illegal fishing

by

Europe and illegal fishing: Ghana responds to the threat of market closure

Ghana has been in the news following its designation by the European Union as a possible candidate for its “List of Non-Cooperating Third Countries” (the infamous list of countries who fail to tackle illegal fishing carried out by their fleets).

Along with South Korea and Curacao, Ghana was firmly shown a yellow card by the European Commission in November last year after it emerged that it had failed to identify and prevent infractions of ICCAT conservation and management measures established carried out by its tuna fleet. For the uninitiated, ICCAT is the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and it governs the fishery of tuna and other highly migratory species in an important region of the Atlantic.

The European Commission has already cracked down on countries it believes to be lenient on illegal fishing (Belize, Cambodia and Guinea). The effect of this has been that the three countries, now classed as “Non-Cooperating”, have lost their ability to export their fish to the EU until they can demonstrate that they have cleaned up their act. Further, European fleets are no longer working in the three EEZs and the three countries have lost the corresponding licence revenues.

A red card from the European Commission could have dire consequences for Ghana. It relies heavily on European markets and European investment for the production and processing of fish and, in a country where 10% of the population relies on fisheries for work the damage could be profound.

But the West African country has reacted: it has produced a fisheries management plan and has just announced that it will be joining a 5 year programme, funded by GEF, to improve monitoring, control and compliance of its tuna fleets. The programme, endorsed by WWF, involves rolling out technology that will enable to better estimate tuna catches.

Meanwhile, in has also received public support from Japan. The Japanese government has made it clear that it will partner Ghana and will contribute towards its development, possibly hinting at the fact that, should the EU withdraw its commercial partnerships with Ghanaian fisheries, other powerful fishing nations will be prepared to fill the gap.

Original Articles:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/artikel.php?ID=309095

Ghana teams up with WWF, ISSF, FAO in illegal fishing fight

by

Maritime Insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea: Illegal Fishing Matters

Like piracy, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing tends to occur in areas marred by insecurity challenges, underdevelopment and poor governance. The European Commission has identified IUU fishing as a key risk for its strategy purposes in the Gulf of Guinea.

Fishing vessel at sunset

Despite ongoing overexploitation concerns, the Gulf of Guinea continues to be a strategically important fishing ground for European fleets. The existence of bilateral fisheries agreements between the EU and Cape Verde, Cote D’Ivoire, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe and Mauritania speak for themselves. Further, private licence agreements also provide European vessels with access to the EEZs of other nations in the region.

A recent article by Ioannis Chapsos (see full text here), of the Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, also highlights the importance of the Gulf of Guinea as a source of oil and gas for the EU, particularly in the light of recent tensions with the Russian Federation (currently Europe’s key energy supplier). 

It is therefore hardly surprising that the EU is seeking to understand and address insecurity issues in the Gulf. What is interesting is that IUU fishing is being given such relevance in the context of European objectives. Perhaps this is a sign of the EU’s recognition that illegal fishing has a powerful destabilising potential. It can derail fledgling coastal development and resilience initiatives as well as persistently undermine attempts at sustainability in the fishing industry itself. 

Implementation efforts by the Gulf of Guinea Commission, ECCAS and ECOWAS concerning their ‘Code of Conduct Concerning the Repression of Piracy, Armed Robbery Against Ships and Illicit Activity in West and Central Africa’ will no doubt be key to future EU strategy development and outcomes.

With the region’s economic outlook and value as emerging market raising expectations despite persistent risks, there is unprecedented interest in IUU fishing, its effects on West Africa and, more widely, on Europe’s long term interests.

 

by

Buyer beware: EU bans fish imports over illegal fishing concerns

After months of warnings by the Commission, the European Council has finally banned seafood imports from Belize, Guinea and Cambodia over fears that the three countries have disregarded obligations to address illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. EU member States will now have to implement the ban and European fleets will not be able to operate in the EEZs of the three blacklisted countries.

Several tuna vessels owned by EU suppliers MW Brands (part of the Thai Union Group) and Pevasa are flagged to Belize and, unless they are de-registered and issued with a new flag by a country able to trade with the EU, they will not be able to supply tuna to the UK or any other Member State.

