IUU fishing

by

Beyond the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement: a New Policy Brief Compendium.

In 2023, the Mercatus Center (George Mason University, in Virginia) and the Center for Governance and Markets (University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) hosted a joint roundtable event dedicated to addressing persistent problems in global overfishing. The inspiration behind the event had been the launch of the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which provided the unifying thread for a series of discussions by several experts across different fields. The roundtable took place in Pittsburgh in the Summer, and preceded a number of written contributions that were subsequently published as part of a compendium of Policy Briefs hosted by the Mercatus Centre, all of which are accessible here. 

The purpose of the compendium is to explore solutions for enduring global problems involving overfishing and illegal fishing, and to inform the debate on fisheries subsidies, as well as related issues, as they are periodically debated under the auspices of the WTO and other economic and policy fora. Christine McDaniel and Ilia Murtazashvili, respectively of the Mercatus Centre and the University of Pittsburgh, have recently published a very useful paper with a summary of the topics that have been covered by all Policy Briefs in the compendium, which can be accessed here. As can be seen from the references to the topics covered by the different authors, concerns are varied and include implementation issues (particularly in the context of indigenous and small-scale fisheries) as well as agreement weaknesses and loopholes, and insight into the governance of fisheries resources as a shared concern of the global community.

A summary of all the contributions as well as links to each individual paper is kindly provided by the authors for ease of reference. My own contribution to the compendium, named ‘Can the WTO Help Fight IUU Fishing through Clarity-Enhancing Market Measures?’ can be accessed here. I hope you find this and other contributions interesting and useful.

With very best wishes for the New Year

Mercedes

Image credit: Juan Vilata

by

A new IUU fishing control tool for flag states

Pew has published a Flag State Performance Assessment tool this month. The main aim of this new instrument is to help flag States self-assess their domestic legal frameworks so that they can identify strengths and weaknesses in their law and policy frameworks to regulate the activities of fishing vessels in the high seas and in the exclusive economic zones of other States. The tool enables users to identify and map certain rules and processes that, together, enable and help support and shape the powers and actions of flag state authorities, especially those that need a clear and comprehensive legal basis, such as those related to the oversight of fishing activity.

The tool comes in the form of a questionnaire, which is divided into six modules, which contain a range of performance indicators in respect of different fishing vessel governance categories. The modules are: Registration and Due Diligence, Authorisation and Licensing, Catch and Operation Reporting, Monitoring Control and Surveillance, Infractions and Sanctions, and International Cooperation). It can be used with or without a simple weighting method to enable comparison and measure progress through periodical assessments. The questionnaire can be accessed and downloaded through Pew’s website: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/04/new-flag-state-performance-assessment-tool-aims-to-help-countries-combat-illegal-fishing

Beyond its main function of enabling the identification of specific IUU fishing control performance indicators, the questionnaire also has the potential to support flag States in strengthening their efforts to combat IUU fishing in a number of ways. Firstly, as the questionnaire has been developed on the basis of global international treaties and voluntary instruments, it can support the implementation of existing international rules and guidelines. It also enables mapping of the existing domestic rule framework and of changes occurring over time, and supports periodical re-assessments in a way that is objective and methodical, and can help promote legal accessibility and certainty. Some parts of the questionnaire are also designed to strengthen transparency in the domestic IUU control system and to help build cooperation procedures and practices, both domestically and internationally.

The questionnaire is not, and should not be seen as, a silver bullet to remedy weaknesses and failures to control IUU fishing, and in particular it will not be able to replace the political will and financial and technological investment that many states need to become truly effective distant water vessel governance actors. Nevertheless, it should assist in ensuring that key legal building blocks for such endeavour are in place. It is often an overlooked fact that national authorities depend on adequate legal bases to be able to exercise powers, particularly when it comes to surveillance and sanctioning, without which IUU fishing control can simply not take place.

At the same time, national legal frameworks for IUU fishing control also need specific rules that bind individuals and companies to certain obligations, as well as certain protections. With this in mind, the questionnaire contains several indicator categories that are present in each module. One of the categories relates to the powers and obligations of state authorities, and another one to the obligations and rights of individuals and companies. The third one refers to procedural indicators with a function of enhancing transparency through information and rule accessibility and enhanced legal certainty.

Although ideally the questionnaire should be used internally by the authorities of flag States wishing to improve their IUU fishing control performance, it can also be downloaded and used by independent third parties- interested in engaging in the assessment. Nevertheless, the breadth of rules and processes that the questionnaire covers makes it likely that some form of flag State assistance might be required in fully scoping existing national laws and regulations.

This instrument has benefitted from input by many experts from academia, industry, and government throughout its long development. I have had the privilege of assisting with its elaboration and having seen its evolution, maturation, and testing, I very much hope that it will serve to strengthen flag State regulation, and enhance key information and procedural transparency in the areas where it is most needed.

Mercedes Rosello, Leeds, 2023.

Photo credit: House of Ocean
by

Transhipment in the South East Atlantic: cutting through the smoke, and redeploying the mirrors

The author would like to thank Dr. Dirk Siebels and Dr. Ife Sinachi Okafor-Yarwood for the provision of valuable information for the elaboration of this blog, as well as Dr. Dyhia Belhabib for facilitating free data via the Spyglass online platform, and Juan Vilata for access to photographic material. Any errors contained in this blog post are the author’s alone.

West Africa harbours ocean waters rich in pelagic and demersal species,[1] yet also intensely harvested. Many commercially significant stocks are either fully or overexploited, and vulnerable to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.[2] A significant proportion of industrial fishing activity is carried out by distant water fishing fleets, including those of the European Union, Russia, and China. Vessels belonging to these and other fleets have been associated with IUU fishing activities in the region, and documented cases may well be unrepresentative of the total number. Indeed, IUU fishing activities are often difficult to ascertain due to their secretive nature, and a lack of effective monitoring and surveillance capabilities in the region’s coastal States.[3] There is also a significant incidence of de-stabilising activities, particularly in certain areas of the Gulf of Guinea, including serious crimes such as piracy, armed robbery, and drug trafficking.[4] Fishing vessels can contribute to this de-stabilisation: IUU fishing has been shown to pose a threat, undermining the security of coastal States and their people, and exacerbating other security stressors.[5]

Transhipment and its association with IUU fishing and maritime crime

The complex relationship between the fishing industry and transnational maritime crime was highlighted in 2011 by UNODC, shedding light into the operational synergies that interconnect fishing operations, specially IUU fishing activities, and drugs trafficking and other forms of criminality.[6] The contribution that fishing vessels make towards drug trafficking globally has recently been estimated, suggesting that shipments on board of industrial fishing vessels average at 2.4 tonnes per seizure, with artisanal vessels averaging at circa 0.8 tonnes per seizure, but commanding higher prices. The stakes are high, and West Africa has been identified as one of the hotspots.[7]

Transhipment (nighttime). Image credit: Juan Vilata

Transhipment at sea gives vessels operational options, including the opportunity to relocate items away from the scrutiny of port authorities. Hence, transhipment is often an integral part of maritime crime.[8] Simply put, transhipment involves offloading cargo from one vessel to another. This can be fish, but also provisions or any other cargo, including crew. It is far from uncommon, especially in remote high seas, where it is particularly difficult to oversee. Significant investment in monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is often necessary to ensure that unauthorised transhipment and other IUU fishing operations are identified.[9]

