The origins of the CCAMLR System of Inspection

The CAMLR Convention is one of the earliest known international treaties to establish a Compliance Monitoring Mechanism in an international fishery (Laurence et al., Reference Laurence, Alan and Lorne2007). Article XXIV of the Convention provided the legal basis for the establishment of the System of Inspection. The System took 7 years to be agreed and entered into force in 1989. In fact, by analysing the System of Inspection in the international fisheries agreements and national fisheries laws before the CAMLR Convention, the System of Inspection in the CAMLR Convention is its refinement and development (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998).

At the level of international law, the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic (1967) was the first fisheries agreement to provide for inspection (Rayfuse. Reference Rayfuse1998). It stipulates that “authorised officers shall observe whether the provisions of the Convention are being carried out, inquire into and report violations of the provisions of the Convention, obtain information in cases of damage and, where desirable, bring the provisions of the Convention to the attention of the vessels of Contracting Parties and shall cooperate for these purposes with the authorised officers of other Contracting Parties” (CCFONA, 1967). However, the Convention does not refer to the parties involved as “inspectors”, nor does it provide details of the system. Subsequently, the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (1978) clearly defined the System of Inspection as an integral part of the scheme of joint international enforcement (NAFO, 1978). At the level of domestic law, the United States was the first state to establish a fisheries inspection. In the 1970s, the domestic legislation of the United States established a mechanism for fisheries inspectors to achieve regulation of fishing activities. In this mechanism, the Fisheries Service regularly follows fishing vessels to collect relevant data, especially to regulate fishing techniques and manage fishing quotas to determine the environmental situation of national waters and fishing conditions (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998). The functions of fisheries inspectors include tracking fishing vessels, confirming fishing activities and boarding vessels to check that their facilities comply with regulations (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998). On the one hand, inspectors can determine whether the fishing behaviour of fishing vessels is compliant (NOAA, 2017). On the other hand, they can also collect relevant fisheries data and information (NOAA, 2017). Among them, in fisheries surveillance activities, inspectors can conduct law enforcement on suspected illegal fishing vessels by contacting nearby law enforcement vessels (Wang, Reference Wang2003).

Although there is no direct evidence that the CAMLR Convention directly refers to the System of Inspection in these two fisheries conventions or to the domestic mechanism for fisheries inspectors in the United States, the System of Inspection in the CAMLR Convention is similar to those and the content is refined. At present, at the global level, such as the “Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the Fisheries Management treaties” and the “Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks”, which provide more detailed provisions on the regulation of fishing objects, fishing methods and inspection procedures (Zhang & Han, Reference Zhang and Han2007). The System of Inspection is an important part of monitoring, control and surveillance (hereinafter referred to as “MCS”) (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). The importance of the MCS in achieving CMs was identified by a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Expert Consultation (Flewwelling, Reference Flewwelling2001). As a result, the System of Inspection has become an important compliance mechanism in current regional or global fisheries agreements.

The purpose of the CAMLR Convention is the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention, 1980). The Commission allows Members of the Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Members”) to fish for certain species in the Convention Area. Therefore, allowing inspections to ensure compliance with fishing quotas, methods and species, and the prevention of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (hereinafter referred to as “IUU fishing”) is the direct purpose of Article XXIV of the CAMLR Convention, and the collection of fisheries information data and the monitoring of compliance are the two required functions. Following the entry into force of the CAMLR Convention, these two functions were generally set out in Article XXIV of the “CCAMLR System of Observation and Inspection”. In 1984, the Commission decided that, in the first instance, Members could carry out fisheries observation and information collection through bilateral agreements (SC-CCAMLR, 1985). Implementation of the full system would then be encouraged after further study by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee (CCAMLR, 1984). At that time, the Commission noted that the number of Members conducting observer coverage was limited and that the purpose of monitoring compliance with Article XXIV of the CAMLR Convention could not be achieved through bilateral agreements alone (M. Howard, Reference Howard1989). For the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the CAMLR Convention, the Commission decided to divide the “System of Observation and Inspection” into the “CCAMLR System of Inspection” and the “CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation” (CCAMLR, 1984). The CCAMLR SISO is designed to collect the data necessary to achieve the objectives of the CAMLR Convention, and the System of Inspection is designed to ensure that Members comply with the CMs adopted by the Commission (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998). Subsequently, the Commission first sought to advance the CCAMLR SISO by requiring each Member State’s commercial fishing vessels to carry inspectors to collect fisheries data and information (CCAMLR, 1985). Later, in 1986 and 1987, the United States proposed that the System of Inspection should be implemented as soon as possible (CCAMLR, 1986), expressed Members concern about inspection procedures, personnel and plans (CCAMLR, 1986) and proposed the establishment of the Standing Commission on Observation and Inspection (hereinafter referred to as “SCOI”) to determine the design of the System and to review its operation on an ongoing basis once it was in place (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998). The SCOI was finally established in 1988 and preparatory work was carried out, with the Secretariat preparing the necessary materials, checklists, reporting forms, terminology dictionaries, etc. for use by inspectors (CCAMLR, 1988). As a result, it was not until 1989 that the System of Inspection was finally ready for implementation. In the 1989/1990 season, Argentina, Chile, the United States and the Soviet Union deployed inspectors under the System of Inspection for the first time (Laurence, Reference Laurence2008). Since 2003, the SCOI has changed its name to the Standing Commission on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC). Currently, the System of Inspection is the Compliance Monitoring Mechanism in the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CEP”) (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019), which aims to improve the implementation of CMs and better achieve the objectives of the CAMLR Convention (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). The CEP evaluates the System of Inspection to facilitate its implementation. It is an important system for vessels to operate in accordance with fishable area, species and share and to promote compliance with CMs (CCAMLR, 2002).

