Fisheries Management and Flags of Convenience
by
Maria Andriana Papaioannou
Diploma in Shipping Studies
University of Piraeus, September 2002
Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Ocean Systems Management
At the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
February 2004
C Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2004. All rights reserved
Author...............................
Deptment of Ocean Engineering
January 14, 2004
/7
Certified by.............................
Dr Hauke Kite-Powell
Research Specialist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Lecturer, Department of Ocean Engineering
A
Accepted by..................
VI~
Thesis Supervisor
.......................
Michael Triantafyllou
Professor of Ocean Engineering
Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Students
ASSACHUSETTS INSTMJTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
SEP 0 12005
LIBRARIES
BARKER
Fisheries Management and Flags of Convenience
by
Maria Andriana Papaioannou
Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering on January 14, 2004,
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Ocean Systems Management
ABSTRACT
The over-exploitation of the world's fish resources and the depletion of many fish stocks
have brought into focus the need for effective fisheries management and conservation
measures. Many states have adopted international instruments or have participated in
regional conservation committees to regulate and control fishing activities within their
jurisdiction as well as on the high seas. However, compliance with the provisions of the
fishery laws has been limited and as fishing restrictions increase, more incidents of
illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities are being reported.
IUU fishing is facilitated by the use of flags of convenience (FOC), which enable fishing
vessel owners to escape regulations, and often avoid liability for their actions. Many
measures have been introduced and many existing laws have been reinforced to address
the implications of FOCs in effective fisheries management. However, the FOC fishing
fleet continues to increase, indicating that there are flaws in the current regulatory
scheme.
The objective of this thesis is to identify those flaws by examining both the conservation
regime for fisheries as well as the role of FOCs in the world's fish trade, rather than
focusing solely on their negative impact. By studying the rationale for the decisions of all
participants in the fishing industry, from lawmakers, to major traders, we conclude that
increasing transparency and flag state responsibility, although necessary, will not
eliminate IUU fishing. FOCs are not the driving force for illegal fishing; on the contrary,
they are the means to serve the purpose, which in this case is the satisfaction of high
demand for high-valued scarce fishery resources.
Thesis Supervisor: Hauke Kite- Powell
Title: Research Specialist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Lecturer, Department of Ocean Engineering.
2
2
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the director of the Ocean Systems Management
Program, Professor H. S. Marcus, for giving me this valuable life opportunity, for his
guidance, his trust and his support throughout my graduate studies at MIT.
I am more than thankful to my thesis supervisor Dr Hauke Kite-Powell for his patience,
encouragement and helpful guidance with my thesis. He has played an important role in
the choice of the thesis topic and has helped me throughout my work with his critical
commentary.
To my parents, Bill and Sophie, I want to express my love and gratitude for all they have
offered me, for their support, their patience and unconditional love. My achievements are
their achievements, and I sincerely hope to live up to their expectations.
Most of all, I want to thank my brother, Dr George Papaioannou, who has been a father, a
mother, my advisor and my best friend since I came to Boston.
3
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE ....... 1
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................
2
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................
4
TABLE OF FIGURES...................................................................................................
7
CHAPTER I ......................................................................................................................
8
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................
8
CHAPTER II...................................................................................................................
13
CONSERVATION MEASURES AND THE STATUS OF FISHERY STOCKS .... 13
1.
O VERV IEW ..........................................................................................................
15
2.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA ..................................
16
3. THE 1995 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES ............................... 22
29
5. SUM M ARY ..........................................................................................................
5. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................
30
1. A TLANTIC OCEAN ...............................................................................................
31
2.1 Most Important Organizations:......................................................................
31
2.1.1 North Atlantic and the North Seas ................................................................
31
2.1.2 Northwest andNortheastAtlantic (FAQ StatisticalArea 21) ...................... 34
2.1.3 SoutheastAtlantic & Southwest Atlantic (FAO StatisticalAreas 41 and 47) 36
2.1.4 Centraland EasternAtlantic Ocean (FAQ StatisticalArea 34)................. 38
2.2 The Status of FisheryStocks in the Atlantic Ocean ...................................... 40
3. Mediterraneanand Black Sea (FA Q StatisticalArea 37) .............................. 41
3.1
Most Important Organizations:...............................................................
41
3.2
The Status of FisheryStocks ....................................................................
42
1. Pacific Ocean..............................................................................................
. . 43
4.1 Most Important Organizations:....................................................................
43
4.1.1 North Pacific (FAO StatisticalAreas 61 and 67) ...................................... 43
4.1.2 Western and CentralPacific (FAO StatisticalArea 71)............................. 46
4.1.3 Eastern and CentralPacific (FAO StatisticalArea 77) ........................... 47
4.1.4
South Pacific (FAQ StatisticalAreas 81, 87 and South Pacific Islands). 48
4.2 The Status of FisheryStocks .........................................................................
50
4
4
2. Indian Ocean.................................................................................................
5.1 Most Important Organizations:....................................................................
5.1.1 Western and Eastern Indian Ocean (FAQ Statistical areas 51 and 57)........
5.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks .........................................................................
6.
Southern Ocean/Antarctica (FAO StatisticalAreas 48, 58, and 88)...........
6.1
Most Important Organizations:...............................................................
6.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks .........................................................................
7. Glo b al ..................................................................................................................
7.1
Most Important Organizations:...............................................................
7.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks .........................................................................
8. Sum mary and Conclusion ..............................................................................
51
51
51
53
54
54
56
57
57
59
61
CH A PTER III .................................................................................................................
64
W O RLD TR AD E FO R FISH ....................................................................................
64
1.
GLOBAL FISHERY PRODUCTION .............................................................................
64
2.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ......................................................................................
65
MAJOR FISHERIES AND FISH COMMODITIES.......................................................
SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................
67
68
70
72
74
75
CH A PTER IV ..................................................................................................................
76
FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE AND IUU FISHING ................................................
76
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
1.
2.
World Tradefor Shrimp...................................................................................
World Tradefor Groundfish.........................................................................
World Tradefor Tuna .....................................................................................
World Tradefor Salmon ................................................................................
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................
OBSTACLES TO CONTROL OF IUU FISHING.........................................................