The complexity of MCS needs should not be underestimated. The capacity levels that are often required are exemplified by the recent collaborative programme between EFCA and the States of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), through which a surveillance operation was undertaken. This involved not only VMS monitoring, but also the satellite and radar equipment of the European Copernicus service, as well as coordinate information exchange efforts of the national authorities of the SRFC member States.[10] Unfortunately, these special cooperation programmes are usually time-limited, and in routine scenarios national capabilities can and often do fall short of the technical capacity needed to address all IUU fishing activity successfully. Around the globe, countries concerned about their maritime security and the activation of their blue economies have invested in advanced satellite fisheries intelligence programmes.[11] Although States in West Africa are working towards increasing their capacity to fully implement effective MCS systems, they have not yet achieved the kind of MCS capacity that would enable them to control IUU fishing activities comprehensively and effectively.[12]

A game of smoke and mirrors

Although transhipment usually occurs between a fishing vessel and a refrigerated cargo vessel (often referred to as reefers), controls may be further complicated by the fact that other ships can also perform transhipment operations and other activities such as bunkering.[13] Of course, the non-compulsory nature of AIS, specially in waters where the presence of piracy and other violent crimes often justifies decisions to turn it off, means that effective monitoring via AIS alone can be very difficult. Nevertheless, erratic AIS readings can be indicative of activity that could form part of IUU operation patterns. For example, a vessel could disconnect AIS whilst moving toward safer waters where fishing vessels are known to be operating. It should be highlighted that such irregularities do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing per se, but they could be an indication of possible risk that an unauthorised transhipment is taking place. This is specially so in regions where IUU fishing transgressions involving transhipment are routinely documented.[14]

By way of example, recent research in the Indian Ocean has suggested that cases of unauthorised transhipment may be linked to bunkering activity. Though difficult to detect with conventional VMS and satellite automatic identification systems (AIS) controls, the researchers observed the presence of bunker vessels in the vicinity of fishing vessels and large factory trawlers, whose AIS signals suggested erratic behaviour, indicating the possibility of multiple re-supplying operations rather than fuelling.[15] Available AIS readings suggest that these scenarios are likely to be replicated in other regions, particularly in areas that continue to suffer from a high incidence of IUU fishing events, and where vessels able to perform bunkering as well as transhipment are present, such as West Africa.

Transhipment (daytime). Image credit: Juan Vilata

Recent research undertaken with satellite based AIS and satellite assisted radar in parts of the South East Atlantic managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), comprising both the EEZ of Ascension Island and surrounding high seas areas, unveiled behaviour indicative of possible unauthorised fishing and transhipment and/or bunkering or supply, particularly around the EEZ borders, and especially by long liners.[16] Further, ICCAT records also indicate that transhipments are engaged into without adequate supervision, and that they may well be avoid inspection because fish and other cargo transfers are often impossible to differentiate from bunkering and supply operations.[17]

Further, as already stated, unauthorised transhipment is often an enabler to transnational maritime crime. Enquiry into the free online facility www.spyglass.fish reveals that drug trafficking offences have been documented in the West African region, both across the high seas and the EEZs of a number of States, all occurring alongside a very high volume of unauthorised fishing activity across the region. These overlaps, coupled with unusual or unexplained AIS readings, suggest an operational risk profile that warrants significant control and monitoring effort, as well as the adoption of surveillance mechanisms to safeguard compliance. 

The ICCAT management area. Image credit: ICCAT

Responsibilities of States with regard to transhipment

Under UNCLOS Part V, coastal States must ensure that fishing activities in their EEZ are appropriately managed (especially important are Articles 61 to 64 in this regard). As ITLOS highlighted in paragraph 113 of its Advisory Opinion, member States of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission must ensure that transhipments occur in specially designated harbours, amongst other requirements.

The responsibilities of flag States in the EEZ of coastal States were also discussed in detail by the ITLOS in its Advisory Opinion. In paragraph 114, ITLOS indicated that flag States must ensure compliance with the laws and regulations of the coastal States in which their vessels operate – this is of course not an optional matter or a courtesy: when it comes to fishing activities in the EEZs of coastal States, flag States have specific obligations under Articles 58.3 [“States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law (…)”] and 62.4 [“Nationals of other States fishing in the exclusive economic zone shall comply with the conservation measures and with the other terms and conditions established in the laws and regulations of the coastal State (…)”].[18]

Transhipment in West Africa. Image Credit: Richard White, Lindblad Expeditions

In addition, flag States have general obligations – see in particular UNCLOS Articles 94 concerning the exercise of effective jurisdiction and control over fishing vessels in the high seas, and Article 192 regarding the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment in all ocean areas.[19] These responsibilities are refined and complemented by obligations established in other important international instruments.[20] Further, regional agreements frequently impose additional and often very specific duties. In the West African fishing grounds of the Atlantic the measures adopted by ICCAT should be complied with, so that the fishing and transhipment activities occurring in the area can be appropriately monitored.[21] Under ICCAT rules, only vessels that have been authorised to engage in transhipment can receive fishing products from fishing vessels lawfully operating in the regulated area.

Yet, ICCAT rules on the monitoring of transhipment is widely regarded as insufficient. In particular, whereas purse seiners carry 100% observer coverage when operating in the ICCAT area, long-liners are subjected to little scrutiny by comparison.[22] The ICCAT member States had an opportunity but failed to enhance their approach to monitoring in their latest (2019) meeting of the parties.[23] This has occurred against a backdrop in which historical VMS data is contributed to ICCAT by the relevant vessels’ flag States, but has been acknowledged as difficult to navigate and process in order to clarify compliance.[24]

Such voids in ensuring appropriate monitoring of transhipment, a high-risk operation for the purposes of IUU fishing and maritime crime, leaves significant opportunities for wrongdoing, particularly in an area where satellite MCS approaches are still in development and the EEZs of coastal states are vulnerable to unauthorised intrusion. This void in monitoring requirements also perpetuates a discrepancy in fishery conduct standards across different vessel types that is difficult to justify in an international decision-making forum with important management competences. Indeed, RFMOs such as ICCAT are key fora where States bring into effect their international obligation to cooperate in matters of conservation and management of transnational fish stocks. International cooperation is a responsibility that is not satisfied simply by ticking a box for attendance to meetings, but also requires a conduct that makes negotiation and ensuing decision-making meaningful.[25] Indeed, this is what to a great extent furnishes the regulatory output of RFMOs with an authoritative force, especially when it comes to considerations involving the characterisation of activities as IUU fishing, including the activities of non-members. Needless to say, this authoritative strength should not be undermined by maintaining necessary controls weak – least of all by the members themselves.

Mercedes Rosello July 2020  

[1] J Alder, and UR Sumaila, ‘Western Africa; A Fish Basket of Europe Past and Present’ (2004) 13(2) The Journal of Environment & Development 156-178, 160.

[2] D Belhabib, UR Sumaila, and P Le Billon, ‘The fisheries of Africa: Exploitation, policy, and maritime security trends’ (2019) 101 Marine Policy 80-92, 81.

[3] I Okafor-Yarwood, and D Belhabib, ‘The duplicity of the European Union Common Fisheries Policy in third countries: Evidence from the Gulf of Guinea’ (2020) 184 Ocean and Coastal Management 1-11, 2.

[4] D Belhabib et al, page 86. See also D Siebels, ‘Pirates, smugglers and corrupt officials – maritime security in East and West Africa’ (2020) 1(1) International Journal of Maritime Crime & Security 34-49.

[5] I Okafor-Yarwood, ‘The cyclical nature of maritime security threats: illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing as a threat to human and national security in the Gulf of Guinea’ (2020) 13(2) African Security 116-146, 122.