The legal basis for the CCAMLR System of Inspection

The legal basis of the System of Inspection consists mainly of the CAMLR Convention, the CMs and several normative documents related to the System of Inspection.

First, Article XXIV of the CAMLR Convention stipulates that the entire system of observation and inspection is under the responsibility of the Commission and states that 1. The work of observation and inspection shall be carried out in accordance with international practice, and the inspectors designated by the Members shall carry out law enforcement. 2. Inspectors shall be under the jurisdiction of Members only, and inspections shall be reported to the Member that sent the inspector, which shall report to the Commission. 3. Based on inspection findings, the flag state imposes sanctions on the fishing vessel concerned in accordance with its national law (CCAMLR, 1980).

Second, CMs are the important part of the legal foundation. At the level of international law, CMs are legally binding on all Members. The Commission implements a comprehensive set of CMs to support the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the management of fisheries in the Southern Ocean (CCAMLR, 2021). Article IX.1.(f) of the CAMLR Convention states that “Conservation Measures shall be formulated and adopted on the basis of the best scientific evidence available in order to implement the objectives and principles of Article II of the CAMLR Convention” (CCAMLR, 1980). CMs are discussed and developed at the annual meeting of CCAMLR, and new or revised CMs are received at the end of the meeting in early November and are usually implemented by 1 December to coincide with the start of the fishing season (CCAMLR, 1980). Regarding the entry into force of CMs, the Commission provides that CMs shall enter into force around the beginning of May of the year following the annual meeting (180 days after the CMs are first notified to Members) (CCAMLR, 2021). In practice, the entry into force of relevant CMs is similar to general international law and must be incorporated or transformed by Members. Depending on the content of the annual report, Members will provide feedback to the Commission on the direct incorporation of CMs into national law or the transformation of CMs into national fisheries management measures, which are the basis for the legal effect of CMs. On the one hand, the CMs for commercial and scientific fishing licences and quotas for related species are the basic reference for the implementation of the System of Inspection. The species currently fished in the Convention Area are mainly Dissostichus eleginoides, Dissostichus mawsoni, Champsocephalus gunnari and Euphausia superba. The relevant CMs specify the species, areas, quotas and fishing methods (CCAMLR, 2011). On the other hand, the Commission has adopted two CMs that directly regulate the implementation of the System of Inspection. These two CMs, namely “Conservation Measure 10-02 Licensing and Inspection Obligations of Contracting Parties with Regard to their Flag Vessels Operating in the Convention Area” and “Conservation Measure 10-03 Port inspections of Fishing Vessels Carrying Antarctic Marine Living Resources”, correspond to the two forms of the System of Inspection, namely At-sea inspection and Port inspection, and have been updated several times to specify the obligations of members, the objects of inspection and standard procedures.

