From: Shih-Ning Liu Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 5:58 PM To: Lara Manarangi-Trott Cc: Hsiang-yi Yu Subject: FW: Comments on the CMS Reviewing Panel’s Report Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Lara, This is to re-send the email below regarding the comments on the CMS Panel’s report, in case that it did not reach you successfully. Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused. Kind regards, Shirley Shirley, Shih-Ning Liu (???) Overseas Fisheries Development Council of the Republic of China Address: 3F, No.14, Wenzhou St., Da’an Dist., Taipei City, Taiwan TEL:886-2-2368-0889 ext 136 FAX:886-2-2368-6418 Email: shirley@ofdc.org.tw From: ??? Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:32 PM To: gjoseph@mimra.com Cc: lara.manarangi-trott@wcpfc.int; Hsiang-Yi Yu Subject: Comments on the CMS Reviewing Panel’s Report Dear Glen, We would like to express our appreciation towards the review Panel for their professional work and the enthusiasm. The report is informative and clear in elaborating backgrounds and corresponding recommendations. It not only reflects the responses from the questionnaire, but also provides insights on the CMS by examining current mechanism from various angles. We have learned a lot from this report, and we are truly thankful for the great effort by the Panel members. Our comment and questions are provided as follows: The CMS of WCPFC has been evolving for over a decade. The current system reflects input from all CCMs during the years, and as suggested in the report, the mechanism is fundamentally sound. Therefore, as the manageability, efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced, it is ideal to modify based on the current practice. There are several recommendations that we believe would be very helpful in terms of achieving these objectives: 1. Discontinuing verbal presentation of supplementary information at TCC: CCMs have long been complaining that the reviewing process takes up too much time receiving supplementary information through oral presentations. Discontinuing this practice might be a good solution, for it effectively facilitates the reviewing process in TCC meetings and leaves the CCMs with more time to prepare for other critical issues. 2. Adopting a phased process for observers to participate in all CMS discussions: As pointed out in the report, transparency is where WCPFC falls short of. Detailed rules may be varied, but it is time to consider relevant procedures to include NGOs in CMS processes to observe the discussion. Moreover, some representatives from NGOs were already in the process of CMS reviews at TCC12 and TCC13 through agreements with CCMs. Developing such process is not only important, but also inevitable. Other recommendations in this report are also constructive and enlightening, but relevant concerns emerged when we made our initial review. The concerns include 1. Recommendations that involve additional human resource: for example, independent TCC chair or co-chairs, Capacity Development Assistance Officer, Flag State Investigation Officer and Quality Assurance Review implementation require further consideration 2. Recommendations that are currently under discussions in other working groups: the SRF and ROP WGs are currently working on relevant matters; therefore, the proposals regarding consolidated FSI summary, ROP information strengthening and SIDS participation fund will be better discussed together with the WGs’ recommendations. 3. Recommendations that are considered to have lower priorities than others: the CMS priority is to clarify obligations, to establish criteria for compliance review and to assist CCMs in capacity building. Based on experience in related discussions, we consider that a process to respond to non-compliance and a multi-year strategic plan for CMS development are not the most pressing tasks. Finally, we would like to seek further clarification regarding the proposed CMM review process and CMM adoption timeframe. Is it impossible for a draft CMM to be adopted without receiving both legal and scientific reviews? Or, will the drafts that went through both reviews be automatically adopted by the Commission? Regarding the negotiating timeframe of 18 months, we would like to know if it is compulsory that every CMM proposal goes through SC and TCC. As this report is comprehensive, and the time to review it is limited, we can only provide our initial comments and questions. We thank the Panel for providing us with insights into the WCPFC CMS, and we are glad to further engage in the future discussions. Kind regards, Shirley Shirley, Shih-Ning Liu (???) Overseas Fisheries Development Council of the Republic of China Address: 3F, No.14, Wenzhou St., Da’an Dist., Taipei City, Taiwan TEL:886-2-2368-0889 ext 136 FAX:886-2-2368-6418 Email: shirley@ofdc.org.tw