Peter Flewelling Gerrard Dominique Alastair Beveridge Breakout Groups Peter Flewelling Gerrard Dominique Alastair Beveridge

Q 1: If the idea for an informal global Risk Assessment Framework was proposed, what would be the best way to encourage MCS Practitioners to participate? Atlantic 1. Have clearly demonstrable benefits for the user 2. Must be simple/uncomplicated to introduce into service and to operate 3. Must include a communications plan covering the development process and normal operations including operating in conjunction with existing RA’s. Must be simple, concise and user friendly and include a facility to introduce administration generated rules covering access and distribution/sharing of data 4. Should comprise of a connected series of building blocks covering information and intelligence gathering, data bank, communication link, security firewalls ( user specific). Maybe mimic a Facebook or Whatsapp Group format. Pacific Ensure that there is feedback to MCS practitioners, frustration is multitude of surveys and no timely response or feedback. Need incentive to solicit inputs. Ensure it is not prescriptive, but can adopt to various geographical and situational situations If RFMO Compliance Monitoring is considered a Risk Assessment Framework, WCPFC’s CMS and CMR process then OK. Indian Ocean MCS practitioners active in the Indian Ocean are connected through several Networks such as IOTC, SADEC, FISH-i. in the Western Indian Ocean, CCMLR, RPOA-SE Asia, SEAFDEC, SIOFA. Distribution of the survey through these Networks would encourage MCS practitioners in the Region. The survey as drafted is not very suitable (too detailed)

Q 2: Does your country or region have existing regional Risk Assessment Framework mechanisms in place, and if so how are they managed and coordinated? Atlantic 1.Some bilateral arrangements, for example between Coastal States and RFMO’s (Neafc) 2.Blue Belt has with local partners , It is based on Per Erik Berg’s work incorporates aspects of DEFRA/IFCA procedures. It is coordinated with intelligence and managed through a monthly Tasking Coordination Group (TCG) process Monthly baseline and deployed surveillance is considered when the risk profiles are reviewed monthly Pacific Canada, USA, WCPFC all have differing risk assessment schemes. On the VMS issue, there would be a lot of resistance to deviate from the track we are on unless we 100% have a plan in hand that can deliver this quicker Would a Risk Assessment Framework would necessarily have the firm foundation of an RFMO prohibition Some informal threat assessments conducted unilaterally, and in some cases shared sporadically. No integrated, comprehensive approach Indian Ocean Currently some work on Risk Assessment is carried out in the tuna world while EFCA will role out Risk Assessment in the Indian Ocean, in the near future.

Q 3: How would you establish areas for addressing risk assessment: in coastal areas, EEZs or ABNJs? Are FAO Statistical areas a possible starting point or should the areas be smaller? Atlantic 1.FAO areas may not be appropriate/too large. Factors to consider include political scenarios, context, fishing area, species ( migratory/changing behavour patterns), position of regional economic committees,RFMO’s 2.That said a global risk assessment framework should  not be restricted to EEZs alone – given that it is likely the most countries will have a framework for their own EEZ focussing the framework on the ABNJ with combined contributions might be the best option. Therefore leaving the EEZ limit to the responsible country 3.` Areas for addressing risk assessment needs to be established by fishing related activities inside and outside the EEZ (Fisheries Management in general – What is legal and what is illegal). Thus, the risk assessment needs to reflect the fisheries being conducted. Different fisheries have different risks. Pacific FAO Statistical areas too large – need split between coastal areas, EEZ and ABNJ, FMAs, or temperate/tropical, etc. Possible starting point, but should separate coastal EEZs from ABNJ. Perhaps simpler to follow convention areas.  Indian Ocean MCS practitioners are well aware of compliance risk in the Indian Ocean. FAO areas could be used as a point of departure. By using FAO areas, are not singlrd. coastal States.

Atlantic Must be compliance/rules based Q 4: How would you suggest the risk assessment be addressed; IUU risks by fishery by vessel size and/or flag-States; or other ideas? Pacific Function of response to question 3. Should keep in mind IUU threats against non-fisheries, for example Salmon in the north pacific. This form of IUU against migrating stocks could have a significant impact economically and culturally.  Atlantic Must be compliance/rules based Indian Ocean

Q 5:What should be the focus of a global Risk Assessment Framework, illegal, unreported and unregulated activities; separately, or other suggestion? Atlantic 1.Must be compliance/rules based 2. Separately at the initial assessment but any framework would need to incorporate  the I and U and U together to reflect the likely linking of the three in any illegal activity. Vessels operating illegally  within each three elements – this would need to be reflected to a higher overall reflection of the risk Removing the illegal element from the perspective of the EEZ reference above might be worth considering – thus focusing on the U and U Pacific Treat separately then aggregate An office of law enforcement (not a scientist or policy maker) focus is clearly “illegal”, and to a lesser extent “unreported” Indian Ocean In the Indian Ocean identification of IUU Risk can be expressed as illegal (poaching), Unreported (poaching, misreporting) and Unregulated (fishing in a high sea pocket)

Q 6: The success of a global Risk Assessment Framework depends largely on the number of MCS practitioners by FAO Statistical Area participating to the survey. A geographical balanced minimal number of participants would be required.  In your area of competence which options do you see to maximize the participation to the survey?  Atlantic As per Q1 Pacific be happy to participate in something that I understand (including the technical/mathematical-level detail), and have confidence in. Frankly, the focus here on “balance” and “quantity” (over quality of input, relevance-of-experience, etc.) is at least mildly disturbing.  Just open communication with follow-up.  Shouldn't focus on the number of practitioners as some may be able to respond on behalf of a community. Just ensure engagement throughout the areas of the community.  Indian Ocean As per Q1