Finally, at the level of normative documents, the Commission has compiled documents to support the implementation of the System of Inspection. The current normative documents are mainly based on the “Text of the CCAMLR System of Inspection” and the “Inspector Manual”. The “Text of the CCAMLR System of Inspection” is one of the “Basic Documents” listed on the CCAMLR website (CCAMLR, 2021). It sets out the functions, rights and obligations of inspectors, the rights and obligations of the fishing vessels subject to inspection and their respective legal responsibilities (CCAMLR, 2020). It also sets out the legal responsibilities of the vessel concerned and its flag state (CCAMLR, 2019). At the same time, it includes the identification, certificate and inspection report required by the inspector to carry out the inspection. However, from the point of view of implementation, it cannot be concluded that all States have conducted and received inspections in full compliance with this document. For example, the 1989 SCOI Annual Report referred to the “Text of the CCAMLR System of Inspection” (1989 version) for the conduct of inspections and the submission of reports (CCAMLR, 1989). However, to date, the annual reports show that the number of inspection reports submitted does not correspond to the number of inspections (CCAMLR, 2021). In other words, many inspections are completed without the required inspection reports. The “Inspector Manual” is referred to as the “Manual” on the CCAMLR website. These two documents were originally drawn up at the CCAMLR annual meeting in 1989 and have undergone several revisions. The Text of CCAMLR System of Inspection and the Inspector Manual provide the means for assessing compliance (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Inspection legal basis framework.

The process of the CCAMLR System of Inspection

According to the requirements of the CCAMLR website, the development of System of Inspection requires the selection of inspectors according to the relevant requirements and the submission of the list to the Commission and other Members. In the case of At-sea inspection, the vessel carrying the inspectors shall enter the Convention Area and the fishing vessel shall be boarded for inspection. The specific fishing vessel observed and the fishing vessel inspected shall be recorded. Inspections are not required for all vessels. In the case of Port inspection, inspectors shall, in accordance with the number of vessels required by the CMs, inspect inbound fishing vessels that have fished in the Convention Area and fishing vessels carrying Convention Area catches in the ports of Members, and shall complete the inspection report and submit it to the Commission. During the inspection process, inspectors board and inspect fishing vessels and complete relevant forms to record the information as “Inspection Reports” (CCAMLR, 2011). The inspection report is submitted directly to the Commission and to the Members and sent back to the flag state. Upon completion of the inspection and submission of the report, the Member concerned may communicate the content of the inspection through diplomatic channels and may follow national procedures to deal with the responsible Member. Finally, at the following year’s annual meeting of CCAMLR, the Commission and Members will review and discuss the inspection report, and all Members will state and respond to the contents of the inspection report. If the report mentions illegal activities by vessels and inspectors, the meeting will discuss the above-mentioned actions and invite the parties concerned to provide information on the progress of the work.

Specifically, the implementation steps include Members selecting and assigning inspectors and submitting the list to the Commission and other Members; conducting inspections (including boarding fishing vessels, conducting inspections, completing relevant information and reports, etc.); preparing and submitting reports; providing feedback and resolving problems and discussing at meetings. If the inspecting Member or the inspected Member violates the law during the inspection process, the violation must also be reported to the Member’s State of nationality and prosecution must be pursued in accordance with its national law.

At-sea inspection

Unlike general pelagic fisheries, Antarctic fishing activities place higher performance demands on fishing vessels (Nicol et al., Reference Nicol, Foster and Kawaguchi2012). Thus, vessels carrying out At-sea inspection also need to be able to carry out inspections under difficult and costly conditions. As can be seen from documents such as the CCAMLR annual meeting reports, there are not many Members that conduct At-sea inspections. At the same time, At-sea inspection requires vessels to carry out inspections in the wider Convention Area, and vessels are far from their own ports. In addition, inspection voyages can take several months, the number and difficulty of final inspections are uncertain and accidents can occur. CM 10-02 sets out the specific requirements for At-sea inspection, including: (1) Members shall prohibit their own vessels that do not have a fishing licence from fishing in the Convention Area or in a marine protected area. (2) Members may issue fishing licences in the Convention Area only to vessels that fly their flag, have an IMO number and are able to comply with the CAMLR Convention and CMs. (3) Fishing vessels should always carry a fishing licence or a copy thereof for inspection. Flag States should be notified when vessels enter and leave ports, enter and leave the Convention Area and each subarea, report fishing information data and report other fishing vessels encountered, as appropriate. Flag States should operate vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and implement international rules for safe operation of vessels and prevention of pollution. (4) Fishing vessels should be equipped with communication equipment, immersion suits, medical equipment, emergency supplies, insurance, etc. (5) Members should provide the CCAMLR Secretariat with relevant information on fishing vessels, including relevant data and photographs, and information such as changes in fishing licences should be reported to the CCAMLR Secretariat. (6) Members should inspect all fishing vessels at departure, entry and port and within their exclusive economic zones, to ensure compliance with the CAMLR Convention and related CMs, and provide relevant information based on violations. Sanctions under national law require Members to investigate “extremely serious maritime incidents” involving flag State fishing vessels in the Convention Area (CCAMLR, 2016).

