Managerkaburoro.ruaia@ffa.int

Mr Ramesh ChandVMS Managerramesh.chand@ffa.int

Mr Len RodwellFisheries Development Adviserlen.rodwell@ffa.int

Mr Ano TisamTVM-SAano.tisam@ffa.int

Mr Bryan ScottDatabase Administratorbryan.scott@ffa.int

Ms Kasipo TeoLegal Officerkasipo.teo@ffa.int

Mr Tion NabauLegal Officertion.nabau@ffa.int

Mr Tevita TupouCoordinator, RASPtevita.tupou@ffa.int

Mr Steve MasikaAir Surveillance Program Officersteve.masika@ffa.int

Commander JJ WilliamsSurveillance Operations Officerjj.williams@ffa.int

Mr Dennis YehilomoMCS Analystdennis.yehilomo@ffa.int

Ms Allison DelvendiepTraining Adviserallison.delvendiep@ffa.int

Mr Vivian FernandesCompliance Policy Adviservivian.fernandes@ffa.int

Mr Peter GrahamMCS Policy Adviserpeter.graham@ffa.int

Ms Luisa TagicakibauProj. Admin. Officer (NZ Activities)luisa.tagicakibau@ffa.int

Ms Anama SolofaPUMP-Fisheries Policy Specialist & Team Leaderanama.solofa@ffa.int

31

Attachment 2

PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY22ND MCS WORKING GROUP MEETING

FFA Secretariat Conference CentreHoniara, SOLOMON ISLANDS

1 – 5 April 2019

Provisional Agenda

MONDAY 1st April 2019ITEM AGENDA TIMES1 Opening of Meeting (0830-0840)2 Election of Chair (0840-0850)3 Adoption of Agenda (0850-0900)4 Setting the scene (0900-1000)

STOP IUU Fishing Award presentation and video

Review MCSWG21 meeting outcomes

MORNING TEA – Group Photo (1000-1030)

5 Regional MCS Strategy (1030-1230)LUNCH (1230-1330)

Regional standards for effective MCS systems6 FLOW Outcomes (1330-1415)7 ROCW Outcomes (1415-1500)

AFTERNOON TEA (1500-1530)

8 Person of Interest Strategy (1530-1615)9 Electronic Monitoring (1615-1700)

TUESDAY 2nd April 2019ITEM AGENDA TIMES

Quality information is available for IUU risk assessment and MCS activity planning

10 VMS / FFA Vessel Register (0830-0930)11 Maritime Boundaries (0930 – 1000)

MORNING TEA (1000-1030)

12 Transhipment developments and priorities (1030-1230)

LUNCH (1230-1330)

13 IMS RIMF updates (1330-1415)14 Data Collection Committee (DCC) (1415-1500)

AFTERNOON TEA (1500-1530)

15 Emerging Technologies (1530-1615)16 KIOST Project update (1615-1700)

WEDNESDAY 3rd April 2019ITEM AGENDA TIMES17 Review of the HMTCs (0830-0930)

18 NTIS Training Report (0930-1000)

MORNING TEA (1000-1030)

19 TBC (1030-1130)

Procedures established and operationalised to conduct effective MCS activities

20 RFSC - Operations and Activities (1130-1230)LUNCH (1230-1330)

21 Risk analysis / Hot-spot mapping (1330-1415)22 Aerial Surveillance Programme (1415-1500)

AFTERNOON TEA (1500-1530)

23 RMCSS IUU Indicators (1530-1700)

THURSDAY 4th April 2019ITEM AGENDA TIMES24 Maritime Domain Awareness (0830-0930)

(BOE Declaration)(Pacific Fusion Centre development)(INTERPOL Global Fisheries Enforcement)

25 PEUMP update (0915-1000)

MORNING TEA (1000-1030)

26 Port State Measures (1030-1130)27 Catch Documentation Scheme (1130-1230)

LUNCH (1230-1330)

28 WCPFC MCS Issues & developing priorities for TCC15 (1330-1430)(Closed Session – FFA MEMBERS ONLY)

29 WCPFC CMR and Part 2 (1430-1500)(Closed Session – FFA MEMBERS ONLY)

AFTERNOON TEA (1500-1530)

WCPFC CMR and Part 2 CONTINUED…. (1530-1700)(Closed Session – FFA MEMBERS ONLY)

FRIDAY 23RD March 2018ITEM AGENDA TIMES30 CMR (0830-1000)

(Closed Session – FFA MEMBERS ONLY)

MORNING TEA (1000-1030)

31 Regional Training updates (1030-1115)

32 TBC (1115-1200)

LUNCH (1200-1330)33 Clearing recommendations and (1330-1500)

meeting Summary Record of Proceedings

34 Closing of Meeting (1500-

Attachment 3

Outcomes and Recommendations

1. IMS COUNTRY REPORT – SUMMARISE ISSUES / BENEFITSRIMS5 noted the ongoing challenges with developing national information management systems, particularly due to the growing complexity involved in managing offshore fisheries and the associated information management.

