4. IUU issues in APFIC countries

4.1 What are the greatest IUU fishing issues reported by member countries?

Countries were asked to report on the greatest IUU fishing issues that they were currently facing within their EEZ for both their national fleets and foreign fleets. Six countries provided information on these issues and the responses are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Current major IUU fishing issues reported by each country for both national and foreign fleets

Although the number of respondents was small, several interesting observations can be made from the data in Table 7. First, the majority of countries reported that IUU fishing by foreign vessels had remained the same or had declined since 2002, when the last FAO survey of IUU fishing was undertaken (De Young, 2006 and FAO, unpublished). However, the same conclusion was not evident for IUU fishing by national vessels where four of the six countries reported that this had increased or had remained the same. The major IUU issues identified were reasonably consistent across the six countries with using prohibited gears or methods being the clear priority identified for national IUU fishing and fishing without an access agreement and unregistered vessels being the clear problem areas for IUU fishing by foreign vessels. It is of particular interest that only two countries reported that they considered fishing by unregistered national vessels a major issue since countries of the region also reported that a large proportion of their national fleets were not, in fact, registered (see Table 3). It is difficult to reconcile these two contradictory perceptions, given that a robust and enforceable vessel registration and licensing system is a cornerstone of any programme to measure and therefore manage fishing capacity.

Of the six respondents, all reported that the major IUU fishing issues that they identified in 2002 had remained unchanged for both national and foreign IUU fishing. Clearly, there has been little progress therefore in addressing the identified IUU fishing issues over the past five years.

Separating the IUU fishing issues into the following three categories is an important distinction because different regulatory and enforcement regimes apply to each situation. These categories are:

• national vessels in national waters,
• foreign vessels in national waters and
• vessels fishing on the high seas

Table 8 shows the estimated percentage loss of catch that respondent countries have estimated for the various combinations of IUU fishing and types of fishery, and shows that in both industrial and small-scale fisheries, IUU fishing by national vessels is estimated to lead to greater catch losses than IUU fishing by foreign vessels. This is supported by information from the ten respondent countries for a total of 42 of the largest industrial and artisanal fisheries that, within these fisheries, IUU fishing by national vessels is considered to be increasing in 52 percent of fisheries while IUU fishing by foreign vessels is considered to be increasing in only 14 percent of fisheries.

Table 8: Estimated percentage losses of catch¹⁴ for the three largest industrial fisheries and the three largest small-scale fisheries in each respondent country by the type of IUU fishing. Information is only for fisheries within each country's EEZ and is based on the partial responses received.

Overall, the estimated losses from all types of IUU fishing in both industrial and artisanal fisheries is around 8 percent of total recorded landings, or about US$2 500 million annually.

Data from Table 8 shows that IUU fishing by national vessels in both industrial and small-scale fisheries is estimated to result in greater catch losses than IUU fishing by foreign vessels. In particular, IUU fishing by foreign vessels is not perceived as a major problem in most small-scale fisheries, which, by their nature are often inshore fisheries. Industrial scale fisheries, which are generally located offshore and therefore are more difficult and expensive to monitor, are reported to be more susceptible to IUU fishing by both national and foreign vessels. The estimated average losses of US$2.5 billion annually or 8 percent of total recorded landings are less than, but within the range of, the annual estimated loss of 16 percent of catch value as a result of IUU fishing, which was estimated by MRAG (2005) for a range of developing countries in various parts of the world.

__________
¹⁴ Respondents provided a range of percentage of catch lost. The mid-point of the range was taken in calculating average percentage losses.

It is clear that foreign IUU fishing in the region occurs to the extent that it does because (a)historically, the lack of management of fishing capacity within countries EEZs (and the resulting decline in fish stocks) results in vessels looking outside EEZs for catches (Morgan, 2006). This has often been encouraged by Government policies that provide subsidies for building 'offshore' vessels; and (b) there areopportunities for IUU fishing because there are generally weak national governance structures and MCS capacity to control 'foreign fishing' and IUU fishing by nationals, foreign fishing access arrangements differ widely with the result that some countries are 'easy pickings' for illegal foreign fishing and there is a lack of a regional structure to coordinate data collection and assessments to guide regional management.

Conclusion:IUU fishing is a major issue in the region and costs an estimated US$2 500 million annually or eight percent of recorded landings in lost catches. IUU fishing by national vessels is seen by most countries as a major, increasing problem whereas IUU fishing within country's EEZs by foreign vessels is generally seen as a declining issue as the region makes advances in controlling these foreign vessels. However, it is still a major issue in specific fisheries and areas.

