Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

Summary of responses from GFCM Members to FAO questionnaire for states on the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU)

Respondents were asked in Part 1 of the Questionnaire to indicate whether certain measures to combat IUU fishing are of low, medium or high effectiveness. The measures fell within the categories of law and policy, flag State responsibilities, catch determination and verification, access by foreign fishing vessels, internationally agreed market related measures and national plans of actions (NPOAs) to combat IUU fishing. The responses are indicated on the attached questionnaire, and a summary is given below.

The other two Parts of the questionnaire relate to the types, extent and impact of IUU fishing and constraints and solutions for combating IUU fishing activities in the GFCM region. Responses to these Parts are more particular to individual countries and have not been summarized.

Nine GFCM Members responded: Algeria, Egypt, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Japan, Syria, Turkey and the EU.

Law and policy

Most Members consider that their laws relating to the following are of low to medium effectiveness:

Several respondents have indicated that they do not have very effective mechanisms for inspection at sea[185] or inspection in port[186], but they generally expressed a medium to high level of priority for adopting a policy to combat IUU fishing.[187]

However, four respondents indicated that each of the following measures were highly effective:

Flag state responsibilities

Six respondents[188] considered the information maintained on their country’s register of fishing vessels to be comprehensive, indicating this is a highly effective measure being taken by GFCM Members. Five respondents designated the extent to which they consider IUU fishing to be a disqualification for the registration of fishing vessels as highly effective.[189]

However, the high seas fishing data that respondents should submit to FAO was in general considered to be inapplicable.[190]

Catch determination and verification

In general, catch verification procedures were considered to be of low or medium effectiveness[191], with only four respondents stating that their mechanisms to determine the catch of their flag vessels as highly effective, and three (including the EU and Japan) designating their catch verification procedures were highly effective.

Access by foreign fishing vessels

In general the following measures in respect of foreign fishing vessels were considered to be inapplicable:

Most respondents indicated low or medium effectiveness for the following measures, and many indicated that they are inapplicable:

Port state measures

Responses under the category of Port State measures were almost evenly divided between highly effective and N/A, with the latter receiving most responses. Five respondents indicated N/A for effective action against vessels in port where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting IUU fishing, and four indicated N/A to each of implementing information requirements on the fishing trip and quantity of fish on board and cooperation through RFMOs on schemes to prevent landings and transshipments of IUU caught fish.

"Highly effective" was indicated by five respondents in relation to the measure requiring vessels seeking entry into port to provide a copy of the authorization to fish, and by four respondents regarding requirements for such vessels to provide details of the fishing trip and quantities of fish on board.

Internationally agreed market related measures

Three respondents indicated internationally agreed market related measures were highly effective, three checked "N/A", two ranked the measures as medium and one as low.


The priority in respondents’ countries for formulating and adopting an NPOA-IUU differed across the board, with three indicating "low", two indicating "medium", three ranking the priority as "high" and one as "N/A".

Summary of responses

For the summary of responses, please see Tables 3 - 5 (above).

[178] The tables showing the answers to the questionnaires that were included in this section (document produced after the Workshop) are the same ones as those found in the original working document; please consult Tables 5 - 7, pp. 61 - 65, above.
[179] Low (2), medium (4), N/A (1)
[180] Low (4), medium (1), N/A (3)
[181] Low (1), medium (5), N/A (0)
[182] Low (1), medium (5), N/A (0)
[183] Low (2), medium (2), N/A (3)
[184] Low (1), medium (4), N/A (2)
[185] Low (1), medium (4), N/A/(3)
[186] Low (2), medium (3), N/A (2)
[187] Low (1), medium (4) high (3)
[188] Medium (2) N/A (1)
[189] Low (1) and N/A (3)
[190] Low (1), N/A(5)
[191] Low (3), medium (2), N/A (1)
[192] N/A (7)
[193] N/A (7)
[194] Medium (1), N/A (5)
[195] Medium (1), N/A (6)
[196] Low (1), medium (1), N/A (4)

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page