2.1 Unwillingness to restrictIUUfishing...........................................................
2.2 Insufficient m em ber compliance ....................................................................
2.3 Ability to control ............................................................................................
2.4 Ports of Convenience.....................................................................................
2.5 Dealing with Non-ContractingParties.........................................................
2.6 Regional Cooperation..................................................................................
2.7 Mem bers Violators.......................................................................................
2.7.1 FFA ................................................................................................................
2.7.2 ICCA T ............................................................................................................
2.7.3 CCAMLR .....................................................................................................
2.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................
3.
THE BENEFITS AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
76
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
85
86
87
87
93
FOC FISHING FLEET ................. 95
CHA PTER V .................................................................................................................
100
SU MMA RY A N D CO N CLU SIO N .............................................................................
100
5
5
REFERENCES: ............................................................................................................ 105
APPEN DIX 1: ................................................................................................................ 108
G LO SSARY ................................................................................................................... 108
APPENDIX 2: ................................................................................................................ 121
LIST O F ACRO NYM S ................................................................................................ 121
6
6
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: World Fisheries Production............................................................................
14
Figure 2: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1950 ...........................
59
Figure 3: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1980 ...........................
60
Figure 4: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1994 ...........................
60
Figure 5: International Trade, Imports.........................................................................
66
Figure 6: International Trade, Exports.........................................................................
66
Figure 7: Exports for major fish commodities in 2000 (in value terms) ......................
67
Figure 8: Tuna catches by country in 2001 (in volume terms)......................................
73
Figure 9: Tuna catches by species in 2001 (in volume terms).......................................
73
7
7
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) has classified 75% of the
world's fish stocks as fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted and therefore in need of
urgent conservation and management measures. The overcapacity of the world's fishing
fleets is an important cause of this situation. In an attempt to improve the status of fishery
stocks, some governments have been adopting international codes imposing stricter limits
on the activities of fishing fleets both in waters under their jurisdiction and, by
participating in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), for certain
areas of the high seas.
There are increasing concerns for the sustainability of the ocean resources and the
dramatic impacts of over-fishing on fishery stocks globally. Recently new tools to protect
them have been developed, while existing international instruments, such as the United
Nations Law of the Sea, have been strengthened. The United Nations Fish Stock
Agreement, adopted on December 5, 1995, recalls the relevant provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and aims to ensure the long-term conservation
and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Two other
voluntary agreements, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, signed in
1995, and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, are based on the UNCLOS and provide principles
8
8
and standards applicable to the conservation, management and development of all
fisheries [Article 1, FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries].
However, the provisions of such codes and conventions have not all been ratified or
effectively implemented. One of the main barriers in creating international standards to
address fishery issues is that most of the illegal resource extraction done by fishing
vessels takes place either outside of the territorial reach of states, or inside the Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZ) of developing coastal States that lack the resources to properly
survey and control fishing activities. This is recognized in paragraph 17.45 of Agenda 21
(adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June
1992), which noted that as 90% of commercially significant fishing stocks lie within the
EEZ of coastal states, the main rational for registering a vessel within an FOC is to
escape fisheries management regulations or fish illegally [More Troubled Waters, ITF,
August 2002].
In addition, it is difficult to influence shipowners' or the State's willingness to accept or
enforce agreements, and one way in which some fishing interests seek to avoid these
stricter controls is by the use of what are known as "Flags of Convenience" (FOCs).
Under international law, the country whose flag a vessel flies is responsible for
controlling the activities of that vessel to ensure that it abides by the relevant rules, such
as fishing regulations, safety and labor standards, and many others. Flags of Convenience
enable vessel owners to remain anonymous, and to avoid being personally linked to their
fishing vessel. It also allows them to "get around" the resource management of any
country or RFMO seeking to control the fishing resources in some areas.
9
9
Resource conservation and fishery management is made more difficult by Flags of
Convenience. In order to avoid regional or international fishery regulations, some fishing
vessels choose to flag in non-contracting states. Since international agreements and
regional conventions are only binding on those states that voluntarily join them, these
vessels can extract as much catch of the fishing resources in the area in question as they
are able to. To achieve high volume landings, FOC fishing vessels have been using
illegal fishing gear, like highly efficient driftnets, which, besides the fish they target, are
responsible for significant volumes of by-catch.
The key questions here are how to stop FOC fishing vessels from plundering ocean
resources, particularly of developing countries, and how to prevent vessels from reflagging to FOCs in order to escape regulation and conservation measures. In other
words, what kind of measures would improve the effectiveness of fisheries management,
where should they imposed, and how effective would they be in eliminating or offsetting
the negative impacts of Flags of Convenience on regional and international conservation
efforts.
So far, most efforts to address this issue have focused primarily on the role of State
control and the significance of allocating Flag-, Port- and Coastal State responsibilities,
failing to encompass the dynamics that drive the broader system of fish trade and the role
of major market countries for illegal fish caught with unsustainable fishing methods.
Consequently, where implemented, those measures have resulted in fluctuations in the
structure of the FOC fishing fleet, but not in a decline of the total number of FOC fishing
vessels [ITF, FOC Campaign 2001]. According to Lloyd's Register of World Fleet
10
10
Statistics, in 2001 FOCs constituted about 12.5% of the worlds fishing fleet, showing an
increase since 1998, when they represented 10% of the world's fishing fleet.
In order to gain a better understanding of the problem, determine the weakest link of the
chain, and impose the appropriate regulation there where it would be most effective, one
has to examine all dimensions of fisheries management.
Therefore, Chapter II deals with Fisheries Law, and provides an overview of the basic
relevant provisions in three of the most important International Instruments, and a guide
through Regional Fisheries Management and the Status of Fisheries Stocks in each
selected region. Apart from laying out the regulatory framework, this chapter indicates
the effectiveness of international and regional conservation schemes, as well as the
rationality of their goals. For this purpose, the world's oceans are split up in FAO
Statistical areas.
Chapter III provides information on global fish production, international trade, the major
importing and exporting countries, the most important fisheries and the world's most
commercial fish markets. This chapter's objective is to give a notion of most valuable
fish trade flows.
Chapter IV discusses Flags of Convenience and how they facilitate Illegal, Unreported
and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities. In order to recognize the flaws in the so far
ineffectively implemented plans of action against FOCs and IUU fishing, one should
realize the barriers in implementation of those measures, as well as the rational for the
use of FOCs.