[6] E De Coning, ‘Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry’ (UNODC, 2011).

[7] D Belhabib, P Le Billon, and DJ Wrathall, ‘Narco-Fish: Global fisheries and drug trafficking’ (2020) Fish and Fisheries, 1-16, 6.

[8] See I Chapsos, and S Hamilton, ‘Illegal fishing and fisheries crime as a transnational organized crime in Indonesia’ (2018) 22 Trends in Organized Crime 255-273.

[9] For more information on transhipment activities, see NA Miller et al, ‘Global Patterns of Transshipment Behavior’ (2018) Frontiers in Marine Science 240.

[10] See https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/pressroom/sub-regional-fisheries-commission-srfc-efca-and-france-fight-against-illegal.

[11] See for example http://www.verumar.com

[12] Comfahat-Atlafco, ‘Workshop on Monitoring, Control and Surveillance: and effective tool to fight against IUU fishing’ (2015) 4.

[13] See for example: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:5260334/mmsi:538007413/imo:9766281/vessel:LAETITIA_V

[14] See https://wnwd.com/blog/something-smells-fishy/.

[15] JH Ford, B Bergseth, and C Wilcox, ‘Chasing the fish oil – Do bunker vessels hold the key to fisheries crime networks?’ (2018) Frontiers in Marine Science https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00267.

[16] G Rowlands et al, ‘Satellite surveillance of fishing vessel activity in the Ascension Island

[17] ICCAT, Doc. No. COC-312/2019.

[18] ITLOS in Paragraph 111 of its Advisory Opinion refers broadly to ‘nationals’ rather than just vessels registered to the flag State [‘Advisory Opinion’].

[19] See Advisory Opinion from paragraphs 117 to 124, and 136.

[20] In particular, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement is a treaty of profound significance for the management of highly migratory and straddling species that occur partially in the EEZ.

[21] See http://www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/iccat/en#Org-Mission.

[22] See: https://iss-foundation.org/iccat-moves-to-protect-atlantic-bigeye-and-close-gaps-in-monitoring-and-data-collection/.  

[23] See https://www.globaltunaalliance.com/general/the-global-tuna-alliance-considers-the-outcomes-from-iccat-26th-november-2019/

[24] See M Ortiz, A Justel-Rubio, and A Parrilla, ‘Preliminary Analyses of the ICCAT VMS Data 2010-2011 to Identify Fishing Trip Behavior and Estimate Fishing Effort’ (2013) 69(1) Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 462-481.

[25] M Hayashi, ‘The Management of Transboundary Fish Stocks under the LOS Convention’ (1993) 8(2) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 245-262, 252.

House of Ocean, home of The IUU Fishing Blog
by

Links between ghost gear and IUU fishing: a brief note on control opportunities in the ASEAN region

Abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear (generally referred to as ‘ghost gear’) is a known stressor of marine species, a cause of ecosystem degradation, and a factor with significant economic cost to the fishing industry.[1] Ghost gear has been the focus of recent debate, attracting a considerable amount of attention in global policy fora.[2] In the ASEAN region, the removal of plastic litter has been made a priority by a number of States, with one of the most recent developments being the publication of Vietnam’s National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030.

ASEAN Map

ASEAN region (Credit: Asean.org)

Vietnam has also stepped up efforts at regional cooperation for IUU fishing control.[3] Perhaps the country has been spurred by the yellow card raised by EU in 2017 over poor IUU fishing control practices,[4] or its more recent extension.[5] Vietnam might also have been stirred by a low ranking by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime’s IUU Fishing Index.[6]

This move comes in the context of Vietnam’s double position of visibility in 2020, both as ASEAN chair, and as Standing Commissioner of the United Nations Security Council: one that no doubt will put pressure on the country to rise beyond the shadow cast by the EU’s yellow card on IUU fishing,[7] and another that should place it in an optimum position to promote cooperation policies that are congenial to its ambitious marine management objectives.

It is known that ghost gear and IUU fishing are two particularly challenging problems, even for countries that are committed to effecting sound ocean management. The links between ghost gear and IUU fishing are generally under-researched, but they have been a topic of increasing exploration in recent years. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative has suggested that a causal relationship is likely to exist: vessels fishing illegal may discard more gear in order to evade inspection or capture, or to hide illegal practices, and can lead to higher ghost gear impacts.[8]

Turtle in ghost gear - Ghost Nets Australia

Rescue work by Dhimurru Rangers (image credit: Jane Dermer). Ghost Nets Australia https://www.ghostnets.com.au/

In addition, a recent study by Richardson et al. involving ghost gear in Australia and Indonesian vessels operating in the region suggests that the loss of fishing gear may also be associated to related factors, including shortfalls in the governance of fishing grounds.[9] Amongst possible links, the author mentions poorly planned authorisation policies leading to undesirable interactions in overcrowded grounds resulting in gear conflict. 

Additional research is needed to confidently establish the causes of ghost gear loss and abandonment in more detail in different regions and fisheries, and to fully unwrap the relationship between IUU fishing and ghost gear. Nevertheless, it seems likely that improving controls over illicit and/or undesirable operating practices and conditions that result in gear attrition should pay off as an approach to more efficient management.

Global Ghost Gear Initiative Best Practice Framework

The Global Ghost Gear Initiative has published resource and guidance documents for the removal of ghost gear (https://www.ghostgear.org/resources)

Research suggests that initiatives should include a focus on preventative practices, such as gear maintenance, repair and management workshops and policies, as well as investment in safe disposal infrastructure and where possible financial support. Yet, this should be approached without losing sight to the need for sound authorisation and appropriate management to avoid overfishing and undesirable overlaps in busy fishing grounds to avoid gear conflict where possible.[10]

The removal of plastic litter from commercial fishing, including the collection of 100% of ghost gear, is an ambitious positive commitment under Vietnam’s Action Plan. Yet, like any other country involved in oceanic resource management, Vietnam would also do well to reinforce preventative fishery authorisation and grounds management efforts, as well as appropriate monitoring and enforcement as part of IUU fishing control strategies.

Lastly, the ability of derelict fishing gear to cross borders as a result of marine currents implies that management strategies should involve regional cooperation where possible.[11] Given recent commitments made by ASEAN and their chair State this year,[12] 2020 looks set to be auspicious for ocean policy, but -as always- any benefits will be dependent on real political will and the determination to ensure commitments come to fruition through adequate and sustained implementation.

Mercedes Rosello, March 2020

References

[1] APEC, Derelict Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris: An Education Outreach Seminar Among APEC Partners (2004) [http://www.wpcouncil.org/documents/APECSeminar/Other%20Documents/Seminar%20Report.pdf].

[2] https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/11/06/dispatches-ghost-gear-ocean-2019/

[3] https://theaseanpost.com/article/vietnam-joins-asean-effort-combat-iuu-fishing

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_4064

[5] https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-to-investigate-illegal-fishing-as-eu-yellow-card-remains-3942030.html

[6] https://globalinitiative.net/iuu-fishing-index/

[7] https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL222714/Vietnam-plans-to-address-IUU-fishing-loopholes

[8] https://www.ghostgear.org/news/2017/5/31/iuu-and-ghost-gear-what-are-the-links

[9] K Richardson et al, Understanding causes of gear loss provides a sound basis for fisheries management (2018) 96 Marine Policy 278-284, 280.

[10] Richardson et al, p. 281.

[11] Richardson et al, p. 278.