RIMS5 proposed that the Secretariat takes into consideration the key issues and potential solutions that Members have identified with their Information Management Systems when developing additional data collection applications/modules for their individual requirements.

RIMS5 highlighted the key benefits from developing regional standards to streamline data collection and management across the membership and supported the FFA Secretariat and SPC to prioritise this work during the RMCSS implementation period (until 2023).

2. FFA ISMS OVERVIEW / NATIONAL ISMSRIMS5: (i) Noted the information security concerns raised by Members; and(ii) Encouraged Members to work with the Secretariat in addressing their information security concerns.

3. RIMF2 UPDATERIMS5:(i) Expressed its appreciation to the Government of New Zealand for providing funding support for the project for the last 5 years;(ii) Supported the continuation of the project with substitute funding support to be identified and agreed by the Secretariat; and(iii) Supported the RIMF2 work priorities identified by the Secretariat for the next 3 to 6 months when the current project funding ends.

4. FISHERIES HELPDESK (SLACK)RIMS5:

RIMS5 WORKSHOP

Honiara, Solomon Islands21-22 March 2019

(i) Noted the importance of integration of data and information, and available fisheries helpdesk tools to support this objective which included the Slack system;(ii) Encouraged Members to utilise the Slack system to complement their communications with regional fisheries organisations (such as FFA and SPC); and(iii) Encouraged Members to liaise with the Secretariat for further technical assistance on how to effectively use the Slack system.

5. MCS MODULE TRAININGRIMS5:(i) Supported ongoing training on the MCS module; and(ii) Proposed that the Secretariat roll out this type of training in-country as part of the Secretariat’s tasks under national SLAs.

6. REGIONAL PSM UPDATE / CDS UPDATERIMS5:Noted the outcomes of the FFA PSM/CDS workshop held in March 2019 in Honiara, in particular:(i) Develop implementation tools for a regional CDS framework; and(ii) Develop mechanisms to implement national CDS strategies and tools that incorporate theadoption and use of emerging technologies.

7. FLOW UPDATERIMS5:Supported the ICT related outcomes of the FLOW workshop held recently in Honiara.

8. Challenges accepting industrial data in TUFMAN 2RIMS5:Identified the need for national fisheries administrations to assess the current deployment of e-reporting systems among their national fleet (domestic and chartered) for potential import in TUFMAN2; such import will depend on the provider capacity to produce regional standard data.

9. DCC and ER: More than simply forms to XML - DCC UPDATERIMS5:(i) Noted the importance of establishing regional data exchange standards to ensure that data fields and formats are standardized across applicable systems to facilitate efficient data exchange; and(ii) Acknowledged and support the value of the FFA/SPC Data Collection Committee (DCC) having a DCC technical subcommittee tasked with, inter alia, the development, review and updates of data exchange standards for electronic systems, consistent with agreed regional forms/requirements.

10. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

RIMS5:Noted the benefits of the Secretariat undertaking capacity building on product development processes (that identifies the various technological, procedural and policies related matters to be taken into consideration) with the Members first before initiating development of any new data collection applications/modules.

11. WHAT’S NEXT?RIMS5:Encouraged Members to fully utilise the opportunity provided in the SLAs between the Secretariat and to specify clearly what they want to incorporate in the next 5 years for priority action by the Secretariat.

Attachment 4

Proposal 1 – To amend Annex 4, sub-paragraph 10.1 (proposed amendments are in italics and underlined).

10.1. Each member shall provide to the Director-General with details of registration or licence numbers, as applicable, effective dates for licences or registrations and appropriate vessel identification. The Table 1 below provides a list of minimum national fishing license information data fields required to be sent to the Director-General. The license information data is to be provided by the member states, initially at the beginning of the year and each time there is an update. Table 1: Fishing License Data Fields

List of minimum national fishing license information data fields required to be sent to the Director-General.

Table 1:

Proposed Regional Standard License Data Fields

Name of Fishing Vessel

FFA Vessel Register ID number

International Radio Call Sign

Flag of vessel

Licence Number

Licence Start Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Licence End Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Name of the Licence Holder

Full address of the Licence Holder

IMO number

Any Specific Conditions

License Status (active, suspended, Under investigation)

Proposal 2 – To add a new paragraph for Crewing Employment Conditions with a new Annex 6 and to amend Annex 4 to add a new sub-paragraph (xii) of 5.2 as follows:

Crew Employment Conditions

(a) The Operator shall be responsible for the health, welfare and safety of the Crew while he or she is on board the vessel throughout the duration of the contract.

(b) The Operator shall ensure that a written contract is executed and signed between the operator or through a representative of the Operator and the Crew before the commencement of employment which shall contain the particulars as set out in Annex 6.

(c) The Operator shall observe and respect any form of basic human rights of the Crew in accordance with accepted international human right standards.

(d) The Operator shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that Crew are not assaulted or subject to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and shall treat all crew with fairness and dignity.

(e) The Operator shall be responsible for the provision to Crew for health protection and management for sickness, injury or death while employed or engaged or working on a vessel at sea or in a foreign port. In the event of injury or sickness, medical care shall be provided free of charge to the crew.

