Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU)

17 October 2007
by eub2 -- last modified 17 October 2007

The European Commission tabled on 17 October 2007 a strategy for the protection of vulnerable deep sea ecosystems from destructive fishing practices. It also adopted a proposal for a legal ban on the use of harmful bottom gear from the high sea areas concerned. This initiative is fully in line with the recommendations issued by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last December. In today's Communication the Commission outlines the initiatives that the EU will take to strengthen international action in the UN, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and relevant international conventions to protect vulnerable marine habitats. For high sea areas not yet covered by RFMOs, the Commission proposes an innovative scheme that will require fishermen to obtain authorisation to operate in a defined area prior to starting their fishing campaign. These fishing permits may be issued by the Member State concerned only if it has been ascertained that the planned fishing activities will not have significant adverse impact on fragile habitats. In addition, fishing at depths of more than 1,000 metres would also be prohibited to EU vessels. These initiatives to protect fragile ecosystems on the high seas form part of the proposed EU integrated Maritime Policy aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of the oceans and seas.

What is meant by Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing?

The only internationally agreed definition of "IUU fishing" is to be found in the FAO's IUU Action Plan. In line with this definition, and for the sake of clarity, the Commission considers that the scope of the EU policy to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU fishing should cover:

• behaviours infringing applicable rules on the management and conservation of fisheries resources, occurring in waters subject to or beyond the jurisdiction of a State;
• fishing activities carried out in a high seas area and subject to a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) by fishing vessels without flag or flying the flag of States not party to the RFMO and in a manner contravening the rules issued by this organisation;
• and fishing activities carried out in a high seas area not subject to any conservation and management measures in a manner inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of fisheries resources under international law.

The policy of the EU against IUU fishing shall therefore encompass fishing activities occurring within EU waters as well as beyond those waters. Obviously, this policy should be geared towards deterring and punishing the most damaging infringements and not result in a uniform and burdensome approach which attempts to cover every possible minor breach of fisheries laws.

Why is IUU fishing a threat to sustainable fisheries?

By definition, IUU fishing means that catches are either misreported, or not reported at all, to the relevant public authorities. IUU fishing is thus a major contributor to over fishing. Come forms of IUU activity specifically target juveniles, which would otherwise be protected by rules on minimum sizes, or are carried out during periods or in areas which are normally closed, thus jeopardizing the renewal of the fish stocks concerned. When stocks are already outside safe biological limits, IUU practices can act as the trigger for further, dramatic consequences. A good example of this is the case of blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean, where the IUU catch has been estimated to be running at such a high level that it could soon bring the stock to the brink of extinction if allowed to proceed unchecked.

Does IUU fishing damage the marine environment in other ways?

The environmental consequences of IUU fishing go well beyond the direct damage done to fish stocks. These practices also represent a serious threat to marine ecosystems and habitats. In particular, fishing with prohibited methods can result in a high proportion of unwanted species being taken as by-catch and then discarded.

Such discards commonly include not only fish species, but other animals, such as seabirds or turtles, the vast majority of which will not survive. Fishing in protected areas may also be the direct cause of irreversible damage to vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs.

How do IUU activities affect the livelihoods of honest fishermen?

IUU fishing represents the theft of essential fisheries resources from those fishermen who do abide by the law. Accurate estimates of the full extent of any illicit practice are, of course, difficult to obtain. Notwithstanding, the value of IUU fishing has been assessed to amount worldwide €10 billion. For comparison, the value of landings by the EU fleet was €6.8 billion in 2004.

The EU fishing industry faces fierce competition from IUU operators who disregard all the many obligations which legal operators take on when working the same fishing grounds or targeting the same species and end markets (e.g., cod, redfish, swordfish, toothfish, tuna). EU fishermen operating legally thus suffer discrimination due to the unfair practices of IUU operators, which result in particular in loss of market share for the EU industry and trade distortions due to the different cost structures borne by legal operators compared to their illegal counterparts. This problem has worsened over the last years with the globalisation of the fisheries sector, which has led to increased trade flows of fisheries products whose legality is difficult to ascertain.

How are these effects felt outside the EU?

IUU fishing has particularly dramatic consequences for coastal communities in developing countries. For many of these communities, fish resources play a major role in food security and poverty alleviation. Coastal developing countries often lack the means and capacity to manage and control properly the maritime waters under their jurisdiction. Unscrupulous illegal operators take advantage of those weaknesses to pursue fishing activities without authorization from the coastal States and to plunder resources which are vital to local fishermen. This is a major problem in Sub-Saharan Africa, where losses resulting from IUU fishing have been estimated at as much as €800 million a year.

What about the ordinary crew members who are work on IUU vessels?

Some firms who practice illegal fishing, including EU operators, operate substandard vessels flying the flag of States which either do not apply any standards of social protection or do so only at a very low level. As a result, their crews have to endure unacceptable living and working conditions. This in turn undermines efforts to achieve international progress on social standards for fishermen, reflected in the consolidated international labour convention on work in the fishing sector adopted by ILO in June 2007.

Why do operators choose to fish illegally?

The major motive for IUU activities is the potential for high profits. The operating costs of firms involved in illegal fishing are generally lower than those of the average fishing firm operating legally. Costs resulting from social and tax charges can be reduced to a minimum or may even be non-existent for fleets engaged in IUU activities under cover of offshore companies or flags of convenience. Non-respect of fisheries rules and trading of catches outside official channels also translate into reduced expenses.