Finally, Chapter V argues, that regulating only the supply side of fish trade, and ignoring
the driving forces arising from demand is the reason why international and regional
11
II
regulations haven't been successful in achieving catholic acceptance and effective fishing
resources management. Based on this thesis measures are recommended, that would
offset FOC advantages by eliminating or reducing demand for their fish commodities.
12
12
Chapter II
CONSERVATION MEASURES AND THE STATUS OF FISHERY
STOCKS
1. Introduction
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, is the main source
of information on the state of world fisheries resources and every two years produces
publications (SOFIA, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture) that provide data on the
global production and at the same time a tool for policy makers.
According to a recent publication of FAO (SOFIA 2002), global production from capture
fisheries and aquaculture and the food fish supply is currently the highest on record, with
the world's population increasing more quickly than the total food fish supply (Figure 1).
Unlike aquaculture production, which continues to increase markedly, reported global
capture fisheries have been demonstrating regional disparities, with rapid rises of
production in China for example, and serious declines particularly in the North Pacific.
The reason for these discrepancies is that the supply function of wild capture fisheries
depends on various inputs, such as employment in fisheries, size of the fishing fleet,
mobility of fisheries, geographic variations in the density of stocks, environmental
conditions like rainfall, water temperature, tides and currents, regional patterns in supply,
meaning the relative abundance of the species available for harvest. In addition,
management policies place many fisheries under state control, which can set an upper
limit to catch landings.
13
13
As regards state control and conservation policies, it is becoming more widely
recognized that fishing overcapacity and the record of fishing operations have devastating
effects on fish stocks [ITF, July 2003]. Moreover, while concerns over this issue and the
need to set upper limits on target fisheries have been expressed since the early 1970s,
they have substantially increased over the last years [ITF, July 2003]. Despite the
uncertainty over the accuracy of statistics on fisheries and the difficulties many countries
experience in collecting data on inland fisheries, according to available data, 75% of the
world's fish stocks have been classified as fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted
[FAO, SOFIA 2002]. However, the global demand for fish continues to increase and the
number of underexploited or moderately exploited fisheries resources steadily declines. It
is therefore essential to adopt a sustainable management plan to prevent the depletion of
the stocks.
World Fisheries Production
132
u) 130
C
128
0
126
0 124
=122
120
C
.0 118
'0
S116
114
C 112110
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Years
Figure 1: World Fisheries Production
Source: FAO, The State of the Worlds Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2002
14
14
PART I:
Global Instruments
1. Overview
Many global and regional instruments have been developed since the first convention,
signed in 1923 for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific and the
Bering Sea, but major progress wasn't made until 1994, when the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force. The provisions that relate to
fisheries and flag state responsibility are summarized next. Two of the most important
"soft-law" global instruments, the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and
the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU), are also overviewed in order to outline the regulatory
framework for fisheries management and fishing vessel activity. The complete texts of
these instruments are available on line by the United Nations' Division for Ocean Affairs
and the law of the Sea [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm],
the Food and
Agriculture Organization [http://www.fao.org/fi/Manage.asp], and the Internet Guide for
Fisheries Law [http://www.oceanlaw.net/orgs/index.htm].
15
15
2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The LOS Convention attempts to lay down a comprehensive regime for almost every
aspect of ocean use. The main living resources provisions of the LOS Convention deal
specifically with conservation (Article 61), exploitation (Article 62), transboundary and
straddling stocks (Article 63), highly migratory species (Article 64), marine mammals
(Article 65), anadromous stocks (Article 66), catadromous stocks (Article 67) and
sedentary species (Articles 68 and 77). Living resources on the high seas are specifically
considered in Articles 116-120.
More specifically, the Convention determines the geographic bounds of the territorial
sea and contiguous zone, as measured from coastal baselines (defined in Articles 5 to 7).
The first 12 miles is the territorial sea over which the coastal state has sovereignty.
Foreign fishing vessels have the right of innocent passage through a territorial sea
(Article 17), but not the right to engage in any fishing activities (Article 19 (2)0)). A
coastal state may set conservation rules and prevent the infringement of its fishing
regulations in its territorial waters (Article 21), and foreign ships exercising the right of
innocent passage shall comply with all such laws and regulations. The contiguous zone is
defined as an area contiguous to the territorial sea and may extend no more than 24 miles
from the baselines. The rules for fishing vessels are similar to those for innocent passage
through territorial waters except that a coastal state can set rules for the stowage of
fishing gear (Article 42(l)(c)).
The Convention defines the term "Archipelagic State" and sets an upper limit of 100
nautical miles for the drawing of the baselines. The rules for fishing vessels are similar to
those for territorial waters. An archipelagic state shall respect existing agreements with
16
16
other states and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of
the immediately adjacent neighboring states in certain areas falling within archipelagic
waters (Article 51(1)).
LOS defines the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as an area beyond and adjacent to the
territorial sea, which shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Within this area, the coastal state is
given sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the living resources
(Article 56(l)(a)).
Article 61 refers exclusively to conservation of living resources and provides that, the
coastal state shall determine the allowable catch of living resources in its exclusive
economic zone. In addition, it shall ensure through proper conservation and management
measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is
not endangered by over-exploitation, and that the coastal state and competent
international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, shall cooperate to
this end. Measures shall also be designed to maintain stock levels that will produce the
maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant economic and environmental factors,
interdependence of stocks, and any generally recognized international minimal standards.
Article 61 also underlines the importance of a coastal state considering associated or
dependent species and of the collection and exchange of available information.
Article 62 underlines the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources of the
EEZ. The coastal state shall determine its capacity to harvest the living resources of the
exclusive economic zone, and where the coastal state does not have the capacity to
17
17
harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall give other states access to the surplus of the
allowable catch.
Articles 63 to 67 lay down specific provisions for different types of living resources. For
straddling, transboundary and highly migratory species, the two or more coastal states
involved, shall cooperate through regional or international organizations, and agree upon
the measures necessary for the conservation of the stocks in the adjacent high seas zone.
In Article 65, the LOS Convention requires the states to co-operate with a view to the
conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans to work through the
appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study.