This could pose significant problems for importers as they will need to renegotiate and/or to find new suppliers in an effort to maintain a steady supply of sought after tuna products.

The EU’s ban has followed months of warnings not just to the three blacklisted countries, but also to Panama, Vanuatu, Fiji, Sri Lanka and Togo. Having been seen as keen to cooperate, they have been given additional time to enact and implement credible measures against illegal fishing.

Critically, the European Commission has also issued warnings to South Korea, Curacao and Ghana with regard to IUU fishing controls over distant water fishing fleets. EU interests have invested heavily in the Ghanaian tuna processing industry and a ban on imports from Ghana could be extremely difficult for the trade.

Fishing Vessels in Guinea

Fishing Vessels in Guinea

European Council Regulation 1005/2008, the legal tool that has brought about the ban, incorporates key aspects of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and the Port States Measures Agreement (PSMA), an international convention hailed by many as a leading legal tool with great potential to address IUU fishing. Questions are being asked as to whether the United States, whose Senate has recently given the green light for the ratification of the PSMA, will be the next global market State to develop a comprehensive system of port and market filters similar to that in place in the EU (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/portstate_factsheet.pdf)

For importers and their insurers this highlights the need to be vigilant: discernment on illegal fishing is now more important than ever, as is insisting on supply chain transparency. Choosing only fish suppliers that can demonstrate compliance with European and International laws will help deflect supply chain instability, contribute to the sector’s resilience and promote fair play.

by

Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing in the Mediterranean

A thoughtful post about IUU fishing in Mediterranean waters and a reminder that illegal fishing does not just happen in the EEZs of developing countries. Further, IUU fishing is not attributable to monster ships only: some artisanal and leisure fishermen do breach regulations devised to protect fish stocks from overexploitation, sometimes using destructive methods such as drift nets and monofilament. In all, IUU fishing represents a great and persistent risk to anyone whose long-term interests depend on a productive ocean.

Unknown's avatarMedReAct

The nature and extent of IUU fishing in the Mediterranean Sea is not clearly known at present. It is known, however, that these dubious activities are becoming a common practice in recent years. Mediterranean Flag states currently report several IUU fishing related issues mostly related to the Mediterranean fleet. In 2013 the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) identified purse seine, trawl and driftnets as the gears that are mostly involved in IUU fishing. Repeated serious 
infringements related to the use of driftnets were documented in Italy,
 showing the extent of illegal activities by
 over 300 Italian driftnetters.  A  ban on
 small scale driftnets in the Mediterranean would allow closing the current regulatory loopholes that illegal fishing operators have abundantly used to elude controls.

View original post

by

Maritime insecurity and sustainable development: building bridges of knowledge

As a social species we human beings rely on communication to achieve our individual and common ends, but work in collaborative initiatives can often highlight the limitations of language. Having participated in a great seminar on Maritime Security and Sustainable Development coordinated by Coventry University’s Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, it was interesting to hear other people’s opinion on this very subject.

One aspect of discussions that drew attention from attendees, rapporteurs and coordinators was the differing perspectives and understandings that people from different research disciplines can attach to simple words. An attendee commented on how the word ‘risk’, for example, could mean widely different things to people from diverse professional backgrounds. The importance of making an effort to see how someone may be relating to a topic under discussion cannot be overestimated: communication barriers can stop a project before it starts as potential stakeholders can misunderstand the relevance of an issue to them or their business.

At the seminar, the notion that maritime security and sustainable development are distinct academic and professional fields created difficulty when debating concept overlap. Yet, building bridges of knowledge between the areas of maritime security and sustainable development is not as counter-intuitive as it may at first appear. This became apparent when our seminar group began to explore the nature of policy and research stakeholders that would have an interest in each field: before long it became clear that the overlap was so substantial that the stakeholder lists were practically identical. Further debate exposed some causal factors that link both issues, such as the breakdown of the rule of law and failed maritime policies (not necessarily always associated to failed or fragile States). Certainly illegal fishing can be understood as a manifestation of both maritime insecurity and unsustainable resource allocation, development and commercial policies.

