Impacts of IUU fishing in the Asia-Pacific region

Impacts of IUU Fishing in the Asia-Pacific Region

Summary of findings

Initiatives to address IUU Fishing in a global context

Mary Lack Shellack Pty Ltd

Frank Meere and Mary Lack in 2008

On behalf of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Fisheries Working Group

Impacts of IUU Fishing in the Asia-Pacific Region

21 member countries

◦ Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, USA, Viet Nam

IUU study involved all of these plus all other countries bordering the Pacific Ocean (48)

APEC

• To improve the understanding of the challenges and obstacles to combating IUU fishing in the region;

and

• To recommend actions to address the problem

Objectives of the study

Questionnaire to elicit views and data on IUU fishing◦ to fisheries agencies in APEC member

economies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations

Published studies Grey literature Case Studies Expert input

Approach - 1

Case studies◦ Sulawesi Sea (Palmer and Tsamenyi, 2008)

◦ East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (SeaResources Management, 2008)

◦ Russian IUU sea urchin fishery (Krause, 2008)

◦ The Regional Plan of Action to promote responsible fishing practices including Combating IUU fishing in the Region (DAFF, IMMAF, 2008)

Approach - 2

• Included each of the three forms of IUU fishing◦ Illegal, unreported and unregulated

• Focused on IUU fishing by foreign vessels within other EEZs and IUU fishing on the high seas

Scope

Data and information is limited and variable in its reliability

Responses to questionnaire not comprehensive

Conclusions may not apply to each and every country and necessarily involve some extrapolation

Analysis was up to 2008

Note that:

Grouped the 48 economies into 4 groups

◦ North Pacific

◦ Southeastern Pacific

◦ Southeast Asia

◦ Western and Central Pacific

Analysis

International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU Fishing

What is IUU fishing?

At its broadest occurs where: Vessels operate in violation of the laws of:

◦ A fishery under the jurisdiction of a coastal State◦ High seas fisheries regulated by regional fisheries

bodies (RFBs)

Includes fishing:◦ Without the necessary authorization

◦ In contravention of established rules

Illegal fishing

Refers to fishing activities which have not been reported, or have been misreported, to:

the relevant national authority or a RFB, in contravention of national laws and regulations or the reporting procedures of that body.

Unreported fishing

Generally refers to fishing activities:In the area of an RFB by

unflagged vessels

vessels of flag States not party to the RFB

Can also refer to fishing in areas or for fish stocks where there are no conservation and management measures in place.

Unregulated fishing

Estimates are piecemeal and uncertainCountries generally do not estimate the extent/value of IUU fishing

in their waters

Estimates of IUU fishing in the region from the literature:

• WCPO tuna US$134-400m• Sulawesi Sea US$227m• Indonesia/Philippines US$3b• Papua New Guinea US$26.55m• Asia –Pacific US%5b• Asia –Pacific 3.4-8.1m

tonnes (16% of catch)

Extent of IUU fishing in the Asia-Pacific

Poor governance◦ lack of domestic management arrangements◦ lack of MCS capacity◦ lack of flag State control

in neighbouring EEZs on the high seas

◦ undelimited or disputed boundaries

Worth the risk◦ Perception of low risk of being detected◦ strong demand for seafood products

Socio-economic factors◦ lack of alternative income/employment opportunities◦ Overfished stocks

Usually a combination of these

What drives/enables IUU fishing?

• Most economies in the region (in waters under their jurisdiction)

• On the high seas

• Hot spots◦ Eastern Pacific◦ Northwest Pacific◦ Southeast Asia◦ Pacific Islands

Where is IUU fishing occurring?

• Vessels from countries in the region

• Often vessels from neighboring countries

• Relatively few instances of vessels from outside the region

• Vessels flagged in the region are also involved in IUU fishing in other regions

Who are the IUU fishers?

Whole region Southeast Asia WCPFC

Abalone Tunas etc Tunas

Alaska pollock Reef fish Billfish

Crabs Shark Shark

Reef fish Turtles

Salmon

Seas cucumber

Sea urchins

Sharks

Squid

Tunas

Main IUU species

IUU fishing is a major threat to the region◦ appears to be largely unchecked and low priority

Losses could be as high as 16% of total catch and up to US$5 per year

IUU fishing is a major problem and will get worse if not addressed

Key Conclusions

Main Drivers Main forms of IUU fishing

Main Species Main Obstacles Responses to IUU fishing

Assessed Impact of IUU fishing

Ineffective domestic management Excess

capacity Overfished

stocks Ineffective MCS- Ineffective

flag State control of vessels in adjacent EEZs

 Disputed/undelimited boundaries Lack of alternative employment  

Domestic illegal Foreign illegal

Commercial Tunas etc Reef fish Shark

 Other turtles 

Governance: Political will Management

measures Commitment to

international obligations

Sound legislation Lack of MCS

capacity (human and financial)