Port inspection

The full name of the Port inspections is “Port inspections of Fishing Vessels Carrying Antarctic Marine Living Resources”. CM 10-03 sets out the details of its implementation, including: (1) Members should inspect all incoming vessels carrying Dissostichus spp. to determine whether their fishing activities in the Convention Area are in accordance with the CAMLR Convention and the CMs. If Dissostichus spp. is to be landed or transhipped in port, the Dissostichus spp. catch document required by CM 10-05 shall be attached and the catch shall be consistent with the information recorded on the document. (2) Members shall inspect fishing vessels carrying species caught in the Convention Area other than small toothfish, at a rate of not less than 50% of the total number of such vessels, to verify that their fishing activities in the Convention Area are conducted in accordance with the CAMLR Convention and CMs. Members shall focus on verifying whether the fishing vessel has ever been denied access to port for violating CMs, whether other Members have requested the vessel to be inspected, and whether it is suspected of engaging in or supporting IUU fishing. (3) For the inspection of the two types of fishing vessels referred to above, Members should require vessels entering their ports to provide the information set out in CM 10-03 and to submit a declaration that they are not engaged in or supporting IUU fishing within the time limit specified. (4) In accordance with CMs 10-06 and 10-07, Members should, as a general rule, refuse entry to IUU fishing vessels and fishing vessels that have not submitted relevant documentation for inspection. If the inspection process reveals violations of CMs or the presence of IUU fishing vessels, Members should prohibit the vessels from entering port or transhipping fish, or impose other monitoring and control measures of equal or greater severity, surveillance or law enforcement measures. Members should inform the flag state of violations and cooperate with the flag State to investigate and, where appropriate, impose sanctions in accordance with national law (CCAMLR, 2016). Members must submit reports and related documents in a timely manner and in the prescribed format following port inspections to explain the results of the inspection, and the CCAMLR Secretariat will forward the report to the flag state of the fishing vessel involved (CCAMLR, 2019). There are dedicated pages on the CCAMLR website to regularly update the list of IUU vessels, namely “Conservation Measure 10-06 Contracting Party IUU Vessel List” (CCAMLR, 2011) and “Conservation Measure 10-07 Non-Contracting Party IUU Vessel List” (CCAMLR, 2011).

The evolution of the CCAMLR System of Inspection (1988–2021)

The System of Inspection has been in operation since the Commission established the SCOI in 1988. Both the SCOI and later the SCIC have improved the System of Inspection by summarising the practice of the System of Inspection at annual meetings (Table 1).

Table 1. Key points for improvement of the inspection in annual meeting.

During the annual meetings of CCAMLR from 1988 to 2021, the Commission made continuous and targeted improvements to the System of Inspection. The evolution of the System of Inspection can be divided into three phases.

The first phase, from 1988 to 1990, was the preparatory phase of the System of Inspection and saw the completion of the Text of the System of Inspection and the Inspector Manual. However, the overall implementation of the CAMLR Convention was still unclear, with only 11 CMs being implemented in 1989/1990 (CCAMLR, 2001). Inspections encountered problems such as language barriers in carrying out their work (CCAMLR, 1990).

The second phase, from 1991 to 2002, was the phase of development and improvement of the System of Inspection. The Text of the System of Inspection and the Inspector manual had been revised several times. The inspection process, discussion of violations, handling, reporting and many other details had been clarified. The diversity of fishing states in the Convention Area had resulted in several versions of inspection documents. During this period, there were three important developments in the System of Inspection. The first was the use of VMS to determine the position of Member vessels. Initially, VMS determined the position of fishing vessels and reported relevant information to flag states and the CCAMLR Secretariat. In this way, regulation of the fishing activities of fishing vessels is partially achieved. Subsequently, the VMS was further revised and the relevant data were also made available to Members conducting inspections. According to CMs 10-04 (2018), Members may request VMS data from the CCAMLR Secretariat for use in active surveillance operations or inspections (CCAMLR, 2018). VMS data include vessel positioning data, which facilitates the ability of Members to board fishing vessels during At-sea inspections (CCAMLR, 2018). The use of VMS reduces the cost of direct communication with the flag state or fishing vessels. The second is that the inspection involves Non-Member fishing vessels, making the CAMLR Convention applicable to third parties. The third is the introduction of the concept of IUU fishing, which corresponds to the three situations of violation of CMs, poaching and fishing by Non-Member vessels, and includes both Member and Non-Member vessels in the inspection targets. The concept of IUU fishing will make it possible to keep a continuous record of illegal vessels, thereby improving the effectiveness and relevance of inspections.

