To catch a thief
To find an issue that tests governance to the full, you need look no further than to pirate fishing says
Lesley Smeardon. Cast the net wide and discover the complexities of governance-related measures in
attempts to stamp out the trade of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
P
irate fishing is big business.
According to UK Fisheries
Minister, Ben Bradshaw, the
trade of illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing is “….driven
by sophisticated criminal gangs who
don’t care what or who they damage in
the pursuit of easy cash.”
Estimates put its value at around $9
billion a year, often largely at the
expense of developing countries. The
African countries of Liberia, Sierra
Leone and Guinea for example are
estimated to lose $150 million between
them every year through pirate fishing.
What makes this ‘industry’ all the
more difficult to govern is that it
doesn’t respect national boundaries
nor international attempts to manage
high sea resources. At just about every
step in the process, once the boat is
licensed and in the water, to getting
the fish on our plates, loopholes and
stealth tactics are successfully
employed to maintain the plunder of
fish stocks and evade apprehension.
With proposed new EU regulations to
combat this illegal trade, due for
consultation soon, what are the
priorities for preventing IUU fish
entering the EU?
CoastNet board member and
Chairman of the UK Food and Drink
Federation (FDF) Seafood Group, Cliff
Morrison says “One of the big issues
for the EU is that 58% of all fish
consumed in the EU comes from third
countries. For white fish it’s nearly
8 The edge Summer 2007
90%. Add to this the fact that illegally
and legally caught fish may be mixed
at any stage in the supply chain, and it
becomes hugely complex to identify
illegally caught fish in the market
place. Regulations need to look at how
to certify fish coming in to the EU
from the original vessel. This would
involve a system to develop full chain
traceability back to the boats wherever
possible.”
Perhaps one of the best documented
cases of illegal fishing is that of Barents
Sea cod (the largest cod fishery in the
world). According to estimates by the
Norwegian Coastguard, between
100,000 and 166,000 tonnes of cod is
fished illegally here, representing up to
40% of the Russian catch. “Cod is
transhipped onto reefer (transport)
vessels and shipped in Europe and
onwards to China,” adds Morrison.
“As imports from third countries have
increased, exporters have wanted to
maximise the value of their fish and
now undertake a degree of semi-
processing themselves or send the fish
for semi-processing to countries
independent of both fishing nation
and EU importer, eg China. If a
company buys from China, then
without full traceability, there is often
a good chance that an element of it
could be IUU cod. This is an area for
concern and chain of custody
information is essential.” (See page 9,
Chain of Custody).
As Chairman of the UK FDF Seafood
Group which is also the UK
representative body at AIPCE, the
European Seafood Processors
Association, Morrison is all too
familiar with the need to have in place
effective monitoring processes. He was
involved in the development and
implementation of the industry’s
traceability system to responsibly
source cod which is now informing
new proposed EU regulations to adopt
a tracing system. But these proposals
are full of challenges and the scale of
the regulations simply mind boggling.
“Take the developing nations for
instance,” says Morrison. “If fish is
coming from one of these countries,
they may not have the infrastructure
or resources to monitor and trace from
boat. So they’ll lose even more
business unless the EU commits to
helping them out. That’s why the
recent announcement from DFID of a
£15 million scheme in Sierra Leonne
to help fishermen stamp out illegal
fishing is a positive step forward.”
Of course traceability is just one
element of the IUU fishing problem.
The issues begin even before a single
fish has been taken from the sea. A
hotchpotch of binding and non-
binding agreements with different
geographical and legal reaches
provides many a loophole to exploit
(see box, Governing the seas). Take the
issue of flags of convenience, for
example which allow vessels to license
to any country rather than the
country of ownership. This enables
that ship to fish according to the rules
Continued on Page 10
 The chain of custody
Fish stocks
IUU fishermen do not abide by rules
designed to protect the wider marine
ecosystem. As a result, seabirds,
marine mammals and sea turtles are all
adversely affected by the trade.
Ship and crew
As WWF points out, IUU fishing is truly
global. A vessel may be owned by a company
in the Caribbean, that is itself owned by
someone in Spain, with a Russian captain and
a crew from the Philippines and flagged to
Transhipping
One of the main ways in which IUU fishing can
remain undetected is by vessels transhipping
their catch at sea. By transferring catches onto
transport ships (reefers) IUU vessels never
need enter ports. The AIPCE has recently
announced that it will no longer buy products that
have been transhipped at sea.
Monitoring of vessels
The lack of a single global database providing
information on fishing vessels helps perpetuate IUU
fishing. The UNFAO proposed database aims to
share information across national and regional waters.
Similarly the proposed database under new EU
regulations will use and share existing information
on blacklisted vessels from and across RFMOs.
Secondary processing
With an increasing amount of secondary processing
occurring in third countries, such as China, it is
difficult to ensure legitimate catches are not mixed
with IUU fish.
Consumers and labelling
Labelling schemes such as that set up by the
Marine Stewardship Council give consumers
confidence that the fish they are buying
comes from a sustainable source. The MSC
scheme is an UN FAO compliant certification
scheme for sustainable fisheries, which is
also linked to chain of custody from catch
to final sale with an ecolabel. Currently
more than 6% of the world’s catch is
MSC certified.
NEAFC = North East Atlantic Fisheries Comission
RFMOs = Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
IUU = Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Aid to developing countries
IUU fishing is estimated to be
worth around $9 billion a year,
often at the expense of
developing countries. Proposed
EU regulations aimed at full
traceability of fish could impact
developing countries further due
to a lack of resources to enforce. That’s why
international support for developing countries
such as. DFID’s £15 million scheme to help
Sierra Leonne stamp out illegal fishing is vital.