[12] https://stopillegalfishing.com/news-articles/asean-network-for-combatting-iuu-fishing-established/

 

by

The need to reinforce RFMO regulation for effective domestic enforcement: the case of Operation Sparrow II

By Mercedes Rosello (the author thanks Eva van der Marel and Richard Caddell for their feedback on an earlier draft of this blog piece. Any errors remain the author’s alone).

 

Abstract

This blog post discusses the extent to which the effectiveness of administrative enforcement decisions may depend on the clarity, objectivity, and functionality of the international legal and policy frameworks within which they are situated. In particular, it is argued that ambiguities in the rules and processes of regional fishery management organisations (RFMOs), may thwart attempts at enforcement. The case study, which is focused on the subject of stateless vessels, illustrates the need to ensure that RFMO rules cover known risk scenarios and are objective, and that processes are sufficiently timely to be fit for purpose, as is appropriate to organisations that perform a public regulatory function.

 

Introduction to Operations Sparrow I and II

The community of researchers, practitioners, and volunteers who work to achieve the eradication of the broad range of undesirable fishing activities known as illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing will no doubt recall ‘Operation Sparrow’. This was the eye-catching name given to a series of high-profile initiatives by the Spanish General Secretariat for Fisheries, the executive agency that deals with fisheries regulation in Spain, under the auspices of the Ministry for Agriculture and Environment. Operation Sparrow unfolded in two tranches, each supported by enormous financial, human and technical effort involving the participation of various administrative and policing bodies, as well as international cooperation by third countries, and by Interpol.

The IUU Fishing Blog offered a commentary on the nature, outcome, and implications of Operation Sparrow parts I and II in March 2016 [click here to see blog post]. In August of the same year, the Spanish Ministry published an official press release covering the progress made in the context of these operations [click here to see original post in Spanish].[1] For ease of reference, it is worth recalling that Sparrow I and II involved inspections and dawn raids on the premises of Spanish companies that operated several vessels suspected of IUU fishing activities, and culminated in the imposition of administrative sanctions of unprecedented severity. These events publicly marked a change of direction in policy by the Spanish government that the author, like many others in this community, welcomed. As is the case with any decision made by a public authority, the administrative decisions that brought Operation Sparrow to its final conclusion are susceptible to judicial review, and two appeals have been brought before the Spanish courts in this respect.

The appeals concerned sanctions imposed as part of ‘Operacion Banderas’, which was a discrete operation carried out in the framework of Sparrow II. According to the press releases made by the Ministry, Banderas involved the seizure in the port of Vigo of two vessels, Antony and Northern Warrior, and the imposition of a bond, as a result of suspected statelessness and fraud in the provision of information to gain access to the port.

The 2017 appeals 

Port of Vigo. Credit: Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Two appeals were lodged in 2017 before the section of the Spanish judiciary entrusted with overseeing decisions of the public administration, which forms part of a large composite court, the ‘Audiencia Nacional’.[2] The court recorded the lodged appeals with numbers 81/2017 and 82/2017 respectively.[3] Appeal 81/2017 concerns the operations of the Northern Warrior prior to its fateful arrival in Vigo in February 2016. Appeal 82/2017 concerns another vessel that, though unidentified in the judicial decision, may be reasonably assumed to be the Antony, given the vessel names released in the 2016 Ministry press release mentioned above.

The facts underpinning the Ministry’s November 2016 resolution and sanctions against the respective appellants, Capensis Trade SL, and World Oceans Fishing SL, are recalled in the text of the judicial decisions. From these, it may be inferred that the sanctions that had been appealed essentially refer to the following activities:

  1. At least some of the information given to the port authorities in Vigo to ensure that the vessels gained entry, and/or documentary information found on board at least one of the vessels, had been found to be false by the inspectors acting on behalf of the Secretariat. Each appellant was contesting fines of 200,000 Euros each in respect of these infractions.
  2. In the case of appeal 82/2017 brought by World Oceans Fishing SL, the challenge concerned a transhipment with a vessel that featured in a number of IUU lists. The appellant had been fined with 200,000 Euros by the Ministry in respect of this.
  3. The operation of the vessels after they lost the nationality links conferred by their respective flags. In the case of the Northern Warrior, it lost its link to its flag State, Curaçao, in March 2015, when the vessel’s operators requested its removal from the register due to cost considerations. From that moment on, the vessel had continued to be managed by the appellants, having engaged in at least one fishing venture in waters under the jurisdiction of a West African state, and apparently authorised by that state despite the lack of clarity as to the vessel’s nationality status. In the case of the other vessel, the decision indicates that its right to fly the Indonesian flag had been extinguished a few days before it requested entry to the port of Vigo. Each appellant was contesting fines of 450,000 Euros in respect of alleged IUU operations conducted whilst in a situation of statelessness.

The appeals for the events outlined in 1) and 2) above failed in both cases, with the Audiencia Nacional finding the fines had been appropriately imposed in accordance with applicable legislation concerning IUU fishing control. However, the appeals outlined in paragraph 3) were successful. The reasons for the failure of the sanctions and their implications are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Fishing vessel in waters near Vigo. Credit: http://www.turismodevigo.org .

Rationale for the success of the appeals

The inspecting authorities had found the vessels, which were not flying any flag when they entered the port of Vigo, had infringed Article 3.1(l) of Council Regulation 1005/2008, whereby:

‘3.1- A fishing vessel shall be presumed to be engaged in IUU fishing if it is shown that, contrary to the conservation and management measures applicable in the fishing area concerned, it has: (…)

  1. l) no nationality and is therefore a stateless vessel, in accordance with international law.’

Subsequently, the Ministry had relied as a justification for the sanction on certain provisions found in Article 101 of Spanish Law 3/2001, setting out serious infractions in matters of IUU fishing. Subparagraph 1 of the article includes activities concerning the operation, management and ownership of vessels without nationality, or vessels flagged to third countries identified by RFMOs or other international organisations as having participated in IUU fishing operations.[4] There is some interpretive ambiguity in the text of this provision that, arguably, permits at least three interpretations.

Firstly, the broadest understanding of the provision suggests that the presumption extends to two distinct types of activity: on the one hand, vessels being operated, managed, and owned whilst not having any nationality and, on the other, vessels flagged to third countries identified by RFMOs or other similar organisations. This would imply that the operation, management or ownership of a fishing vessel without nationality is a serious infraction, irrespective of the existence of an identification made by an RFMO or similar organisation.

Secondly, it may be argued that the above is too broad to meet the requirements of Article 3.1 of the IUU Regulation establishing a presumption of IUU fishing: the Regulation requires that it be shown that the presence of the stateless vessel in the regulated area is contrary to a conservation and management measure of the RFMO, or international organisation in question. It should be pointed out that, as Article 101.1 is silent on this point, this interpretation requires recourse to the text of the EU IUU Regulation, which is of course of direct application to all member states of the EU. It cannot be inferred from the text of the decisions that a relevant RFMO conservation and management measure was identified as having been breached.

Thirdly, a narrower interpretation of Article 101 is also possible, and this was the one adopted by the court: both the operation, management, or ownership of a stateless vessel, and that of a third country vessel, must have been identified by the relevant RFMO or similar organisation as an IUU fishing event. This the legally safer option for a domestic authority, because it avoids the risk of jurisdictional overreach, and neutralises any possible conflict between a domestic decision that a breach occurred, and a subsequent decision by an RFMO. Only an objective RFMO rule that only admits a binary choice on the facts would be sufficiently safe to avoid this undesirable potential outcome. For example, a rule determining that the entry of a stateless fishing vessel in an RFMO regulated area will automatically result in listing would meet those characteristics, but one entailing further deliberation to decide whether listing should occur would not.