From 2003 to the present, there has been a third phase of continuous development of the System. In terms of its legal nature, all Members have recognised the System of Inspection as a “Compliance Monitoring Mechanism” under the CAMLR Convention. The Text of the System of Inspection and the Inspector Manual have been revised several times. The importance of Port inspections has gradually increased and the focus of inspection is on the type and quantity of catch.

From the above improvement process, it can be seen that the Committee first implemented the System of Inspection, and the system has been continuously improved with practice (Rayfuse, Reference Rayfuse1998). In fact, this is closely related to the overall development of the CAMLR Convention and CMs. It is the norm in CCAMLR’s multilateral process that CMs are constantly being modified and updated in order to achieve the Convention’s objectives in the Convention Area. The regulations governing species, quantities, areas, tools and methods of fishing are continually refined and expanded. The System of Inspection therefore ensures compliance with CCAMLR CMs and needs to be constantly updated to ensure the accuracy of monitoring. Secondly, the scope of the System of Inspection has gradually expanded from simple members fishing in contravention of CMs in the Convention Area to members fishing without authorisation in the Convention Area, and then to Non-Members fishing in the Convention Area. The application of relevant high-tech means has facilitated the regulation of Members’ fishing vessels. At present, the System of Inspection has focused mainly on the regulation of IUU fishing vessels of Non-Member States. Finally, the structure of the legal basis for the System of Inspection tends to be stable, namely Article XXIV of the CAMLR Convention at the treaty level, CMs 10-02 for At-sea inspections, CMs 10-03 for port inspections, the Text of the CCAMLR System of Inspection and the Inspector Manual, and the relevant CMs in force for the year under review.

The data on the implementation of the CCAMLR System of Inspection

It has been 31 years since the first inspections were carried out in 1989/1990, and the year’s inspections are discussed at the annual meetings of SCOI and SCIC. In addition to the partial disclosure of information such as the Members that assign inspectors, the number of inspectors and the Members, the main content of the annual report is the report and sanctions on violations of CMs during the inspection process. However, in some years the reports only briefly described the inspection situation and did not disclose the data, which is why some data are missing in the figure below. In combination with the improvement process of the System of Inspection, the published data on fishing in the Convention Area and by analysing the data on the implementation of the System of Inspection over the years, as well as the inspection states and subareas, it is possible to analyse the effectiveness and shortcomings of the System of Inspection.

Figure 2 is based on data on the System of Inspection in the annual meeting reports of SCOI, SCIC and CCAMLR from 1990 to 2021. The reports provide some information on the inspections carried out during the year, mainly the number of inspectors, the number of inspections, the number of reports and the number of violations of CMs found during the inspection process. In addition, some details may be included, such as the country of designation of the inspector, the country of nationality of the vessel, the place where the inspection was carried out, as well as some breaches of CMs and sanction procedures.

Figure 2. Inspection implementation data from 1990 to 2021.

At the beginning of the implementation of the System of Inspection, the USSR carried out a large number of inspections (CCAMLR, 1990, 1991). Since 1992, the number of inspections recorded in the SCOI and SCIC reports has declined significantly and remained unstable. The number of designated inspectors remained relatively stable between 1995 and 2012, with a gradual upward trend. In particular, according to the data disclosed in 2016, the number of inspectors had reached an all-time high. However, the subsequent report did not disclose the number of inspections carried out in that year. As far as the number of inspectors is concerned, the SCOI and SCIC reports are only available for a few years. Since 2001, the number of inspectors has been published continuously and gradually stabilised. However, since 2010, the number of inspectors has not been disclosed in the report. In addition, the number of inspectors is often recorded according to the information provided by the members who carried out the inspections. When the number of inspections is not disclosed, there is no information on the number of inspectors. Furthermore, the total number of reports submitted by the System of Inspection is relatively low. In fact, some Members did not submit inspection reports after inspections as required, a situation also faced by the Commission (CCAMLR, 2016). In addition to the number of inspections, inspectors and inspection reports, the SCOI and SCIC reports also include the number of vessels found to have violated CMs and flag state information. Since 2005, this part of the information is no longer consistent, as the other three types of data are no longer published in a coherent way. Overall, the inspection information recorded in the SCOI and SCIC reports from 1990 to 2021 was seriously lacking.