As regards anadromous stocks, Article 66 recognizes the states of origin as being
responsible for the establishment of appropriate regulatory measures to ensure
conservation of such stocks. On the other hand, the coastal state in whose waters
catadromous species spend the greater part of their life cycle shall have responsibility for
the management of these species and shall ensure the ingress and egress of migrating
fish.
In Part IV, the Convention defines the area called the "Continental Shelf', and provides
the coastal State sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural
resources within the area. The term "natural resources" refers to mineral and other nonliving resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to
sedentary species, defined as organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are
immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical
contact with the seabed or the subsoil.
18
18
In Part VII, the freedom of fishing is included in the key provisions relating to the high
seas. Article 94 lays down the principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction over vessels
on the high seas, subject to some limited exceptions. (For example, in Article 110 in
respect of ships engaged in activities such as piracy or the slave trade and Article 111,
under which intervention on the high seas is permitted in the exercise of hot pursuit.
There are no equivalent provisions for high seas fishing, however).
Some key provisions also important to the role of the flag state and the implications of
flags of convenience in fishery management are included in this section. For example, the
Convention underlines the necessity for a genuine link to exist between the state and the
ship. Ships shall sail under the flag of one state only and may not change their flag during
a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or
change of registry. A ship that sails under the flags of two or more states, and uses them
according to convenience, may be considered a ship without nationality.
Section 2 of Part VII lays down the provisions for conservation and management of the
living resources of the high- seas. The states are obliged to take, or to co-operate with
other states in taking, such measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary
for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas (Article 117). Article 119
provides that the measures must be designed, on the best scientific evidence available to
the States concerned, to ensure that harvested species are maintained at or restored to
levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant
environmental and economic factors. Further, states must ensure that "species associated
with or dependent on harvested species are not depleted to levels at which they would be
seriously threatened and exchange relevant information and catch statistics through
19
19
subregional, regional or global organizations. The conservation measures must not
discriminate in form or fashion against the fishermen of any state". Article 65, covering
marine mammals in the EEZ, is specified to apply on the high seas (Article 120).
Article 123, Part IX, underlines the duty of states bordering on enclosed or semienclosed seas to cooperate in the conservation, management, exploration and exploitation
of the living marine resources.
Part XII sets the general provisions for the protection and preservation of the marine
environment, obligating states to protect and preserve the marine environment (Article
192). Article 194 provides that states shall take measures necessary to protect fragile
ecosystems and the habitat of depleted and threatened species. States are also required to
notify others in cases where the marine environment is in imminent danger of being
damaged, to cooperate and keep under surveillance any activities, which they permit, that
may cause significant and harmful changes to the marine environment.
Part XII looks primarily to flag state enforcement of pollution from vessels (Section 5,
Article 211), but also provides for port state enforcement in specific circumstances.
Careful safeguards for vessels and states are specified to assure that state environmental
rules do not discriminate or reduce navigational freedoms. In more detail, "states shall
adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the
marine environment from vessels flying their flag or of their registry. Such laws and
regulations shall at least have the same effect as that of generally accepted international
rules and standards established through the competent international organization or
general diplomatic conference".
20
20
"Whenever requirements are established in identical form by two or more coastal States
in an endeavor to harmonize policy, the communication shall indicate which States are
participating in such co-operative arrangements. The master of a vessel, when navigating
within the territorial sea of a State participating in such co-operative arrangements, must
furnish information as to whether it is proceeding to a State of the same region
participating in such co-operative arrangements and whether it complies with the port
entry requirements of that State". The coastal States shall publish the limits of any such
particular, clearly defined area, where laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction
and control of pollution from vessels apply.
Part XIII urges States to promote marine scientific research (Article 239) and all States,
irrespective of geographical location have the right to conduct such research. This
Section lays down the general principles for the conduct of marine scientific research,
which are elaborated upon in Articles 245 to 257.
Finally, in Part XV, which refers to the settlement of disputes, disputes relating to coastal
State rights, in particular the sovereign right of the coastal State over the living resources
of its EEZ, are excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement provisions of the
Convention, while disputes relating to the high-seas aren't. Misinterpretation of the
provisions could occur over straddling stocks and highly migratory species, which are
found within and beyond the EEZ. However, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which wAs
adopted in 1995 but isn't in force, confirms that the exception applies to disputes in
which only coastal State sovereign rights are at stake and not to cases where sovereign
rights and high seas rights are at stake.
21
21
3. The 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
On 31 October 1995 [Overview of FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,
Internet guide of International Fisheries Law], after two years of negotiation and five
formal meetings, principally in the form of technical consultations and at its twentyeighth session, the Conference of the FAO adopted by consensus the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries. The Code, which is voluntary, aims inter alia to establish
principles for responsible fishing, in accordance with the relevant rules of international
law, and to serve as an instrument of reference to help states establish or improve the
legal, institutional and managerial arrangements required for responsible and sustainable
fishing. It applies globally to all fisheries, including fisheries within the EEZ and the
territorial sea as well as those on the high seas.
"The Code is global in scope, and is directed toward members and non-members of
FAO, fishing
entities,
subregional, regional and global organizations,
whether
governmental or non-governmental, and all persons concerned with the conservation of
fishery resources and management and development of fisheries, such as fishers, those
engaged in processing and marketing of fish and fishery products and other users of the
aquatic environment in relation to fisheries" [Article 1.2].
The Code is not intended to be static; instead, it is anticipated that the Code may be
revised by FAO competent bodies as well as by states and organizations adopting parts of
the Code. Furthermore, it is intended that each substantive Article will be capable of
being freestanding. This approach is intended to ensure that the Code can be presented in
a flexible manner. The most relevant provisions are the following:
22
22
Article 7- Fisheries Management. This article contains many important subheadings
concerning management objectives, management framework and procedures, data
gathering and management advice, the precautionary approach, capacity management
measures, implementation and financial institutions. The need for fisheries management
to be based on effective data is stressed.