Map of RFMOs. Credit: Pew Environmental Trusts

It can be inferred from the text of the two appeal decisions that, as the investigations progressed, the Spanish authorities requested the inclusion of the two vessels in the IUU vessel lists of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Resources (CCAMLR), a fact that can be verified in the Report of the Commission published by CCAMLR in October 2016 [accessible here]. This confirms that, at the time of the seizure, neither of the vessels featured in the IUU fishing list of the organisation. This fact caused the court to invalidate the specific penalties imposed by the domestic authority mentioned in paragraph 3) above.

 

Relevance of RFMO rules and processes

It has been mentioned that it cannot be inferred from the text of the decisions that an RFMO conservation and management measure had been identified as having been breached. It should be pointed out that, when Operation Banderas took place there appears to have been a lack of clarity as to whether the CCAMLR rules considered the presence of a stateless fishing vessel in the regulated area to be a breach of conservation and management rules, or be an action that merited listing. Practice in the organisation appears to have been erratic in this respect at the time.

Certain inferences can be made from existing rules, though these are far from the ideal level of objectivity that should exist in order to ensure safe domestic decision-making. For example, conservation measure 10-02 issued by CCAMLR in 2016 [accessible here] requires licensing of vessels by contracting parties in order to carry out operations in the regulated area. Clearly, this implies the automatic exclusion of stateless fishing vessels with regard to fishing operations in regulated high seas areas at least.[5] Yet, it is unclear whether ‘operations’ necessarily implies that evidence of fishing activities is required prior to listing. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that there was a lack of agreement at CCAMLR on the procedures for inter-sessional inclusion of stateless fishing vessels in the IUU list of the organisation. The Commission has recently undertaken to address voids on the treatment of stateless vessels via the drafting of a new conservation and management measure at the request of the EU, although the last Commission report does not disclose the precise details.[6]

CCAMLR Regulated Area. Credit: COLTO

In the view of the author, a requirement to prove unauthorised fishing before inclusion in the list is effectively placing the stateless fishing vessel on the same footing as those flying a flag. Indeed, vessels flagged to RFMO members cannot fish in a regulated area unless authorised by their flag State, in accordance with the above-mentioned CCAMLR rule. Procedural parity between vessels flagged to a member and stateless vessels would be of questionably equity, conferring an advantage to a vessel with operators that have relinquished the financial and regulatory burdens observed by duly registered and flagged competitors. Additionally, those operating the stateless fishing vessel may be less likely to face disciplinary and/or enforcement action, due to the lack of connection with the legislation of a flag State.

No State conferring a hypothetical right to access fishing resources in the high seas via its domestic law to nationals operating an unregistered vessel could do so whilst being a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, and/or any of the global agreements relevant to the regulation of highly migratory species and compliance in the high seas, without questions of international responsibility being raised. Effected by a non-party, such conferral would undermine the objectives of such agreements, and granting procedural parity to such vessels by an RFMO would weaken incentives to participation. Arguably, questions of responsibility might also be raised in respect of non-parties, considering the general nature of conservation and cooperation duties. The right to fish on the high seas is, under Article 87 of the Law of the Sea Convention, to be conducted within the parameters of those duties, and has been defined as being conditional to those obligations being met.[7]

In view of these considerations, it might be advisable for automatic RFMO listing of stateless vessels present in the regulated area to be made pre-emptively, unless the persons responsible for the operation of the vessel can prove the absence of fishing, transhipment, or other fishery support activity via reliable vessel tracking data as a minimum, or if their presence in the regulated area responds to a situation of force majeure.

 

Implications

RFMO conservation and management rules are essential to define what is or isn’t considered an IUU fishing event in regulated areas of the high seas. The partial success of the appeals highlights the importance of ensuring clarity and objectivity in RFMO rules, and that risks are comprehensively covered. Similarly, the clarity and timeliness of listing processes is also critical for the effectiveness of domestic regulation. In the case of confirmed statelessness of a fishing vessel, its operation in the regulated area should be classified as an infraction, to be followed by inclusion in the IUU list of the organisation.

An RFMO listing can be a lengthy process, and this can impair domestic procedures by introducing undesirable delays or even rendering an enforcement action toothless. Hence, recognising the importance of inter-sessional listing is essential. Lapsing decisions to the time when annual meetings take place is also likely to delay and impair the effectiveness of cross-listing activity by other RFMOs or international organisations like the EU.

The case study analysed here shows how the effectiveness of a decision by a domestic authority may depend on safeguards related to legal certainty, which may be linked to the objectivity and clarity of RFMO rules and processes on which the domestic decision is based. This raises the stakes for RFMOs in their role as regulators.

Whilst the status of statelessness and corresponding listing action may now have been addressed by some commissions, including CCAMLR, the issue is of concern to all RFMOs. Given their increasingly prominent place as public regulators of fishing activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the credibility and effectiveness of RFMOs implies that their decision-making procedures and resulting regulatory output must be objective and fit for purpose. Decisions on vessel listing are important, as IUU lists have become an essential IUU fishing control tool, and it is critical that rules and processes that are appropriate for organisations performing a public administrative function are adopted and maintained.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Spanish court decisions upholding the administrative sanctions applied by the Ministry as a consequence of the fraudulent information presented to port authorities, highlight the vital role of ports in ensuring that vessels are operated in accordance with all applicable legal requirements. Despite the invalidation by the courts of the measures concerning statelessness, the surviving sanctions underscore the emergence of port authorities as significant actors in the fight to deter and address illegality in fisheries.

Mercedes Rosello, London, 2019.

[1] These proceedings are different in nature to a separate case involving allegations of criminal activities against a number of notorious Spanish individuals and their high seas fisheries operations [click here to see post and linked presentation paper].

[2] The Spanish press has recently reported on the conclusion of one of these appeals [click here to see press article].

[3] The two judicial decisions resolving these appeals are susceptible to further appeal, and it is unclear at the time of writing whether such action has been taken.

[4] Emphasis added.

[5] A coastal State may authorise fishing activities in waters under its jurisdiction, even for regulated species, as was alleged to have occurred in this case. Whilst this may in some cases compromise the international obligations of that State, it would in principle enable the vessel to operate legally, unless it had infringed the domestic laws of that State in obtaining its authorisation, or in other aspects of the conduct of operations.

[6] See CCAMLR, ‘Report of the Thirty-Seventh Meeting of the Commission’ (2018) paras 3.23, 3.24, 49, 50, and 51.

[7] See T Henriksen, ‘Revisiting the Freedom of Fishing and Legal Obligations on States Not Party to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’ (2009) 40(1) Ocean Development & International Law 80-96, 85 and 86.

by

Satellite Technology and IUU Fishing

We end the year with this timely blog post from Beatriz Ortega-Gallego. Our contributor has a lifelong curiosity about all things nautical, and a passion for the ocean that led her to complete a degree in Environmental Sciences. She is currently pursuing a career as a fisheries inspector, and we wish her the best in her endeavour.

This topical blog, which surveys the main satellite technology applications for IUU fishing control, will be of special interest to those concerned with fisheries compliance. With increasing emphasis on the eradication of IUU fishing across domestic domains and internationally, and with global efforts to establish high seas marine protected areas underway, satellite technology is taking centre stage across the sector.