Inspection focuses on whether fishing activities in the Convention Area comply with CMs, so the number of inspections is related to the catch. Figure 3 compares the total number of inspections carried out each year from 1990 to 2021 with the total catch in the Convention Area. Over the 30 years, the total catch in the Convention Area shows an upward trend, and the number of inspections shows some correlation with the total catch (CCAMLR, 2022). Indeed, data from 1990 to 2016 show that the total catch has increased and the number of inspections has also increased, which is consistent with the purpose of inspections. However, with the rapid increase in total catch in 2017, the inspection data showed an imbalance.

Figure 3. Inspections and Grand Total Catch (tonne) of all species in the Convention Area data from 1990 to 2021.

Based on the annual reports, it is also possible to analyse which Members have carried out At-sea inspections and which areas have been inspected. Figure 4 summarises the number and Members of the At-sea inspections carried out in the various Subareas of the Convention Area mentioned in the annual reports. The At-sea inspections are mainly concentrated in the Scotia Sea, the Weddell Sea, Bellingshausen near the Antarctic Peninsula and the Davis Sea and part of the Indian Sea, in particular in Subarea 48.3, which is adjacent to an area over which there is a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The UK has carried out 98 inspections over the 30 years (CCAMLR, 2021). In the Northeast Antarctic region, Australia and France have also carried out several inspections in their own exclusive economic zones in recent years, and the number and scale of inspections are increasing (CCAMLR, 2019). The scope of At-sea inspections does not cover the entire Convention Area but is concentrated in some areas. None of the reports so far have mentioned that At-sea inspections have been carried out in the Ross Sea, Amundsen Sea, etc.

Figure 4. Inspection implementing states and regions from 1990 to 2021.

In fact, the annual catch of each subarea in the Convention Area is unbalanced. Subareas 48.1, 48.3, 58.6 and 88.2 are representative subdivisions. Figure 5 summarises the changes and trends in catches in the representative Subareas 48.1/48.3/58.6/88.2 from 1990 to 2021. Subarea 48.1 has the highest catch in the Convention Area over the last 30 years (CCAMLR, 2022). The catch in Subarea 48.3 is the second largest and includes the earliest Antarctic Marine Protected Area in the Convention Area. Catch in Subareas 58.6 and 88.2 is small compared to Subareas 48.1 and 48.3 (CCAMLR, 2022). In addition, Subarea 58.6 includes the French Exclusive Economic Zone. Overlaying the data on the number of inspections, Subarea 48.1, which has the largest total catch, was reported to have carried out 8 At-sea inspections, while Subarea 48.3, which has a large fluctuation in catch and a significant reduction in 2021, was reported to have carried out 115 At-sea inspections. Subarea 58.6, with low catch and small size, was also reported to have carried out 8 At-sea inspections. However, Subarea 88.2, which covers a large area and catches slightly less than Subarea 58.6, did not report any At-sea inspections. When analysing the four representative subdivisions, the At-sea inspection is not balanced. In addition to the catch, the target of the At-sea inspection – fishing vessels – is also one of the indicators for considering the number of inspections. In fact, taking the catch and number of fishing vessels of Mawsoni in Subarea 88.1 as an example, in the ten years from 2012 to 2021, Subarea 88.1 caught more than 3000 tonnes of Mawsoni on average every year, and the average number of fishing vessels per year was 15.8. However, to date there are no published data showing that At-sea inspections have been carried out in this area (CCAMLR, 2022).

Figure 5. Total catch (tonne) of all species in Subareas 48.1/48.3/58.6/88.2 from 1990 to 2021.

The Scope of Inspection objects and sanctions

At present, CMs 10-02 and 10-03 under the System of Inspection have clearly extended the objects of inspection to Non-Member fishing vessels operating in the Convention Area and to fishing vessels carrying relevant catches in the Convention Area. Even if the vessel in question refuses to be inspected, the inspector may check the vessel, record its condition and report it to the Commission, and may also identify it as an IUU fishing vessel. In the case of IUU vessels, the CCAMLR website will be updated in particular as inspections are carried out. The list of Member IUU fishing vessels, namely CM 10-06, is mainly based on fishing vessels that are flag States of Members but have reduced the effectiveness of the CCAMLR CMs in force (CCAMLR, 2016). The list of Non-Member IUU fishing vessels is CM 10-07, i.e. fishing vessels with Non-Member flag states without fishing licences (CCAMLR, 2016). According to the latest IUU vessel list, most of the vessels on the list are Non-Member vessels. Therefore, the current scope of inspection objects is not limited to Member vessels. However, in addition to accepting inspections, the System of Inspection also requires the flag state to sanction the fishing vessels involved (CCAMLR, 1980), but currently only the flag state can sanction the illegal behaviour of its own fishing vessels under national law. The fact that vessels are inspected, but the investigation process is delayed, also affects the outcome of the disposal, and some vessels have been fishing illegally for as long as a year without being held accountable (Laurence, Reference Laurence2008). Therefore, since 1992, the SCOI, the SCIC and the Commission have called upon Members to implement more actively the System of Inspections to ensure that their flag states operate in the Convention Area in accordance with existing CMs and that violations are dealt with in a timely and effective manner (CCAMLR, 1994).

