Extended Deadline for TCC WG on Observer reports participants comments and input on post-WCPFC16 email from TCC WG Chair (issued 5 May 2020)
Deadline
14 Jun 2020
Location:
Federated States of Micronesia, Pohnpei
In the margins of TCC15 the TCC WG on observer reports was unable to reach agreement on an ROP Minimum Standard on the flow of observer reports for the purpose of supporting investigations by CCMs. TCC15 subsequently gave the WG these instructions, which WCPFC16 endorsed:
258. TCC15 agreed that the group’s work continue, and that as part of the tasks identified by the Commission in paragraph 364 of the report of WCPFC15 [see below], the group consider in particular: (a) improvements to the tracking of observer report requests and responses in order to better identify impediments to the flow of observer reports; and (b) methods to filter out “false positive” and de minimis violations to reduce the number of observer report requests and the associated workloads for ROP Providers and CCMs.
For reference, paragraph 364 of the report of WCPFC15:
364. The Commission agreed that the TCC Observer-related working group would continue to operate electronically in 2019, led by Mr. Tom Graham (United States). The TCC Observer-related working group was tasked to:
a. Conduct further work, with input from the Secretariat and drawing from experiences using the Compliance Case File System and CCMs’ investigations, to determine what additional data fields, if any, should be added to the ROP minimum required data fields to support CCM investigations and more general compliance-related needs, such as flagging possible violations of Commission decisions to trigger CCM investigations or as part of the Compliance Monitoring Scheme (also see task (f)).
b. More fully consider gaps in the capacity of ROP Providers to respond promptly and fully to requests for observer reports, such as in terms of human resources, training, and equipment, and explore ways to fill those gaps, including the possibility of a process through which ROP Providers may seek and receive financial or other support from the Commission to improve their capacity.
c. Explore ways to support ROP Providers’ efforts to improve their debriefing processes such that observer reports can be more fully vetted and provided more quickly, including the possibility of giving higher priority to trips that are flagged through the Pre-Notification Process (also see task (g)).
d. Explore the potential utility of using the Compliance Case File System to facilitate and track CCM requests for observer reports.
e. Explore whether pre-notifications can be sent by ROP Providers directly to the Secretariat without first having to be entered in the data service provider’s ROP database along with all the minimum required data fields.
f. In concert with task (a), reconsider the summary data fields to better align with the Commission’s priorities in terms of compliance.
g. In concert with task (c), explore the role debriefing can have in reviewing and filtering Trip Monitoring Summaries to make pre-notifications as efficient and useful as possible.
h. Explore, as part of the Pre-Notification Process, the possibility of supplementing the WCPFC Observer Trip Monitoring Summary form with more detailed information from the observer (e.g., using “comments” pages) regarding any affirmative indications on the Summary form, such as more detailed information about the activities in question, which could support a CCM’s investigations of those activities, and/or references to particular sections/pages of the full observer report that could help narrow a CCM’s request for more information from the ROP Provider.
i. Continue to develop mechanisms related to the provision of observer reports, taking into account the outcomes of the tasks listed above and the possible approaches described in WCPFC-TCC14-2018-14 and WCPFC-TCC14-2018-DP07.
364. The Commission agreed that the TCC Observer-related working group would continue to operate electronically in 2019, led by Mr. Tom Graham (United States). The TCC Observer-related working group was tasked to:
a. Conduct further work, with input from the Secretariat and drawing from experiences using the Compliance Case File System and CCMs’ investigations, to determine what additional data fields, if any, should be added to the ROP minimum required data fields to support CCM investigations and more general compliance-related needs, such as flagging possible violations of Commission decisions to trigger CCM investigations or as part of the Compliance Monitoring Scheme (also see task (f)).
b. More fully consider gaps in the capacity of ROP Providers to respond promptly and fully to requests for observer reports, such as in terms of human resources, training, and equipment, and explore ways to fill those gaps, including the possibility of a process through which ROP Providers may seek and receive financial or other support from the Commission to improve their capacity.
c. Explore ways to support ROP Providers’ efforts to improve their debriefing processes such that observer reports can be more fully vetted and provided more quickly, including the possibility of giving higher priority to trips that are flagged through the Pre-Notification Process (also see task (g)).
d. Explore the potential utility of using the Compliance Case File System to facilitate and track CCM requests for observer reports.
e. Explore whether pre-notifications can be sent by ROP Providers directly to the Secretariat without first having to be entered in the data service provider’s ROP database along with all the minimum required data fields.
f. In concert with task (a), reconsider the summary data fields to better align with the Commission’s priorities in terms of compliance.
g. In concert with task (c), explore the role debriefing can have in reviewing and filtering Trip Monitoring Summaries to make pre-notifications as efficient and useful as possible.
h. Explore, as part of the Pre-Notification Process, the possibility of supplementing the WCPFC Observer Trip Monitoring Summary form with more detailed information from the observer (e.g., using “comments” pages) regarding any affirmative indications on the Summary form, such as more detailed information about the activities in question, which could support a CCM’s investigations of those activities, and/or references to particular sections/pages of the full observer report that could help narrow a CCM’s request for more information from the ROP Provider.
i. Continue to develop mechanisms related to the provision of observer reports, taking into account the outcomes of the tasks listed above and the possible approaches described in WCPFC-TCC14-2018-14 and WCPFC-TCC14-2018-DP07.