Article 8- Fishing operations. This article's provisions refer to the duties of Flag States
and Port States, as well as provisions on harbours, protection of the environment and the
abandonment of structures and reefs. The overall objective of this article is to promote a
framework that would encourage sustainable development, foster protection of the
aquatic environment and the maintenance of biodiversity while making a significant
contribution to the safety of fishing operations. Flag states are encouraged to ensure
compliance with appropriate safety requirements as well as to promote access to
insurance
coverage for fishing vessels.
Port states are to provide
safe and
environmentally sound harbours and landing places.
Article 9- Aquaculture. This article contains provisions on aquaculture development the
Code urges states to establish a framework for promoting responsible aquaculture
development, including initiating regular oversight and review to ensure minimal adverse
impacts and ecological change. States should implement international codes of practice to
ensure genetic diversity of the farm stocks and prevent introduction of non-native
species.
Article 10- Coastal Area Management. Here provisions relate to the institutional
framework, policy measures, regional cooperation and implementation. The Code calls
for the promotion of a precautionary approach for coastal area management, stressing the
23
23
need to take into account the fragility of coastal ecosystems, the need to consult those
involved in the use of resources, the need to value coastal resources, the need to promote
public awareness and the need for the exchange of information, in order to achieve " the
sustainable and integrated use of the resources".
Article 11- Post-Harvest Practices and Trade. The issue this article deals with is postharvest practices and trade focusing on the responsible use of fish including measures to
protect consumer health, responsible international trade and laws and regulations relating
to fish trade.
Article 12- Fisheries. It stresses the importance to responsible fisheries of the availability
of a sound scientific basis to decisions concerning fisheries management.
4.
The FAO IPOA on IUU Fishing (FAO IPOA-IUU)
The lack of political will, priority, capacity and resources to ratify and implement
existing international instruments for the conservation of fish stocks, led COFI (the
Committee on Fisheries, established by FAO in 1965) to adopt the International Plan of
Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
(IPOA-IUU). The IPOA-IUU was developed as a voluntary instrument, within the
framework of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. It was adopted by
consensus at the Twenty-fourth Session of COFI on 2nd March 2001 and endorsed by the
Hundred and Twentieth Session of the FAO Council on 2 3 rd June 2001.
Illegal fishing refers to activities (a) conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters
under the jurisdiction of a state, without the permission of that state, or in contravention
of its laws and regulations; (b) conducted by vessels flying the flag of states that are
24
24
parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organization but operate in
contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted by that
organization and by which the states are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable
international law; or (c) in violation of national laws or international obligations,
including those undertaken by cooperating states to a relevant regional fisheries
management organization.
Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities: (a) which have not been reported, or have
been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and
regulations; or (b) undertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries
management organization which have not been reported or have been misreported, in
contravention of the reporting procedures of that organization.
Finally, unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities: (a) in the area of application of a
relevant regional fisheries management organization that are conducted by vessels
without nationality, or by those flying the flag of a state not party to that organization, or
by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation
and management measures of that organization; or (b) in areas or for fish stocks in
relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures and
where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with state
responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law
[Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 2001].
The objective of the IPOA is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, including
fishing vessels flying "flags of convenience", by providing all states with comprehensive,
effective and transparent measures by which to act, including through appropriate
25
25
regional fisheries management organizations established in accordance with international
law.
Implementation measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing are provided in
Part IV, including internationally agreed market-related measures, research and the role
of the regional fisheries management organizations. Measures focus on all state
responsibilities, flag state responsibilities, coastal state measures, port state measures,
internationally
agreed
market-related
measures,
research
and regional
fisheries
management organizations.
Flag state responsibilities comprise a significant portion of the whole FAO IPOA-IUU
and are divided into three main groups of actions, which are Fishing Vessel Registration,
Record of Fishing Vessels, and Authorization to Fish.
The objective of requirements for fishing vessel registration is that states ensure that
fishing vessels flying their flag do not engage in - or support - IUU fishing, prevent the
flagging of vessels with a history of non-compliance, and enable flag states to monitor
their vessels.
To achieve this, a flag state must ensure, before it registers a fishing vessel, that it can
exercise its responsibilities respecting vessels entitled to fly its flag. All States involved
in a chartering arrangement, including flag states and other states that accept such an
arrangement, should, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, take measures to
ensure that chartered vessels do not engage in IUU fishing.
In addition, the FAO IPOA-IUU requires states to take all practicable steps, including
denying to a vessel an authorization to fish and the entitlement to fly that state's flag, to
prevent "flag hopping"; that is to say, the practice of repeated and rapid changes of a
26
26
vessel's flag for the purposes of circumventing conservation and management measures
or provisions adopted at a national, regional or global level or of facilitating noncompliance with such measures or provisions.
Keeping record of fishing vessels specifies important information, like the name of the
vessel, registration number, previous names and port of registry, and previous flag. In
addition, International Radio Call Sign, name and address of owner, where and when
built, type of vessel, name and address of the operators and type of fishing methods.
Finally, dimensions of the vessel, renames, addresses and nationalities of the natural or
legal persons in whose name the vessel is registered, who is responsible for managing the
operations of the vessel, and who is the beneficial owner.
The FAO IPOA-IUU requires that states ensure no vessel be allowed to fish without an
authorization. A flag state should also ensure that each of the vessels entitled to fly its
flag fishing in waters outside its sovereignty or jurisdiction holds a valid authorization to
fish issued by that flag state. Where a coastal state issues an authorization to fish to a
vessel, that coastal state should ensure that no fishing in its waters occurs without an
authorization to fish issued by the flag state of the vessel.
In the exercise of the sovereign rights of coastal states for exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the living marine resources under their jurisdiction, each
coastal state should implement measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing in
the exclusive economic zone. Among the measures which the coastal State should
consider are monitoring, catch and transshipment reporting conditions, observer
coverage, maintenance of fishing and related log books, navigational equipment,
27
27
compliance with applicable international conventions and national laws and regulations,
and unique marking and identification of vessel and gear.