In this informative contribution to the IUU Fishing Blog, Ms Ortega-Gallego unveils the mechanisms and functions of Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), Electronic Recording and Reporting Systems (ERS), Automatic Identification System (AIS), Vessel Detection Systems (VDS), and voluntary Electronic Monitoring Systems.

Happy New Year!

SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY to address IUU FISHING

Control and management tools are essential in order to fight overfishing, protect fish stocks, and ensure fish supplies for future generations. The main fishing management tools are based on access requirements (fishing licenses or authorisations), technical measures (when, how and where it is possible to fish), limitations on fishing effort (that is, the time spent at sea by a fishing vessel of a given engine power). Also they are based on the management of total allowable catches and on quotas.

These management tools are effective in theory, but they must be combined with control tools which monitor the fulfilment of legal obligations, while identifying and sanctioning breaches. The traditional way of doing this is through fisheries inspections. However, in practice there are insufficient traditional control resources (a lack of trained inspectors, aircraft or vessels) to adequately monitor the correct implementation of domestic legal requirements on each fishing vessel in any part of the ocean.

How technology solves these surveillance difficulties 

In the 80s, Inmarsat and IMO (International Maritime Organisation) established the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). This is a combination of a global positioning and a satellite communication system. Throughout the decade of the 90s this system was revealed as a very efficient tool in the control of the fishing vessels activities at sea.

The development of new monitoring, surveillance and control technology has gone a long way in counteracting the aforementioned difficulties, and is now able to detect suspicious illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity effectively, in any part of the ocean, and without any additional monitoring support.

Credit: European Commission DG Mare

Which systems are useful as a fishing control tool?

There are several different types of control technologies. The most widespread of them is the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). It is a satellite-based monitoring system placed on board of certain fishing vessels. It receives position data signals from satellites and retransmits them at regular intervals to the flag State´s monitoring and information centre, which in turn forwards them to other control centres and inspection authorities. In addition to knowing the vessel´s position, this system is also able to determine the vessels course and speed.

All this data is stored in a closed and sealed box to avoid manipulation. This allows that, if an action suspected of constituting an infraction was not detected immediately, it could be discovered later by contrasting data.

Why is this data useful?

Knowing the position of vessels allows, for instance, monitoring of the closed areas or fishery protection zones, contrasting effort data and capture area with the data entered by the captain in the logbook, and/or ascertaining the exact coordinates of the vessel, allowing an on board inspection to be carried out.

From course and speed data we can calculate the estimated time of arrival at port, whether a vessel is fishing (3-5 knots) or sailing (10-12 knots) and even determine the type of fishing activity that is being carried out. For example, a trawler shows many consecutive positions in a small space and traces that intersect each other. A longline vessel can show numerous positions in a certain direction to set the fishing gear and others in the opposite direction to pick it up.

Therefore, VMS is considered a powerful instrument in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and is present in more and more RFOs like NAFO, NEAFC, ICCAT, CCAMLAR or IOTC. The contracting parties must send the VMS data to the control centres of the RFMOs with the frequency established by these organisms. For the purposes of EU legislation, for instance, VMS is mandatory for vessels of 12m in length and over, and they must transmit their data with a minimum frequency of 2 hours, as a general rule.

Another control technology is the Electronic Recording and Reporting System (ERS) or electronic logbook. It is a system that allows the recording, processing, storing and transmitting of data relating to fishing activities such as catch, transhipment, landing declarations, prior notifications, etc.

Through this system, illegal practices can be detected, alarms can be set up in case of non-compliance with legislation, and it is also a way of recording catch data facilitating quota control.

By cross-referencing electronic logbook data with VMS data, control authorities can detect untimely notifications, captures in fishery restricted areas, lack of mandatory prior notifications, or any other IUU activity. It replaces paper logbooks and also sales notes.

In 2002, the IMO approved the Automatic Identification System (AIS). It is used for maritime safety and security, but it may be used for control purposes. It allows identification, position, course and speed data to be communicated from vessels to other proximate vessels, to control authorities or to anyone interested in reviewing the data globally. The AIS is an autonomous and continuous system which implies an advantage over VMS, which transmits data approximately (varying according to legislations) every two hours. It does, however, have the disadvantage of not being able to be used in the high seas.

It is a system with a great potential as a tool again IUU fishing but will need implementation at a global level.

It may be the case that vessels turn off their AIS or VMS. The Vessel Detection System (VDS) allows position data derived from images captured by remote sensing (satellite imaging of sea areas) to be contrasted with vessel data transmitted by the VMS or AIS. Thus, if a satellite image shows, for example, the presence of 6 vessels in an area, but only a signal of 5 ships is received, it could be assumed that the vessel not transmitting is a vessel suspected of being IUU. It also determines the number of fishing vessels and their position in a given area and cross-checks the positions of the fishing vessels detected by VDS with position reports from VMS.

This system is still implemented experimentally in some RFMOs.

New technologies for the control of fishing continue to be developed and tested, like the Electronic Monitoring System. This is being used experimentally and voluntarily in some fishing fleets. It consists of multiple on board cameras recording all fishing activities.

None of these technologies substitute traditional control methods, but nevertheless they do focus efforts and as a consequence it increases the effectiveness and reduces costs of inspections. At the same time, control technologies improve the access to good quality fisheries data and make it possible to cross-check information from different sources.

Author: Beatriz Ortega-Gallego

Sources:

[1] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/05/tracking-fishing-vessels-around-the-globe

[2] https://es.mongabay.com/2016/04/quieren-acabar-la-pesca-ilegal-hagan-todos-los-barcos-sean-rastreables-declaran-los-investigadores/

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control/technologies/vms_en

 

 

by

Brexit and IUU Fishing

Introduction 

The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has announced that it will trigger the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union (EU or Union) in March this year. As part of this process, the UK is likely to leave the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), reclaim its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and resume international activity as a single State for the purposes of exercising rights and responsibilities as a flag, coastal, port and market State. Consequently, it will take its own decisions in international fisheries fora and bilateral negotiations, including for the purposes of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing control. This blog post discusses what the UK’s withdrawal from the EU may mean for the fight against IUU fishing, and related fisheries control policies that have so far been shared between the UK and the other States in the Union.[1]

Background to the Legislation for IUU Fishing Control in the European Union

Council Regulation (EC) 1005/2008 (the IUU Regulation) was adopted by the European Council on 29 Sept 2008, and came into force in January 2010, alongside implementing Commission Regulation 1010/2009.[2] The IUU Regulation and its complementing legislation establish a legal and institutional framework for cooperation in the fight against IUU fishing. They articulated a set of administrative and operational controls across the Member States of the EU, through which non-EU States with regulatory authority over fishing activities are engaged in respect of detected IUU fishing activity.

Axiomatic to the regulatory framework of the IUU Regulation is State compliance with all applicable international fishery conservation laws, and regional conservation and management measures. The IUU Regulation primarily concerns IUU controls on imports of non-excluded seafood products from outside the EU,[3] as well as re-exports. Failure to observe international obligations in respect of flag, coastal or market State responsibilities may prompt warnings,[4] and under certain circumstances also trade suspensions. The IUU Regulation is based on the premise of mutuality in cooperation among Member States as well as third countries, which is underpinned by information exchange and verification processes.[5]

The IUU Regulation and the UK

As a member State of the European Union, the UK responded to the adoption of the IUU Regulation by adapting its domestic legal, operational and administrative framework in support of the shared regulatory objective to control IUU trade. DEFRA contributed to the development of operational systems, regulatory structures, training and the strengthening of communications with the Commission and with the other Member States of the Union. DEFRA and SeaFish published information on the main provisions of the Regulation, and its implementation in the United Kingdom. Regulatory adjustments were made under the powers conferred by section 2(2) of, and paragraph 1A(f) of Schedule 2 to, the European Communities Act 1972, and section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981 for the implementation of the Regulations by way of the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009.[6] UK businesses, particularly importers and retailers, have invested considerable effort in adapting to the requirements of the IUU Regulation, and arguably have an interest in the maintenance of IUU controls as a domestic policy.