Litigation failure Broader political sensitivity of some issues (e.g. boundaries) Priority assigned to fisheries issues  Lack of a shared vision across adjacent States for improving fisheries management and addressing IUU fishing

Major: RPOA Bilateral

initiatives Other: Bali Plan of

Action Joint MCS

activities Increased MCS

expenditure Alternative

employment programmes

Encouragement of aquaculture

Economic: High impact

 Social High impact  Environmental High impact on

target stocks High impact on

vulnerable ecosystems

High impact on protected species

Southeast Asia – Key characteristics of IUU fishing

Main Drivers Main forms of IUU fishing

Main Species

Main Obstacles Responses to IUU fishing

Assessed Impact of IUU fishing

Ineffective management of high seas fleets Excess

capacity Overfished

stocks Ineffective MCS Ineffective

flag State control

 Perverse incentives specific

access arrangements

development assistance tied to access

Foreign illegal/unreported High seas illegal and unregulated (doughnut holes and high seas)  

Main Commercial: Tunas

etc billfish shark

Governance Political will

and financial resources

Sound legislation

Lack of MCS capacity (human and financial)

Litigation failure

 Broader political sensitivity of some issues (loss of revenue from access agreements) Lack of subregional cooperation on IUU fishing Lack of coordination/communication across national agencies 

MajorDevelopment of coordinated multilateral MCS strategy and response Joint MCS activities Additional management requirements for foreign vessels under access agreements and restrictions on access to adjacent high seas. OtherEnhanced domestic management and MCS arrangements  

Economic: High

impact/loss Social High impact Environmental: High impact on

target stocks; Low impact

elsewhere

Western and Central Pacific – Key characteristics of IUU fishing

• Increase political will and public awareness

• Significantly enhanced domestic fisheries management arrangements

• Improved MCS arrangements and additional resources

• Regional MCS initiatives

Summing up – What is needed?

• Improved bilateral and multilateral engagement

• Stronger port and market state measures

• Programs to foster alternative livelihoods

• Catch documentation schemes for high value species

What is needed?

Have analyzed IUU fishing at a regional and sub-regional level

Ultimately, the region’s fisheries operate in a global markets ◦ Access to markets can be affected by national,

regional or international responses to IUU fishing

These responses warrant consideration

IUU fishing is a global problem

Those with one or more of these characteristics◦ High value product◦ High value to weight ratio (i.e. easy to

transport/smuggle)◦ Ease of access (e.g. inshore waters, low level of

capital investment)◦ Wide distribution of stocks◦ Low risk of detection (inadequate surveillance)◦ Inadequate penalties◦ Strong market demand

Species Susceptible to IUU fishing

Can’t change:

The value

Its transportability

Its catchability

Its natural distribution

Addressing IUU fishing

Can change:

The risk of detection

The consequences of detection

Market demand

Access to markets

Addressing IUU fishing

National level

Increased surveillance

Increased enforcement

Adoption of legislation to prevent IUU product entering the country◦ US law that can prohibit imports from nations that are considered not to have

taken appropriate action to precent their vessels engaging in IUU fishing

◦ The European Union measures

only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU.

A European black list \covering both IUU vessels and States that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities.

Introduction of substantial penalties for EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world

Addressing IUU Fishing

US law that can prohibit imports from nations that are considered not to have taken appropriate action to prevent their vessels engaging in IUU fishing

The European Union measures

only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU.

A European black list \covering both IUU vessels and States that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities.

Introduction of substantial penalties for EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world

National measures of the EU and US

Regional Fisheries Bodies

Catch/trade documentation schemes

Vessel lists – black lists and white lists

Trade bans on uncooperative countries

Addressing IUU fishing

Internationally Binding FAO Agreement on Port State

Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

Addressing IUU fishing

Industry level Ecolabels

◦Provide primarily environmental information to buyers

◦may or may not be associated with certification

Certification schemes◦assurance that product, process or service

conforms to a standard

◦Can be first, second, or third party certification

Addressing IUU Fishing

Rely on product differentiation in the market ◦ Facilitates consumers exercise choice for legal

and/or sustainable product

◦ May ultimately reduce demand for and price of IUU product

Impact on IUU fishing depends on◦ Chain of custody arrangements

◦ Awareness in the market of IUU fishing

◦ Willingness to boycott uncertified product

Ecolabels and certification

Key component of major initiatives to address IUU fishing

Hence the focus of this workshop◦ To identify strategies and models for effective

partnerships on seafood traceability

Traceability

ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stages of production, processing and distribution (Codex Alimentarius)

Record keeping system that identifies and tracks products from origin to consumption, while providing the ability to quickly trace back products at any point along the supply chain (Roheim, 2007)

What is traceability?

Thank you