Flags of convenience (FOC)
Approximately 15% of the world’s large scale
fishing fleet is either flying FOC or the identity of
the flag is unknown. (WWF). Many international
organisations including the Environmental Justice
Foundation are now calling for the elimination of
flags of convenience.
Port authority controls
Transhipping aside, regulating access to port
facilities can be an effective way of controlling IUU
fishing. New procedures that came into force in
May this year by the NEAFC, tighten up port
authorisations, forcing flag states to confirm that
the vessel was authorised to fish, and verifying
information provided in a declaration from the
master of the vessel. Without such information, no
landing can be made.
Processors
Fish processors are now joining forces in
attempts to stamp out IUU fishing. The
FDF Seafood Group for example has set
up tracing schemes for cod and committed to
support a fish monitoring system in new European
legislation currently being drafted.
Supermarkets
Support for traceability, monitoring
and ecolabelling schemes help keep IUU fish
out of the food chain. Sainsbury’s, for example,
along with the FDF and Seafish were part of a EU
funded Tracefish project which developed a
European standard for traceability from
boat to final sale. Tesco and Marks and
Spencer‘s have also given their
support for a fish monitoring system
in new European legislation
currently being drafted.
The edge Summer 2007 9

of the flag country rather than the
country of origin. Flag licenses can
even be bought via the internet for
just a few hundred dollars making it
easy for vessels to re-flag (‘flag-
hopping’) several times in one season
to confuse monitoring authorities.
Then there is the issue of regulating
port facilities to control IUU fishing
and clamping down hard on so-called
‘ports of convenience’ such as Las
Palmas in the Canary Islands that
provide services to IUU fleets. Add to
that transhipping (transferring
catches onto transport ships,
(reefers)) to avoid the need to enter
ports, effective communication of
blacklisted vessels across the world,
and two tier markets that can be
created between legal and illegal fish,
and the subject becomes so insanely
complex that it’s little wonder IUU
fishing continues in almost pandemic
proportions.
But there is progress being made. As
Morrison explains: “IUU fishing is all
about profit. If you can make the
operations unprofitable you can stop
it in its tracks. Recently, eight IUU
trawlers were found fishing just
outside Icelandic waters. All were
putting fish on a mother reefer vessel
10 The edge Summer 2007
which was being followed by EU
officials. When it tried to land in an EU
port, it was rejected. It then went off
the European coast, headed to
Morocco, went west through Panama
and tried various ports but nobody
would take it in. Eventually the fish
was offloaded in Hong Kong as there
was no agreement in place there to
stop it. But, the cost to offload was so
much that ultimately it was not worth
doing. The great news is that some of
these eight trawlers are now actually
being scrapped.”
Ben Bradshaw, UK Fisheries Minister,
in a recent statement said: “We all have
a responsibility and a duty to make
sure there is adequate governance and
enforcement in place to stop illegal
fishing and to block illegal produce
entering the food chain.”
This governance that Bradshaw speaks
of must be the responsibility of all
those legitimately involved at each
step in the ‘chain of custody’ to ensure
illegally-caught fish has nowhere to go;
no country to license to, no port to
unload at, no processors to sell to, and
ultimately – no trade.
Governing the seas
The present system of high seas
governance has been built on the
foundation established by the UN
Convention of the Sea, 1992. What has
resulted is a complex mix of binding and
non-binding instruments with different
geographical and legal reaches and
different levels of participation.
UN FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT –
2001
Sets out principles for conservation and
management of fish stocks. Only about
third parties to Law of Sea ratified it.
UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANISATION FAO
In 2001 adopted Int ern a t i o n a l p l a n o f
a c t i on o n I U U f i sh i n g, a voluntary
instrument endorsed by 110 countries to
prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
Along with Australia, New Zealand and the
UK it proposed a g l o b a l d a t a b a s e o f f i s h i n g
vessels to give importers and processors
help in identifying vessels likely to have
fished illegally.
EU
Proposed EU regulations are likely to
include a c o m m u n i t y register of vessels
e n g a g i n g i n I U U f i s h i n g which would
include vessels on regional fisheries
management organisations (RFMOS)
blacklists and a p ro p o s a l o n e c o - l a b e l l i n g .
REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
ORGANISATIONS
These are affiliations of nations which
coordinate efforts to manage fisheries in a
particular region and make up for the
absence of a binding supranational
authority. T h e N o r th-Ea st A tlant ic Fisher ies
C ommission (NE AFC) launched procedures
for new port state controls in May 2007.
HIGH SEAS TASK FORCE
Set up in 2003, the Task Force is a small
group of fisheries ministers and NGO
leaders that promote practical solutions
to the challenge of IUU fishing on the
high seas.
NATIONAL GOVERNANCE
Under the International Plan of Action on
IUU Fishing, all parties were required to set
up and implement National Plans of Action
on IUU fishing. The The UK Action Plan
came into force in 2005.
FISH PROCESSORS
The AIPCE (European Seafood Processors
Association) is based in Brussels and has
membership across most of the original 15
EU member states with fishing interests
and now also includes Poland.
NGOs
Some NGOs, notably WWF, Greenpeace
and the Environmental Justice Foundation
have been very vocal on IUU fishing. They
are able to provide political pressure on
governments, fish processors and retailers.
PORTS
Strengthening port state controls may
deter IUU fishing and improve
enforcement. Necessary domestic
legislation must be in place as well as
cooperative mechanisms.