UK Withdrawal from the EU and IUU Fishing Control

Given its full integration in the regulatory arrangements that underpin IUU control in the Union, and the high rate of importations recorded by UK authorities, the withdrawal of the UK from the EU will not be consequence-free. Some of the effects of its withdrawal are likely to be potentially damaging for both parties, and detrimental to the objectives of the IUU Regulation.

Among the regulatory processes that appear less vulnerable to the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are catch certification arrangements. The flexibility of the regime is evidenced by existing agreements between the EU and non-member States, including New Zealand, the United States and Norway. These arrangements recognise the similarity of domestic regulatory approaches for the purposes of certification, agency interaction, and record keeping.[7] The UK’s integration in the regulatory fabric of the EU in all aspects of IUU fishing control to date suggests that certification arrangements are likely to be perpetuated. There may, however, be loss of coherence between the arrangements if there is no parallel reflection of planned future improvements.

Other cooperative arrangements under the IUU Regulation may be more vulnerable to the negative consequences of the UK’s exit. Among these, the removal of the UK from the internal administrative web of cooperation that supports the operational dimension of the IUU Regulation. This includes intelligence-sharing arrangements concerning IUU risk and verification data under Chapter IV of the IUU Regulation, which establishes the Community Alert System. The sharing of methodologies is essential to avoid misreporting and discourage port-hopping, one of the most important factors in the perpetuation of IUU fishing practices. Inter-agency cooperation and risk assessment systems are key for controls to be effective, and for enabling learning and adaptive growth and resilience against the highly dynamic nature of IUU fishing capture and ensuing transport and processing practices.

Responses to Confirmed IUU Fishing Activity 

The European Commission has adopted a high profile policy of warning third countries that it suspects as being non-cooperating for the purposes of IUU fishing control. The yellow and red carding system follows a formal process of approval that may culminate in the adoption of restrictive measures, including the possibility of trade suspensions, under Article 38 of the IUU Regulation. Once the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer engage in the participatory processes whereby carding decisions are taken, and resulting restrictions will not involve the UK market. This is likely to weaken the reach of some of the measures, as these commonly depend on scale and homogeneity for effectiveness, such as  restrictions in the provision of services to third country IUU listed vessels.[8]  Although there is likely to be loss of coherence in sanctioning approaches, some vessel black lists should persist, insofar as they concern regional fishery organisations of which the UK becomes a party. Lastly, the risk of deregulation in the UK, if ultimately realised, would accentuate discrepancies in market controls.

The IUU Regulation and Shared Stock Management

Upon exit, UK exports to the EU will be subject to the controls and conditions of the IUU Regulation.[9] Regular EU importation processes have been built on a certification strategy that is currently shared by the UK, and should not need major adjustment. International legal obligations exist for both parties in respect of the conservation and cooperative management of shared and straddling stocks under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, and other applicable global and regional treaties. Potential breaches are in principle relevant for the operationalisation of the IUU Regulation, although only in respect of stock intended for exportation to the EU.

Conclusion

The UK’s departure from the Union has the potential to be detrimental to IUU fishing control policies, given the UK’s prominence as an import market. The overall loss of EU market size, impoverishment of intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and loss of integrity in the articulation of responses to IUU fishing, may erode the efficiency of the system, and cause it to lose global impact in some cases. For the UK, there may be a loss of resilience and opportunity for adaptation to IUU threats, resulting from the withdrawal from EU cooperation, data-sharing and training networks. In order to minimise negative impacts, and given that currently there are no fundamental differences in the IUU control mechanisms in place in the UK and the rest of the Union, the perpetuation of harmonised administrative and operational arrangements should, where possible, be maintained.

There is a risk that the current success of the EU’s approach to IUU fishing control may be unnecessarily damaged, especially if there is loss of good will as a consequence of frictions in shared or straddling stock management negotiations. The IUU Regulation is a flagship tool in the EU’s continuing external fisheries policy, and one of which the UK has been a strong supporter. Maximising the integrity and resilience of the processes it has helped create is essential for the success of IUU fishing control worldwide. The continuing observance of applicable international conservation and cooperation commitments by both parties will be instrumental to ensure the perpetuation of its success.

Mercedes Rosello, February 2017.

[1] This blog post is a considered opinion by the author only, and has not been written or published for the provision of legal advice.

[2] Later additions include Regulation 86/2010, updating the list of excluded products.

[3] Article 8.2 of the IUU Regulation states: ‘fishery products’ mean any products which fall under Chapter 03 and Tariff headings 1604 and 1605 of the Combined Nomenclature established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), with the exception of the products listed in Annex I (…).

[4] Article 31.3 of the IUU Regulation.

[5] See Preamble paragraph 38, and Article 12.4 of the IUU Regulation.

[6] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3391/pdfs/uksi_20093391_en.pdf. The Order implemented sanctions under Regulation 2847/93, later repealed by Regulation 1224/2009 (the Control Regulation). In Scotland, similar arrangements were made through the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) (Scotland) Order 2013.

[7] Specimen catch certificates and provision for the development of assistance and data exchange processes are set out in Regulation 86/2010.

[8] See Articles 4.2, 5.2 and 6.1(b) of the IUU Regulation.

[9] Article 31.4(a) of the IUU Regulation.

by

EU External Strategy on Ocean Governance: Implications for IUU Fishing Control

The European Commission has this week issued a communication of fundamental importance for the future of global ocean governance. The statement sets out the Commission’s strategy for the development and implementation of the external dimension of the European Union’s maritime policy. The document outlines how the EU intends to respond to the challenges posed by the realities of ocean degradation and overexploitation within the framework the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Illegal Fishing

Credit: European Commission.

The EU plans significant resource mobilisation and capacity building in respect of ocean affairs across a wide spectrum of objectives. Focus areas include improving the governance framework, ensuring maritime security, promoting cooperation and coordination of existing institutional regimes, and investing towards ambitious sustainability targets.

Combatting IUU Fishing has been a priority for the EU for several years, and this is reflected in the strategy. The Commission currently values IUU fishing to be worth between EUR 8-19 Bn, involving at least 15% of global captures. The Commission has stated its intention to prevent unregulated fishing in the Arctic, and generally to address governance gaps through the promotion of regional cooperation and management, and the banning of contributory subsidies through WTO mechanisms.

Lack of knowledge of the impacts derived from ocean activities has been identified as a critical weakness preventing IUU fishing and overexploitation control. The Commission will seek to promote mechanisms for the identification of vessels and persons engaged in illegal practices, and to foster inter-agency cooperation, through Interpol where necessary. Member State based electronic tools should undergo development, and third country capacity and cooperation fostered for the purposes of the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA). Engagement processes under the IUU Regulation will be strengthened.

More specifically, the EU projects to support the creation of a global fleet register, the allocation of a unique vessel identification number through the IMO system to commercial fishing vessels, and the establishment of a global catch certification scheme. Operations of the external EU fleet will undergo enhanced supervision, and full chain involvement and technological mediation in IUU fishing control will be enhanced as part of the strategy.