Along with these measures, and prior to allowing a vessel port access, port states should
require fishing vessels and vessels involved in fishing related activities seeking
permission to enter their ports to provide reasonable advance notice of their entry into
port, a copy of their authorization to fish, details of their fishing trip and quantities of fish
on board, with due regard to confidentiality requirements, in order to ascertain whether
the vessel may have engaged in, or supported, IUU fishing. Where a port state has clear
evidence that a vessel having been granted access to its ports has engaged in IUU fishing
activity, the port state should not allow the vessel to land or transship fish in its ports, and
should report the matter to the flag state of the vessel. In addition, states should publicize
ports to which foreign flagged vessels may be permitted admission and should ensure that
these ports have the capacity to conduct inspections. Finally, when they opt to, they
should remit any information to the flag state and the relevant regional fisheries
management organizations.
28
28
5. Summary
Although global instruments that relate to fisheries management and flag state
responsibility have become more detailed, encompassing, apart from the rights of the flag
states, the duties and responsibilities of flag states, conservation measures are not
effectively implemented, and the number of fishing vessels flying flags of convenience
continues to grow [FAO, Rome 2002].
In order to achieve broader acceptance and implementation, enforcement should occur in
a regional level, where information and scientific data are easier to collect, and therefore
more accurate and more persuasive. The recognition of the significance for regional
conservation measures is reflected to the increasing number of regional organizations for
fishery management and the more organized methods for scientific data collection.
However, regional conventions, due to the optional participation of a limited number of
states, lack the power for enforcement global instruments might have, and have therefore
achieved less than their initiatives were.
In the following chapter, the world is divided in FAO statistical areas, within which the
status of fishery stocks and the prevailing organizations are examined.
29
29
PART II:
Regions, Organizations and the Status of Fishery Stocks
5. Introduction
In order to get a better understanding of the necessity of Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations (RFMOs), on the one hand, one has to look at their objectives, and on the
other hand, the status of the fishery stocks within their jurisdiction area. Often the
statistical data obtained through research are insufficient or ambiguous, depending on
who carried out the research. FAO underlines the significance of adequate knowledge
and reliable data on the status of fishery stocks and promotes scientific research
regionally, in order to obtain credible statistics [SOFIA 2000]. In the following
paragraphs, the world's oceans are divided in FAO Statistical Areas, within which the
most important RFMOs and the status of fishery stocks are examined. One important
notice to make is that not all FAO statistical areas are examined here, instead a selection
was made based on the RFMO activity and/ or the developments in fish populations in
each area.
30
30
1. Atlantic Ocean
The Atlantic Ocean areas examined here are North Atlantic and the North Seas,
Northwest Atlantic (FAO Area 21), Northeast Atlantic (FAO Area 27), Central and
Eastern Atlantic (FAO Area 34), Southwest Atlantic (FAO Area 41), and Southeast
Atlantic (FAO Area 47).
2.1 Most Important Organizations:
2.1.1 North Atlantic and the North Seas
The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) was established in 1992
by the Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation and Management of Marine
Mammals in the North Atlantic, in order to contribute through regional consultation and
cooperation to the conservation, rational management and study of marine mammals in
the North Atlantic. NAMMCO's Scientific Committee has been executing the body's
main activity, which is to provide scientific advice on a number of species, including
some seals, long-finned pilot whales, killer whales, bottlenose whales and Atlantic
walruses. The Commission has only four members: Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland,
and Norway.
The Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, signed in
Iceland on March 2, 1982, established the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization (NASCO). NASCO's desire is to promote the acquisition, analysis and
dissemination of scientific information pertaining to salmon stocks in the North Atlantic
Ocean, and the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of
31
31
salmon stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean through international co-operation. This
Convention applies to the salmon stocks, which migrate beyond areas of fisheries
jurisdiction of coastal States of the Atlantic Ocean north of 36"N latitude throughout their
migratory range. The Convention prohibits the fishing of salmon beyond areas of
fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States. The member States of the Organization are
Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Union,
Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States.
The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and the North
Seas (ASCOBANS) was signed on 17 March 1992, and entered into force on 29 March
1994. Its objectives focus on achieving and maintaining a favorable conservation status
of small cetaceans (defined as any species, subspecies or population of toothed whales
Odontoceti, except the sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus) in the Baltic and North
Seas. ASCOBANS aims to protect small cetaceans from polluting substances, to reduce
bycatch, to regulate activities that seriously affect the food sources of small cetaceans, to
carry out population surveys and research into the causes of their decline, improve
reporting and retrieving of bycatch and strandings, and more. ASCOBANS' eight
members are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.
The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea
and Belt established the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), which
entered into force in 1974. IBSFC's main objective is to preserve and increase the living
resources of the Baltic Sea and the Belts and obtain the optimum yield, and to put into
effect organizational and technical projects on conservation and growth of the living
32
32
resources on a just and equitable basis as well as take other steps towards rational and
exploitation of the living resources. IBSFC's contracting members are Estonia, the
European Community, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Russian Federation.
33
33
2.1.2 Northwest and Northeast Atlantic (FAO Statistical Area 21)
07704
4F
4W ri4
IC
5
FA
00
i
rR
5M
6
h2 cy*Knd
Mer
r
jcaoe~
FAO
v120)1
11
2
1
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) was established by the
Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in 1978,
after the expansion of coastal State jurisdiction in the Northwest Atlantic and to replace
the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). NAFO's
objective is to contribute through consultation and cooperation to the optimum utilization,
rational management and conservation of all the fishery resources of the Convention
Area, with the following exceptions: salmon, tunas and marlins, cetacean stocks managed
by the International Whaling Commission or any successor organization, and sedentary
species of the Continental Shelf, i.e., organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are
immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical
34
34
contact with the seabed or the subsoil. The Contracting States are Bulgaria, Canada,
Cuba, Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Community,
Estonia, France (in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon), Iceland, Japan, Republic of
Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and United States.
The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) was established by the
Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries in 1980,
in order to promote the conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources of
the North-East Atlantic area, and to encourage international
co-operation and
consultation with respect to these resources. This Convention applies to all fishery
resources in the Northeast Atlantic, including dependent seas, but not the Baltic Sea and
the Belts or the Mediterranean Sea and its dependent seas (FAO Statistical Area 27), with
the exception of sea mammals, sedentary species, highly migratory species and
anadromous stocks. Its members are Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and
Greenland), the European Community, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Russia.
35
35
2.1.3 Southeast Atlantic & Southwest Atlantic (FAO Statistical Areas 41 and 47)
.
0
.
11
1.4
1.