4.2 Where are vessels of the region that are engaged in foreign fishing operating?

There were generally insufficient responses from major foreign fishing nations to analyse this question in detail with, of the major foreign fishing countries, only Thailand providing data. However, Table 9 below provides a summary of the limited responses provided. Of the few countries that reported on foreign fishing activities by their fleets, all reported that foreign fishing occurs within the EEZs of other countries under either commercial arrangements or, less commonly, under government-to-government arrangements. This is consistent with previous conclusions (Morgan, 2006) that showed, because of the declaration of EEZs within the region, the majority of the sea area (particularly in Southeast Asia) now comes under national jurisdiction rather than being international waters. However, as Table 8 shows, IUU fishing (both by national vessels and by foreign vessels) remains a significant issue within these EEZs.

Conclusion: There is currently insufficient data to draw any definitive conclusions.

Table 9: Summary of responses regarding the areas of operations of nation's foreign fishing fleets

4.3 Do countries of the region control IUU fishing in other countries or on the high seas by their nationals?

In a previous analysis of national fisheries and other legislation (Morgan, 2006), it was estimated that only two countries of the region make it an offence under national legislation for their vessels to fish illegally in another country's EEZ, thereby undermining regional commitment to control IUU fishing. Of the ten respondents to the current questionnaire, three reported that it is an offence for the nationals to fish illegally outside of their EEZ waters, although it should be noted that almost all of the respondent countries, except Thailand, were not major foreign fishing nations.

Conclusion: In accordance with previous analysis of legislation,the majority of nations of the region do not make it an offence under their national legislation for their nationals to fish illegally in either another countries EEZ (where they would, presumably, be subject to the laws of the coastal state) or on the high seas.This a fundamental principle of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing that clearly specify Flag State responsibilities. The inclusion of such provisions into national legislation would send a clear message to national fleets that their government supports international initiatives to address IUU fishing.

4.4 To what extent have national plans of action been developed to address IUU fishing?

Responses from the ten member countries has confirmed previous conclusions (Morgan, 2006) that countries of the region generally have not supported international and regional multilateral initiatives to coordinate issues of management, access arrangements and monitoring control and surveillance of fisheries. Only about 12 percent of the region's countries have signed the UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, only 19 percent have signed the FAO Compliance Agreement and less than 15 percent have developed a national plan of action (NPOA) to combat IUU fishing (see Box 7 for details of NPOAs and IPOAs related to IUU fishing). This latter figure is in stark contrast with reports from the countries of the region in 2003 (FAO, 2007) where 65 percent of countries reported theyhad developed an NPOA to combat IUU fishing! This discrepancy may be related to the definition of what constitutes an NPOA.

Countries of the region therefore rely on national legislation to control IUU fishing by their national fleets and by foreign vessels within their EEZ. In addressing foreign vessel IUU, member countries' legislation to regulate access to their EEZs is also supported by the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea although it is not coordinated regionally, thereby allowing 'cherry picking' of easy targets by foreign vessels that want to fish illegally. It is clear that foreign fishing vessels, rather than seeking prior permission, often rely on the lack of specific controls on foreign fishing and/or the lack of adequate monitoring and surveillance to fish in countries' EEZs. Under such conditions, the lack of explicit and specific regulations for foreign fishing often result in opportunities being presented for fishing, rather than specific permission being given. This distinction is important since it results in the coastal state having to show that permission for fishing has been given rather than foreign fishers having to show that permission for fishing had been denied.

In contrast to the Asian region, countries of the western Pacific¹⁵ have developed coordinating mechanisms, often through the Forum Fisheries Agency, to regulate access to their large EEZs and for managing fishing, almost all of which is undertaken by foreign fleets, of the tuna stocks within these EEZs.

___________
¹⁵ These include Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands.

Conclusions:Countries of the region have generally not supported international and regional multilateral initiatives to coordinate issues of management, access arrangements and monitoring control and surveillance of fisheries but have, instead,relied on national legislation, supported where appropriate by the provisions of the UN convention on the Law of the Sea.

Source:Adapted from "Regional and National Action to combat IUU fishing in the Asian region" presentation by David Doulman at the APFIC Regional consultative workshop on Managing Fishing Capacity and IUU Fishing, Phuket, June 2007.