Sources:

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/join-2016-49_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/swd-2016-352_en.pdf

by

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Eradication of IUU Fishing

The sustainable use and conservation of the oceans is an objective recognised in the United Nation’s Agenda for 2030, as part of an overarching commitment to protect the planet from destructive production and consumption patterns.[1] The Agenda for Sustainable Development is a declaration establishing 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), and 169 associated targets that are meant to build on previous sustainable development commitments of the UN, and specifically address the unmet objectives of previous international sustainability agendas.[2]

p1010105-copy

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is global and aspirational, and is meant to be universally applicable. It has overarching objectives, namely the eradication of poverty and the realisation of a sustainable and resilient world with human rights at its centre.[3] In line with its broad objective to eliminate poverty, it addresses fisheries sustainability as an antidote to food insecurity and underdevelopment.[4] The sector’s sustainability is critically important to human wellbeing: around 12% of the world’s population depends on fisheries and aquaculture for work, and the sector supplies 17% of animal protein in human diets.[5] In addition, fisheries is strongly supportive of satellite economic sectors, particularly in developing island States.[6]

The role of fisheries in development is highlighted in SDG 2, but the prioritisation of policies for the sustainable use and conservation of the oceans is underlined by the adoption of an entire and ambitious goal, SDG 14. The goal is directly relevant to fishery production and utilisation, and to the improvement of fisheries institutions. For the purposes of IUU fishing control policies and their relationship to specific legal regimes, the following aspects of SDG 14 are important:

14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics.

14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation.

14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of “The future we want”.

SDG 14 is designed to work as a catalyst for the convergence of relevant governance strategies.[7] Specifically on the issue of the eradication of IUU fishing, SDG 14 situates targets in two interrelated but distinct contexts: On the one hand, the attainment of fairness in global trade through the regime of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the eradication of detrimental subsidies.[8] Secondly, the sound and accountable governance of natural resources as the underpinning to just societies at a global level.[9] It is in this second context that SDG 14.4 sets a target to end IUU fishing as part of the commitment of restoring fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels by 2020. SDG 14.c specifically links this objective with the requirement to implement international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans. Allegiance to UNCLOS and its satellite treaties is therefore at the core of SDG 14, and all States with an interest in the sustainable management of living marine resources ought to prioritise ratification or accession, and domestic implementation. Further, they should clearly outline their commitment to UNCLOS in the context of international cooperation.

Finally, IUU fishing is one of the intractable problems of our time, and its complexity must not be underestimated. It both impacts and is impacted by corruption and poor governance, lax implementation of international law and global policy objectives, underdevelopment and marginalisation, and a lack of participation of the appropriate stakeholders in conservation, management and compliance policies. Hence, the objectives of SDG 14 must not be considered in isolation. The following are also relevant:

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and amongst countries:

10.6 Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions. 

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels: 

16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

Target 16.6 inherits part of the meaning of Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, whereby it is recognised that environmental issues are best handled in a manner that permits participation by members of the public. This principle led to the adoption of the 1998 ECE Aarhus Convention.[10]

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development data, monitoring and accountability:

17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.

17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries.

Mercedes Rosello, October 2016.

References:

[1] United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), ‘Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (2015) A/Res/70/1.

[2] Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by the Conference (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and corrigendum), resolution 1, annex I. 2012 Rio +20 Conference ‘The Future We Want’, which culminated in the adoption of a Resolution for, amongst other objectives, the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5–13 September 1994 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.95.XIII.18), chap. I, resolution 1, annex.7. Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 4–15 September 1995 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.96.IV.13), chap. I, resolution 1, annex II.

[3] UNGA Res 70/1, Preamble.

[4] UNGA Res 70/1, para 24.

[5] FAO SOFIA 2016, pp. 81.

[6] Ibid.

[7] FAO SOFIA 2016, pp 82.

[8] UNGA Res 70/1, paras. 27 and 30.

[9] UNGA Res 70/1, paras 33 and 35.

[10] Freestone, D ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ in Vidas D and Schei PJ (Eds) The World Ocean in Globalization: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (2011) 127.

by

Lack of Transparency: the Achilles Heel in IUU Fishing Control

 

Who Fishes Far recently announced the availability of new information through their pioneering database, which represents an unprecedented achievement in affording visibility to information that is rarely accessible to the public.

The announcement, which can be accessed here, warns of gaps in the information. Amongst these, the ongoing lack of availability of a unique vessel identification number is highlighted as being of concern, despite the fact that European vessels have an authorisation number. The reason for this is that there is a recognised need for a global tool for the identification of vessels across all registries and ports. This deficiency has been of widespread concern in the sector, and has been discussed extensively in the global forum of the FAO.

IUU fishing success depends upon opacity

The absence of this vessel identification number across the spectrum of ocean-going fishing and support vessels is important, because vessels flagged not just to European member states, but to the majority of distant water fishing states, are not constrained to perpetually operate under the same flag. Owners are able to re-register vessels to other flags in pursuit of commercial or practical preferences. Through this re-registration process, the traceability of a vessel’s identity can easily be lost, and a unique vessel identifier, such as the universally acknowledged IMO number, may be the only element of permanence in what may otherwise be an unrecognisable ship.

It is clear from Interpol’s purple notices amongst other sources that a recurrent modus operandi of vessels engaged in IUU fishing operations that the masking of a vessel’s identity, nationality and history by way of frequent re-flagging is a persistent strategy adopted by IUU operators. Yet states that ostensibly subscribe to all the major international treaties on fisheries conservation and management persistently decline to make essential vessel information available and verifiable.

For instance, clear registration procedures, the identity of their vessels and specification of licence conditions is rarely accessible even though disclosing this information is in principle cost-neutral. An unfortunate recent example is the case of Thunder, a known IUU vessel whose registration and licensing status by Nigeria has never been fully disclosed.

Image Credit: Sea Shepherd Global

Image Credit: Sea Shepherd Global

Insufficient progress despite key importance of transparency

The potential and specifics of a global record of fishing and supply vessels and reefers has been repeatedly discussed by COFI, whose strategy document makes clear that a globally adopted system of vessel identification would form the lynchpin in the convergence of IUU fishing control data-sharing, and in the coordination of regional and global control regimes. This includes the much hoped for operational success of the 2009 Port State Measures Agreement, which came into force this month, and which relies for functionality on the disclosure and availability to port authorities of key data involving vessel identity and authorisations.

In addition to vessel identification numbers, the importance of minimum standards for vessel registration procedures and their public availability for vessel verification purposes cannot be overstated: vessel registration provides a mechanism for identity traceability that can easily be lost if minimum standards, such as those set out in the 2014 Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, are not followed with rigour. The accessibility of this information in order to verify vessel identity claims should be a key feature of any public vessel register, yet it is undermined by pervasive opacity.

Conclusion

Lack of transparency is the metaphorical Achilles heel of IUU fishing control, but it is in the power of flag, coastal and port States to ensure certain key disclosures, such as vessel identity and licensing data, are made and maintained. Given that the nature of this information is commercially non-sensitive, there seems to be little justification for refusing to disclose such data.

International legislation on IUU fishing control, from the 2001 International Plan of Action, to the IUU Regulation and the Port State Measures Agreement, has been constructed around the central role of the vessel in activities that can be classed as illegal, unreported and/or unregulated. Yet, an unidentifiable vessel is just an additional shield protecting the perpetrators.

Clearly, leadership initiatives by civil society have an important role to play, but the leverage potential of international markets should also be articulated to promote transparency. There should be little patience with current hesitancy, given that the stakes have never been higher.