(f) The Operator shall in the event of death notify relevant authority as soon as practicable and ensure that the body is well preserved for the purposes of an autopsy, investigation, and shall undertake immediate repatriation of the body to the nearest appropriate available port.

(g) The Operator shall be responsible for advising the Crew’s next of kin in the event of an emergency.

(h) The Operator shall provide a decent and regular remuneration to the Crew.

(i) The Operator shall provide repatriation of the Crew to his or her point of hire and all related cost where the contract is terminated as follows:

(i) The contract is expired whilst the crew is still abroad

(ii) The crew cannot perform his or her duty due to sickness or other medical reasons

(iii) Where the contract is terminated in accordance with the signed contract.

(j) The Operator shall ensure that Crew are given regular periods of rest of sufficient length to ensure safety and health in accordance with international standards.

(k) The Operator shall be responsible to ensure:

(i) that the vessel is safe in accordance to accepted international standards on safety of vessels; and

(ii) the safety of Crews on board and the safe operation of the vessel and to provide on-board occupational safety and health awareness training.

(l) The Operator shall provide the following at no cost to the Crew:

(i) full travel costs from the point of hire to and from the vessel;

(ii) full insurance coverage, to and from, and on, the vessel throughout the duration of the contract.

(iii) Copy of the insurance policy.

(iv) Appropriate and adequate safety equipment and tools;

(v) Appropriate accommodation which shall be in a clean, decently and habitable condition and is maintained in a good state of repair taking into regard the comfort, the health and safety of the crew.

(vi) Appropriate sanitary facilities which are hygienic and in a proper state of repair,

(vii) An adequate amount of suitable food and water having regards to the crew’s health, religious requirements and cultural practices in relation to food.

(m) The Operator prohibits deduction from crew wages by any party for any expenses related to work.

Annex 6

Particulars of Crew Agreement

1. The Crew’s family name and other names, date of birth or age, and birthplace;

2. The place at which and date on which the agreement was concluded;

3. The details of the next of Kin in the event of an emergency

4. The name of the fishing vessel or vessels and the registration number of the vessel or vessels on board which the Crew undertakes to work;

5. The name of the employer, or fishing vessel owner, or other party to the agreement with the crew;

6. The voyage or voyages to be undertaken, if this can be determined at the time of making the agreement;

7. The capacity in which the Crew is to be employed or engaged;

8. If possible, the place at which and date on which the Crew is required to report on board for service;

9. The provisions to be supplied to the Crew, the amount of wages, or the amount of the share and the method of calculating such share if remuneration is to be on a share basis, or the amount of the wage and share and the method of calculating the latter if remuneration is to be on a combined basis, and any agreed minimum wage;

10. The termination of the agreement and the conditions thereof, namely:

i. if the agreement has been made for a definite period, the date fixed for its expiry;

ii. if the agreement has been made for a voyage, the port of destination and the time which has to expire after arrival before the Crew shall be discharged; and

iii. if the agreement has been made for an indefinite period, the conditions which shall entitle either party to rescind it, as well as the required period of notice for rescission, provided that such period shall not be less for the employer, or fishing vessel owner or other party to the agreement with the Crew;

11. The right of termination by the Crew in the event of mistreatment and abuse;

12. The protection that will cover the Crew in the event of mistreatment and abuse, sickness, injury or death in connection with service;

13. The amount of paid annual leave or the formula used for calculating leave, where applicable;

14. The health and social benefits coverage and benefits to be provided to the Crew by the employer, fishing vessel owner, or other party or parties to the Crew’s work agreement, as applicable;

15. The Crew's entitlement to repatriation;

Proposed amendment to Annex 4, new sub-paragraph 5.2 (xii)

(xii). failure to comply with license conditions regulating employment, vessel safety and crew numbers.

Attachment 5

Outcomes and Recommendations

The NTIS Workshop makes the following recommendation to be considered by the MCSWG:

1. To note the advanced progress of work with the NTIS contained in the RIMF2 platform used in the workshop.

2. Secretariat is encouraged to incorporate feedback from the workshop and other future trials in the use of RIMF2 to enhance the system with a view to having the RIMF2 platform ready for use as the NTIS by the next Meeting of the Parties in May

3. Participants encouraged the Secretariat to look into the option of the NTIS through the RIMF2 platform allowing a party to record any Non-party resources (eg. FFA Regional Aerial Surveillance Aircraft) as part of an activity initiated by an Annex C3 notification. Participants also suggested that the Meeting of Parties explore options for integrating existing regional surveillance and enforcement initiatives and processes into the NTSA framework.

4. Considering the urgent need for the RIMF 2 platform, the Secretariat is to specify the appropriate timeframe for RIMF2 to be operationally active for use by Parties and the Secretariat as the NTIS noting that Parties and the Administrator will continue to use existing NTIS processes including emails and paper notifications until this time

5. Once operational, Parties are encouraged to continue to use the RIMF2 in any Bilateral and Multilateral Operations. This use of RIMF2 would allow Parties to provide feedback to the Secretariat on the operation of the NTIS.

NTIS WORKSHOP

Honiara, Solomon Islands25-27 March 2019