].1
3.T
2.3
4.0
3.2
70'
60' 00'a 40' Un 20
The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was
established in 1969 and currently is the principal body in the area of Atlantic (and the
adjacent Seas) responsible for the conservation of the resources of tuna and tuna-like
fishes. The area covered by the convention includes the Mediterranean Sea as well, while
ICCAT has been collecting and analyzing statistical information and publishing and
otherwise disseminating reports for a wide variety of species. From Atlantic bluefin,
yellowfin, albacore and bigeye tuna to swordfish, to billfishes such as white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish and spearfish. From mackerels such as spotted Spanish mackerel and king
mackerel to small tunas such as skipjack, black skipjack, frigate tuna and Atlantic bonito.
The countries that signed the Convention are Algeria, Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde,
Canada, China, C6te D'Ivoire, Croatia, European Community, Equatorial Guinea, France
(St. Pierre et Miquelon), Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Conakry, Honduras, Japan, Korea (Rep.
of), Libya, Morocco, Namibia, Panama, Russia, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa,
36
36
Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom (Anguilla, Bermuda, St. Helena, Turks and
Caicos), United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South
East Atlantic Ocean was signed in April 2001, and it is one of the first regional fisheries
agreements to be adopted since the conclusion of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in 1995.
Since the Convention isn't yet in force, the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(SEAFO) has currently no contracting members.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is the oldest
organization in the world concerned with marine resources, established in Copenhagen in
1902, which now operates under the terms of the 1964 Convention for the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES is not a fisheries management body, but has
been promoting, drawing up, organizing research programs related to all living marine
resources within the broad area of the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas, with an
emphasis on the North Atlantic. ICES has been cooperating with many commissions for
fisheries conservation, such as NEAFC, NASCO and IBSFC, and providing advice to
international organizations and to its member countries, which are Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA.
37
37
2.1.4 Central and Eastern Atlantic Ocean (FAO Statistical Area 34)
40'
10
2"
30'
2.0
20"
20*W
3.2
0.
co
1-.
3.
010
01"
4.1
FAO, IV-2001
1
3.6
Equdsant cylindrical projection
The Committee for the Central Eastern Atlantic Fisheries (CECAF) was established by
the FAO Council in 1967, and amended in 1992. CECAF is intended to promote
programs of development for the rational utilization of all fishery resources within its
area of competence (FAO Statistical Area 34), to assist in establishing basis for
regulatory measures and to encourage training. The Committee covers all waters of the
Atlantic bounded by a line drawn along the West Coast of Africa. The member States of
CECAF are Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Congo
(Republic of), Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, European Community, France,
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Italy, Japan, Korea (Rep. of),
38
38
Liberia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sao Tome and
Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, Togo, and USA.
The Sub-Regional Commission on Fisheries was established in 1985, to harmonize the
long-term policies of Cape-Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, and
Senegal, in the preservation, conservation and exploitation of all the fisheries resources
for the benefit of these States. The Convention's areas of competence are the EEZs of the
Contracting Parties and the sub-region.
39
39
2.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks in the Atlantic Ocean
Despite the efforts of regional fisheries management organizations in the Atlantic Ocean
to eliminate overexploitation, the Northeast, Northwest, Eastern Central, and Southeast
Atlantic areas are showing decreasing catches since the 1970s [D.L. Alverson and K.
Dunlop, November 1998].
Most of these declines are reflected in smaller populations of demersal cods, hakes,
haddock (Melanogrammusaeglefinus), and some flatfish species. However, the Northeast
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock has recovered somewhat in the mid nineties [FAO
1998].
In the Western Central Atlantic, shrimp, redfish, and miscellaneous marine fishes
demonstrate small increases but information about their state is inadequate. Catch trends
for the Southwest Atlantic suggest a period of rapid development. Increased fishing
pressure for demersal species, particularly Argentine hake (Merluccius hubsii), deepwater
Patagonian toothfish (Dissosticheleginoides), coastal stocks of croakers (Micropogonias
and Umbrina ssp.) and weakfish (Cynoscion spp.) is responsible for the majority of
growth in the area's fish production, while groundfish stocks in this area have been fished
close to extinction, today they are near their lowest levels ever. The decline in landings of
salmon by Greenland demonstrates how effective regional organizations like NASCO
have been in reducing catches of these anadromous species in these waters [D.L.
Alverson and K. Dunlop, November 1998].
40
40
3. Mediterranean and Black Sea (FAO Statistical Area 37)
3.1 Most Important Organizations:
The Agreement for the establishment of a General Fisheries Council for the
Mediterranean (GFCM), was signed in 1949, entered into force on 20 February 1952, and
came under the aegis of FAO (Article XIV of FAO Constitution), amended in 1963, 1976
and 1997. The main objective of the Commission is to formulate and recommend
conservation measures of all living marine resources in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea
and connecting waters, and to encourage training cooperative projects. The contracting
members are the Governments of Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt,
European Community, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta,
Monaco, Morocco, Romania, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.
41
41
The Agreement for the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea,
and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), was signed in Monaco in 1996, and
entered into force in 2001. The objective is to promote and facilitate co-operation among
States, regional economic integration organizations, intergovernmental organizations and
the nongovernmental sector for the conservation of cetaceans of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean Sea, the waters, which interconnect these seas, and the contiguous Atlantic
area. In an indicative list of the cetaceans covered by ACCOBAMS the following species
are mentioned: Harbour porpoise, Bottlenose dolphin, Common dolphin, Rough-toothed
dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Striped dolphin, and Short-beaked common dolphin. Also, False
killer whale, Killer whale, Long-finned pilot whale, Blainville's beaked whale, Cuvier's
beaked whale, Sperm whale, Dwarf sperm whale, Northern right whale, Minke whale,
Sei whale, Fin whale, and Humpback whale. The current members of the ACCOBAMS
Secretariat are Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Romania, and Spain.
3.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks
According to FAO (1997), the undergoing ecological change might be responsible for
the surprising catch landings reported from the Mediterranean and Black seas. Total
landings from this area have steadily increased since 1950, despite RFMOs' belief that
many stocks are heavily fished and under pressure from pollution and other
environmental factors [D.L. Alverson and K. Dunlop, November 1998].