On this basis, the System of Inspection should further strengthen the monitoring of sanctions for violations in the future and consider standardising sanction mechanisms in accordance with the Commission through the sanction procedures of the national laws of the Members under the Commission, or establishing a special sanction mechanism. At the same time, the Commission should strengthen cooperation with other fisheries management organisations in the Southern Ocean with regard to illegal fishing vessels of Non-Members (CCAMLR, 2021) and cooperate with fisheries management agreements at the global level in order to maximise sanctions imposed on illegal fishing vessels of Non-Members in the Convention Area.

The relationship between the Inspection and the CEP

The Commission uses the System of Inspection as a “Compliance Monitoring Mechanism” at the level of international law. In terms of the conservation of fisheries resources, it is also an important part of the MCS to achieve the objectives of the CAMLR Convention in Article II (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). IUU fishing activities in the 1990s encouraged the formal development of a CCAMLR CEP in 2006 (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). In 2012, the Commission adopted CM 10-10 and formally implemented the CEP (CCAMLR, 2012). Currently, the System of Inspection is an MCS tool under the CEP (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). It should be noted, however, that the CEP does not simply subsume the System of Inspection.

There are three main differences between the two mechanisms:

First, the System of Inspection was established earlier than the CEP. In fact, the establishment of the CEP is precisely to coordinate multi-party cooperation, including the System of Inspection, to improve Members’ compliance with CMs and prevent violations (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). The CEP has a broader scope than the System of Inspection and is an assessment of the implementation of all CMs. CM 10-10 reflects the implementation of all CMs by Members through self-assessment reports and SCIC compliance grade reports (CCAMLR Compliance Report) submitted by Members and the CCAMLR Secretariat (CCAMLR, 2019). Given the scope of the CEP regulation, it also incorporates the “System of Inspection” into the compliance assessment (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). For example, South Africa undertook four CM 10-03 inspections for an event documented in the 2014 draft compliance report and subsequently agreed to improve its fisheries inspection capacity (CCAMLR, 2014).

Second, in terms of the implementation of CMs, the System of Inspection focuses on the monitoring of fishing activities. It is based on on-site inspections, which require Members to designate inspectors to approach or board fishing vessels, and even airborne inspections are controversial (CCAMLR, 2020). The CEP, on the other hand, is an evaluation mechanism based on various types of information, in particular written documents from various mechanisms, rather than on-site activities. It aims to improve CCAMLR’s ability to enforce compliance through an objective assessment of fisheries control inputs and compliance enforcement actions by cooperating Members (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). The CEP is an assessment of the implementation of all CMs (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). For example, the CCAMLR SISO, which runs in parallel with the Inspection Mechanism, is the main assessment object of the CEP but is not part of the Compliance Monitoring Mechanism.

Thirdly, the CMs for the Compliance Monitoring Mechanism under CCAMLR include 1. Vessel Licensing (CM 10-02); 2. Monitoring of Vessel Movements (CM 10-04); 3. Monitoring of Vessel Transhipments (CM 10-09); 4. VMS (CM 10-04); 5. Catch Documentation Scheme (CM 10-05) and 6. The System of Inspection (CCAMLR, 2020). As can be seen from the CCAMLR website, the System of Inspection is an integral part of the Compliance Monitoring Mechanism. Rather, the CEP is an evaluation mechanism for the tools of the MCS, which includes measures, legal actions and procedures to address non-compliant activities (Harvey, 1995). The MCS ensures that (a) CMs are complied with and (b) regulatory actions/sanctions address non-compliance (Miller, Reference Miller Denzil2010). The CEP does not monitor and control these activities but evaluates them.

The System of Inspection is therefore the subject of the CEP evaluation, not part of it. The System of Inspection is the earliest “Compliance Monitoring Mechanism” under the CCAMLR Compliance, and other mechanisms have been established gradually thereafter. In fact, the CEP is still evolving due to its short implementation period (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019).