Along similar lines, at the 2014 Fishery Dependency Information Conference held in Rome, conclusions seem to have been revolving around the need to break down communication barriers between fishery stakeholders and scientists. Collaboration is key and mutual trust and understanding is not only desirable but vital for the achievement of reliable data and a genuine understanding of human impacts on the marine environment.

Breaking down communication barriers means bringing together disparity and promoting knowledge, inclusivity and respect. Bridging understanding gaps ultimately unites people in the pursuit of a common goal – we need those bridges of knowledge to bring the fragments together and understand the whole: devising truly sustainable ocean utilisation policies depends largely on this.

by

Overfishing is Mismanagement

Overfishing does more damage to the ocean than all other human activities together

Overfishing does more damage to the ocean than all other human activities together

The Economist brings two lucid articles on an obvious and yet hidden truth: the fact that the ocean is on its metaphorical knees. If the ocean was a bank account it would be careering towards the red at a blistering pace.

Many of us who have been studying fisheries policies and governance structures for a while have known for a long time that those responsible for administering the ocean have behaved like irresponsible managers, squandering it away.

In a way, we are all responsible. I heard someone say long ago that human beings are badly wired to see the whole picture and that we rush into taking the path to short-term gain without properly considering what the consequences of our actions will mean for other people’s children. This ignorant attitude has certainly characterised human domination over the oceans. Not only have we enshrined in law that ocean space beyond the exclusive reach of coastal States is a ‘free for all’ but we have refrained from exercising the required restraint to avoid the collapse of entire fisheries, rushing in for the kill in case anyone else would beat us to it.

Rampant overfishing has caused more harm to the ocean than all other human activities put together, according to the Economist articles. As a consequence of our actions, the ocean is losing its ability to sustain life. And the legal and governance frameworks that should stop this decline are woefully inadequate to be any use. And yet, better long term fisheries management would make the industry better off by an annual margin of $50 Bn, according to the World Bank.

Can the decline be helped? The are actions we could take, if we really cared. Responsible government agencies and NGOs have called for a global register of fishing vessels, a sort of registration number that does not change when the vessel is sold or renamed. Could you imagine cars without registration plates? Ships should have them too.

The other action is tracking technology. It is all very well to have marine protected areas, but there is no way of ensuring their integrity unless it is known where fishing vessels are. The technology already exists and there are few reasons not to use it. Heard of AIS? Cheap, available to everyone and widely used. It is time to stop the excuses and start using technology to track the whereabouts of fishing vessels.

Governments should demonstrate that they are capable of tracking the whereabouts of their fishing fleets. If they are not, their ability to licence ships for fishing should be removed by an international court. Vessel masters that want to fish in international or foreign waters will then have to register with a country that is responsible enough to track their vessels proactively and stop them from getting into places where they have no right to fish.

Many have decried insurmountable obstacles to achieve rational management of the fishing industry but, with today’s technological tools, the real reason lies in a lack of global vision and in myopic greed.

Putting it bluntly, overfishing is mismanagement and everyone knows what happens to badly managed stuff – after a while, it goes bust. When it comes to the ocean, that is something we simply cannot afford.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21596990-humans-are-damaging-high-seas-now-oceans-are-doing-harm-back-deep-water

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596942-new-management-needed-planets-most-important-common-resource-tragedy-high

Shark carcasses at a wholesale market

Rampant overfishing is leading to ocean degradation.

by

Illegal fishing in the age of global GPS: governments talk whilst making little use of available technology

Conversations on the subject of illegal fishing tend to gravitate around regions of the world that are known poaching black spots (be it the historically fertile and vulnerable waters of West Africa, the tuna-rich waters of the Indian ocean or the South-Western Atlantic and its lucrative banks of tooth-fish).

Despite the deserved attention that those marine spaces are paid, it is worth remembering that the curse of illegal fishing also takes place much closer to home. Though European waters are (theoretically at least) amongst the better controlled marine regions in the world, it seems that a shocking amount of illegal activity takes place here too, right under our noses.