Finally, IUU operators are rarely penalized, and the sanctions they incur are usually not sufficient to act as an effective deterrent; they thus come to be considered as simply additional operating costs. While costs are low, the probable profits from IUU activities are generally high, in particular since illegal operators tend to target valuable species which command higher market prices (for example, toothfish, bluefin tuna or cod).

Another reason for IUU activity is the overcapacity of certain fishing fleets in relation to the fishing possibilities available. Some vessels will exceed the catch limits to which they are subject in order to maintain a level of catch that can keep their business profitable.

What is a 'flag of convenience'?

Under the Law of the Sea, the duty to exert control over a vessel is primarily incumbent upon the Flag State. When Flag States are unable or unwilling to exert such control, their flags can be used by those whose intention is to evade fisheries law. A large number of fishing vessels, in particular those operating outside EU waters, are therefore registered in States which run open registers, better known as "flags of convenience", and/or in States unwilling or unable to exercise proper control over their fishing fleet so as to ensure that they respect conservation and management measures. Registration in States hosting "flags of convenience" is generally a very simple and inexpensive operation. This then encourages flag-hopping, where vessels regularly change flags in order to benefit from the least demanding regimes and make it more difficult for inspection and control services to keep track of them.

To deal with this phenomenon, both Port States and Market States have at their disposal a number of instruments which can significantly reduce the incentives provided by such "Flags of non-compliance", but so far adequate use has not been made of these instruments. As a result, most of the vessels which have been identified as committing IUU offences in different parts of the world continue to be registered in States known for their failure to impose adequate control on their fishing fleet.

What will the new regulation add compared to existing EU legislation?

IUU fishing is by essence an international activity. International trade in fisheries products has grown considerably as part of the economic globalization, and this has provided illegal operators with many lucrative new opportunities. To dissimulate their illegal origin, catches are often transported along complex routes before they reach their final market, including transhipments at sea, landings in "ports of convenience" and processing in a country which is different from both the Flag and the market States. In some instances, the complexity and scale of these activities can rightly be qualified as a form of cross-border organised crime, whose working methods and patterns resemble those of other similar activities, such as drug trafficking or large-scale contraband.

The main shortcoming of the current EU regime is precisely that it is not comprehensive enough to address the complex, transnational nature of IUU fishing. We need an integrated approach to address these activities throughout the whole supply chain (from the net to the plate). In present regulations, the market dimension of the IUU problem is to a large extent left aside, despite the fact that the EU is the biggest market and the leading importer of fisheries products (the value of fisheries products imported into the EU amounting to nearly € 14 billion in 2005).

While numerous measures designed to ensure control of fishing activities at sea are in place at EU level and within RFMOs, the EU framework is particularly weak when it comes to guaranteeing that fisheries products from third countries imported into the EU have been caught in compliance with relevant management and conservation rules. As a result, the volume of illegal fisheries products imported each year into the EU has been assessed to amount to approximately 500 000 tons for a value of €1.1 billion, and higher figures should not be excluded given the current lack of adequate means to identify the full extent of IUU activities.
There is an urgent need for the EU to close these gaps. To this end, the current regime needs to be overhauled, via the introduction of major changes in the EU approach to the monitoring of the legality of fisheries products to be imported into its territory and the access of third country vessels to EU fishing ports. The measures proposed in the new draft IUU regulation should effectively close the doors of the EU to illegal fisheries products and vessels, and thereby reduce the economic incentives for IUU operators to harvest and trade illicit fisheries products.

Is the EU alone in taking this approach?

No. There is a growing international consensus on the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to IUU activities, as expressed in decisions of the FAO, the UN General Assembly and the OECD. Moreover, many RFMOs have recently adopted comprehensive control schemes(for example, NEAFC), or considerably strengthened their port state control schemes (for example, the new multi-annual management plan for Eastern bluefin tuna agreed by ICCAT in November 2006). It is clear that stronger control systems, which cover the whole chain from net to plate, will in future be the standard.

The proposed EU regulation follows on from the Commission's own 2002 Action Plan to eradicate IUU fishing, and the European Parliament's resolution of 15 February 2007, urging the Commission to finish the work it had begun. The regulation is also one of the first actions to be taken under the EU's new integrated maritime policy, which has received strong support from Member States, regional governments and stakeholders throughout Europe.

What other measures does the Commission aim to introduce to combat IUU actitivies?

The Communication identifies a number of key actions, all of which will be necessary to effectively close the net on IUU fishing:

1. Require all fishing products (including processed products) entering the European Union to be certified by the Flag state as having been caught legally. Proof of the legality of the catch must be provided by the Flag state through a catch certification scheme. The regime governing access and landing in Community ports by third country fishing and transport vessels will be adapted to reflect this policy. (See above.)
2. Enable the EU to adopt retaliation measures against States and vessels which repeatedly and obviously breach international rules on fisheries conservation and management measures. The procedure for identifying the States must be transparent and respect their right to make their views heard. The measures taken by the EU would take the form of commercial sanctions, ban on access to European ports for vessels flying the flag of the country concerned, prohibition for European Union nationals to maintain economic relationships with the fishing industry of the States concerned.
3. Increase financial sanctions for serious breaches of rules on fishing and trade in illegal catches. Financial sanctions must reach a level that deters fraudsters and could be matched with other sanctions such as the confiscation of catches or vessels and/or the withdrawal of licences.
4. Take stronger measures to prevent the participation of European Union nationals in IUU fishing activities.
5. Step up cooperation with international partners to improve monitoring, control and surveillance of IUU activities.
6. Take action within the RFMOs to improve the fight against illegal fishing and enhance cooperation between these organisations.
7. Increase support for the developing countries to improve control and management in their national waters.

Source: European Commission