The Scope of Inspections in the Convention Area

The System of Inspection is implemented throughout the Convention Area. However, as shown in Figure 4, the areas where At-sea inspections have been carried out are concentrated in a few subareas, and the annual reports do not record whether inspections have taken place in most areas. However, areas where inspections are not documented are not free of fishing. This can also be seen from Figure 5 and Table 2. So why are the reported At-sea inspections concentrated in a few areas? Whether it is due to a preference for inspections by some Members, or related port inspections covering other areas, or whether it is not documented in the annual reports for some reason, requires further analysis.

Table 2. Total catch (tonne) of all species and total inspections in subareas 48.1/48.3/58.6/88.2 from 1990 to 2021.

Firstly, the focus of Port and At-sea inspections is different. At-sea inspection is an inspection of the fishing process but also includes an inspection of the catch, whereas Port inspection focuses more on the inspection of the catch. Compared with At-sea inspection, Port inspection requires Members to inspect fishing vessels in their own ports, which is less difficult and costly. Not only do Port inspections play a prominent role in updating the IUU vessel list, but the Commission has clearly called for Port inspections to achieve full coverage of fishing vessels that meet inspection standards (CCAMLR, 2017). Indeed, when the System of Inspection was first established, At-sea inspections were the only form of inspection. In 1997, the SCOI began to discuss the conduct of Port inspections (CCAMLR, 1997). In 1998, the European Community submitted draft CMs for the conduct of Port inspections, which were implemented in 1999 (CCAMLR, 1998). An analysis of inspection reports since the introduction of Port inspections shows that Port inspections have been carried out significantly more frequently than At-sea inspections, indicating that Port inspections are highly valued by Members. The annual reports mention Port inspections more often than At-sea inspections, and most of the inspections carried out in practice are also Port inspections. The proportion of these two types of inspection has changed over the last 30 years. Port inspections determine whether CMs have been breached by examining the nature of catches and information on fishing vessels, not on the basis of the area in which the vessel operates but on the basis of the port of destination. To some extent, it can be shown that the concentration of At-sea inspections in a few Subareas does not mean that there is no regulation of fishing in other parts of the Convention Area. However, this does not mean that At-sea inspection is less important. It continues to play an irreplaceable role in the Compliance Monitoring Mechanism. Neither aerial surveillance nor satellite imagery can replace on-the-spot inspection. In addition to the inspection of fishing licences, fishing gear and the number of catch types of fishing vessels, data from At-sea inspection are an important basis for updating the list of IUU fishing vessels on the CCAMLR website (CCAMLR, 2017). CCAMLR must continue to encourage Members to carry out At-sea inspections and Port inspections.

Second, more inspection data need to be disclosed in the annual reports. As a multilateral Compliance Monitoring Mechanism under CCAMLR, the System of Inspection relies on Members to conduct inspections and provide data. If members do not carry out inspections or provide relevant information, the data in the annual reports will certainly be lacking (CCAMLR, 2014). Compared with the SCOI Annual Report of 1990, the content of the SCIC Report of 2021 is several times more extensive. However, its inspection data are not more comprehensive. An analysis of more than 30 years of data shows that some years are missing for unknown reasons and that some years with data reflect only the data submitted by some inspecting Members. In particular, most of the inspection data is classified according to the Member that carried out the inspection, and only in some years it is indicated whether it is At-sea inspection or Port inspection. Due to the lack of inspection data, the location and number of some At-sea inspections cannot be fully indicated in the figure and table above. This may also be a reason why At-sea inspections are concentrated in certain Subareas of the Convention Area.

Thirdly, other MCS instruments implemented under CCAMLR provide Members with options other than inspection. There is also coordination and complementarity between different MCS tools, so that inspection is no longer the only Compliance Monitoring Mechanism under the Convention (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019). For example, VMS as an MCS tool under CCAMLR provides vessel information for inspection (CCAMLR, 2018). The CEP evaluated the implementation of MCS tools under the CAMLR Convention, which further integrated the implementation of various MCS tools and impacted the conduct of inspections (Miller & Elise, Reference Miller and Elise2019).

Consequently, for a variety of reasons, the At-sea inspections in the report are limited to a few subareas within the Convention Area. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of all Members to ensure the conservation of fishery resources. As stated in the Annual Reports over the years, the Commission has repeatedly called upon Members to carry out inspections. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned Members, Members currently engaged in fishing activities in the Convention Area should also carry out At-sea or Port inspections or actively participate in other CCAMLR MCS systems. On the one hand, other Members exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations under the Convention and, on the other hand, protect their own fishing rights and interests by regulating illegal activities.