This week, a newspaper in Malta has highlighted that illegal fishing activity by large fishing trawlers has been more or less commonplace in the protected marine reserve that surrounds the island in recent years (see link below).

Apparently, Maltan authorities have been able to identify poaching activity by various means, but it looks like some key discoveries were down to the deployment of a simple and affordable surveillance tool: AIS. Whilst I am sure that they must have invested in other systems of detection, I can’t help wondering why they didn’t start using AIS before, since it is affordable and easy to use. Vessel crews can switch off their ship’s AIS, but it looks like they didn’t even bother doing this during their illegal incursions into the marine reserve.

Given that fisheries resources around the world are on their metaphorical knees, coastal nations should be watching their seas like hawks. And why are the flag States of the vessels doing the poaching not calling them to task as soon as they cross the line into a protected marine area or the border of an EEZ where they don’t have permission to fish? In the age of global GPS, satellite surveillance and smart-phones, it is increasingly difficult to believe that lack of technological resources is the real problem.

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/New-control-centre-discovers-widespread-illegal-trawling-20140212

by

Should States be internationally accountable for illegal and excessive fishing?

The global marine fisheries industry relies on harvesting limited living resource and requires careful regulation in order to prevent over-exploitation of fish stocks, but some characteristics of the sector make regulation extremely challenging. Factors such as the dual role of the State as ocean steward and economic actor and the policy of competitive open access to high seas resources adopted by the international community have resulted in important governance weaknesses.

One of the most pernicious consequences of inadequate governance is the pervasive presence of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a major contributor to overfishing and a significant obstacle to sustainability. Its effects extend beyond causing damage to fish stocks and the marine environment: IUU fishing has also been linked to organised crime and food insecurity. It has also been recognised as intrinsically damaging to the industry itself and to the global economy at large.

The international community, aware of the need for conservation and concerned that IUU fishing may have become a chronic industry malaise, has made a sustained legislative effort to clarify how shared marine resources should be managed and protected. As part of this trend, the conservation responsibilities of nations whose fishing vessels harvest the oceans beyond the boundaries of their Exclusive Economic Zones have been reinforced and clarified. But in spite of legislative developments IUU fishing and irresponsible overexploitation continue to be rampant.

It has been argued that the sustainable expansion of international law can only be supported by a corresponding development of structures and processes of legal accountability (Jutta Brunee, 2006). In light of this assertion, legislation to define the responsibilities of fishing nations should have been developed alongside associated accountability mechanisms. Has this been observed by international legislators in the context of global fisheries?

There is an emerging debate on the extent to which flag States should be held responsible for the IUU fishing activities of vessels flying their flags and the extent of their liability (Palma, Tsameny and Edeson, 2010). Despite the nebulous nature of State accountability in International Law, it is becoming increasingly important that debate on this subject gathers pace. 

by

Bearing Witness: Clear waters and no fish

I recently travelled to norther Sicily, and hopped over to the Eolic Islands, where the diving was rumoured to be good. First impressions in Milazzo we mixed: the town seems nice enough, though there seemed to be a bizarre shortage of restaurants and an abundance of ice-cream parlours. Multiple fishing vessels came to shore at night, many sporting monofilament nets. Local fishermen (no fisherwomen anywhere) seemed to carry an abundance of small tuna-like fish in their iceboxes.

Next day, Stromboli didn’t disappoint. Black volcano ash masquerading as beach sand, calm blue mediterranean waters and the midday sun welcomed us on arrival. Stromboli was grumbling with rock and smoking away into the night, when we watch it erupt in fireworks.

Strombolicchio was the diving site of choice in the morning. The beautiful little island is surrounded by a small marine reserve, at least in theory. Before immersion we passed 5 gill net suspension buoys, some only a metre away from the vertical cliff walls. Immersion was good, the water warm and clean. The coral and anything living in the rock was a delight, the current fun and the rock wall a marvel. Fish larger than my thumb could only be glimpsed below 37 metres (how long are those gill nets?).

No fish in Strombolian waters for divers to see, then. Just plenty of fishing nets.

The Strombolicchio near Stromboli Island in So...

The Strombolicchio near Stromboli Island in Southern Italy (Eolie) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)