The enforcement of any regulation must be based on the control of each fisherman. For mesh regulation this means regular inspection of nets on board fishing vessels. The form that such inspections should take is outlined in paragraph 1 of the CECAF Sub-Committee quoted above. This sets out how many meshes from which part of the net should be measured in order to check on the effective average mesh size of the net (there is always considerable variation between individual meshes). It also establishes the standard type of mesh gauge that should be used, since the measurements obtained can vary with the type of gauge and the way it is used in accordance with the force that is used to insert the gauge into the mesh and to stretch the mesh. This variation makes the use of the simplest wedge-shaped gauge by itself unreliable; if strong inspectors use considerable force to push the gauge into the meshes, nets can be accepted as legal whose meshes are actually considerably smaller than the legal size. However, if inspectors have the opportunity to check their use of a simple wedge gauge against the standard ICES type gauge (which is expensive for large-scale use) so as to establish what should be meant by “pass easily through” (to use the sort of words used by legislation in some European countries), inspection with a simple gauge can, other factors being favourable, result in the enforcement of the desired mesh size.
One factor that can be unfavourable is the discrepancy between the net as it is presented for inspection at the port, and as it is actually used at sea. It is not unknown for the undersized nets, on completion of fishing for the trip, to be stored carefully and inconspicuously in the depths of the hold, while a legal-sized net is left on deck for the benefit of the inspectors. Further, once at sea, covers, chafing gear or other material can be attached to a net with legal-sized meshes in such a way as to obstruct the escape of small fish and bring the effective selectivity of the net down to the level of a net with meshes much smaller than legal size. Inspection at the ports may not lead to full compliance with the regulations unless it is backed up by some inspection of nets while they are being used at sea.
Inspection, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, can be purely a national matter, concerning the inspection by one government of its nationals in its fishing ports, or in the waters under its jurisdiction. If the stock of fish concerned is restricted to those waters and no other fishermen exploit it, then the matter need not be discussed further at an international meeting, except to the extent that governments may find it useful to exchange experiences about the techniques of inspection or related problems. For example, enforcement will be much easier if the fishermen understand the purposes of mesh regulation and the fact that some loss of the catches of small fish may have to be accepted for a short period so as to have better catches in the future. There are various methods - talks, posters, film strips, etc., that can be used to spread this understanding, and so make the adoption of the larger mesh something that occurs with the cooperation of the fishermen rather than being imposed on them.
Few stocks of hake or sea bream are wholly the interest of only one country. The next simplest situation occurs When the stock is restricted to one jurisdiction, but is also exploited by non-local vessels. Theoretically the coastal state could, as part of the terms under which non-local vessels were allowed to operate, impose whatever system of inspection on the fishing grounds it wished. However, inspection at sea, requiring patrol vessels, is expensive and is never likely to cover more than a small fraction of all the fishing vessels. A much greater coverage is practicable - even up to 100 percent in some cases - as regards inspection at the port. This would generally require the cooperation of the government of the non-local fishing fleets, and it would be useful to discuss the arrangements for such inspection. These could probably be best implemented as part of a general agreement for the operations of the non-local vessels in the waters of the coastal state. It might be noted that the cooperation of the non-local fishermen and their governments as regards compliance with and inspection of mesh size regulations is much more likely to be good if they have some reassurance that the fishermen of the coastal state are themselves complying with the appropriate regulations, and undergoing regular and effective inspection and enforcement procedures. This might, in some circumstances, be done by some form of mutual inspection, as discussed below.
Mutual inspection, in the sense of inspection (though not control) of one country’s fisheries by inspectors from another becomes important for any stock that occurs within more than one jurisdiction or is exploited on the high seas. For these stocks, which probably include several hake and sea bream stocks (e.g., the stocks of M. senegalensis or M. cadenati), what occurs within the jurisdiction of one country is not a matter for that country only, but is of direct interest to all other countries in which the same stock occurs, and whose fisheries will be directly affected by the degree to which fishermen in the first country abide by the regulations. This means that the government of the second country should have some opportunity to observe that action taken by the first country to enforce regulations within its jurisdiction is taken. This can be done without prejudice to its national autonomy, and involves no new principle. For example, under the arrangements for international inspection of whaling operations, inspectors of one country have been present at the shore stations of other countries and been authorized to inspect the whales caught. If they observe any apparent infraction of the regulations concerning the species or sizes of whales that may be caught, this is reported to the national authorities of the shore station to take appropriate action. Mutual observations concerning mesh regulations might be done in a similar fashion, for example by visits by authorized inspectors from one coastal state to fishing ports in other coastal states concerned with the same stock, or on board inspection vessels of that state.
The meeting may wish to consider whether arrangements for mutual observation would be useful to ensure confidence in the compliance by all countries with mesh regulations, and in that case, which countries should be concerned and what form the arrangements should take.
