ENB:07:43 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

---

PART IV—RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLAG STATE

In Article 17, dealing with duties of the flag State, Canada said the provisions of a national vessel registry in paragraph (3)(c) should be accessible to the public and noted that Article 20, paragraph (5), dealing with enforcement, should be included in Article 17. Mexico objected and said national legislation could not provide for such transparency. The EU said a broad definition of transparency could create problems. The text should better reflect the Vienna Convention and the Flagging Agreement.

Debate ensued after Japan said that the authorization to fish should be taken from the same language as the Flagging Agreement, but the Chair indicated there could be inconsistency between the Flagging Agreement and UNCLOS.

Australia said satellite monitoring was a good conservation and management tool and was cost effective. Peru said the use of satellite monitoring should not be imposed mandatorily on coastal States. ICSF said that Article 17 should include reference to the implementation of international regulations specific to employment, safety and social security of fishworkers.