42
42
1. Pacific Ocean
The Pacific Ocean is divided into seven sub-areas, Northwest Pacific (FAO Statistical
Area 61), Northeast Pacific (FAO Area 67), Western and Central Pacific (FAO Area 71),
Eastern and Central Pacific (FAO Area 77), Southwest Pacific (FAO Area 81), Southeast
Pacific Area (FAO Area 87), and South Pacific Islands.
4.1 Most Important Organizations:
4.1.1 North Pacific (FAO Statistical Areas 61 and 67)
,1%
FAQ, M-
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) was first established in 1923 by
the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery, signed by Canada and the
United States. Thirty years later, the two countries signed the Convention for the
43
43
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and in
the late 1970s, they extended their fisheries jurisdiction. Under those terms, IPHC's main
objective is the preservation of the halibut (Hippoglossus)fishery of the Northern Pacific
Ocean and Bering Sea, meaning the territorial waters and the high seas off the western
coasts of the United States of America and of Canada, including the southern as well as
the western coasts of Alaska.
The North Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Commission (NPAFC) was created in 1992 to
promote the acquisition, analysis and dissemination of scientific information pertaining to
anadromous stocks and ecologically related species in the North Pacific Ocean, to coordinate efforts to conserve anadromous stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, and to
establish an effective mechanism of international co-operation. The species to conserve
are Chum salmon, Coho salmon, Pink salmon, Sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, Cherry
salmon, and Steelhead trout. The Commission has currently four members, Canada,
Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States, which are the major States of origin
of anadromous stocks that migrate into the Convention Area.
On 12 December 1990, the Convention for a North Pacific Marine Science Organization
(PICES) was signed, to promote and coordinate marine scientific research. PICES
objective is to advance scientific knowledge of the area concerned and of all of its living
resources, including but not necessarily limited to research with respect to the ocean
environment and its interactions with land and atmosphere, its role in and response to
global weather and climate change, its flora, fauna and ecosystems, its uses and
resources, and impacts upon it from human activities. In addition, it aims to promote the
collection and exchange of information and data related to marine scientific research in
44
44
the area concerned. The area which the activities of the Organization concern shall be the
temperate and sub-Arctic region of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas,
especially northward from 30 degrees North Latitude. The contracting countries are
Canada, Japan, China, Republic of Korea, Russia, and United States.
In Ottawa, on 28 January 1985, a Treaty between the Government of the United States
and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific Salmon was signed, to promote
cooperation in the management, research and enhancement of all Pacific salmon stocks,
prevent overfishing, provide for optimum production. The two contracting parties,
Canada and the United States, aimed to receive benefits equivalent to the production of
salmon originating in each party's waters. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) has
faced various disagreements between its members, due to the different approaches to
salmon stocks management issues.
45
45
4.1.2 Western and Central Pacific (FAO Statistical Area 71)
100"
110"
120
130
140*
150'
160"
170'
180,
30
20'
10'
71
0"
10'
20"
Dagr
Point
153'34'E
15
FAQ V-2000
130"
140
150"
160"
170'
Equidstar
180,
cyklndrical projection
The Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean was introduced in September 2000, and
is one of the first regional fisheries agreements to be adopted since the conclusion of the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement in 1995. The Convention's objective is to ensure, through
effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly
migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean in accordance with the
1982 Convention and the Agreement. However, the Convention is not yet in force and
therefore no Parties have contracted to constitute the Commission (WCPOC).
46
46
4.1.3 Eastern and Central Pacific (FAO Statistical Area 77)
170
160,
150
140"
130
4OWN
I _*
i
77
2500'S
30"
170"
170*
FAQ, IV-2umU
160"
160*
150"
15(r
140"
1
.
13f
13(r
10"
120'
MWIer cyindrical projection
The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) was established in 1950, and
until 1979, it was involved in managing the yellowfin tuna fisheries. Since then, IATTC
has been conducting significant research on tunas in the Eastern Pacific and participated
in the operations of the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Recently the focus
has been the bigeye tuna, while other species covered by the IATTC are skipjack
tuna,
fish used as bait for tuna and other fish taken by tuna vessels. The members of the
Commission are Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Japan,
Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela.
47
47
4.1.4
South Pacific (FAO Statistical Areas 81, 87 and South Pacific Islands)
W1-
The Agreement on the Organization of the Permanent Commission on the Exploitation
and
Conservation
of the
Marine
Resources
of the
South Pacific
(CPPS),
entered into force 18 August 1952. Its objectives are to maintain all living marine
resources both in the areas adjacent to their respective EEZs, in accordance with the
Declaration on the Maritime Zone, as well as off the coasts of the party States up to the
200-mile limit. The member States of the Commission are Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and
Peru.
The 1979 South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention (FFA), which entered into
force on 9 August 1979, aims to achieve conservation and optimum utilization of all
living marine resources in the South Pacific area, but focuses in highly migratory species.
FFA doesn't have the power to implement regulations. Instead it is an advisory agency,
which collects information on the living marine resources of the region, laws and
agreements adopted by other countries both within and beyond the area, and on fish trade,
and provides assistance in the development of fisheries policies, negotiations, licenses,
48
48
the collection of fees or in matters pertaining to surveillance and enforcement.
Membership of the FFA is only open to coastal States, which are Australia, Cook Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand,
Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western
Samoa.
The Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC) is an FAO regional body, which entered
into force on 9 November 1948. The twenty members of the commission are Australia,
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Rep. of),
Malaysia, Myanmar (Union of), Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, UK, USA, and Vietnam. The Commission promotes the development and
proper utilization of all living aquatic resources of the Asia-Pacific area, through
formulation and recommendation of conservation and management measures and
marketing activities, but it does not have any regulatory powers.
49
49
4.2
The Status of Fishery Stocks
Catches in all Pacific regions except Northeast and Eastern Central have increased since
1950. Total landings from the Northwest Pacific grew steadily from the 1950s to the
1970s, but after peaking in 1988 landings declined primarily due to declines in the Alaska
pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and Japanese pilchard (Sardinops melanosticta)
species, as well as flatfish, herring (Clupea pallasi) and crab stocks. Hairtail, shrimps,
squids, and miscellaneous species have sustained a relatively steady growth in the region,
while China has greatly increased its share in these fisheries [D.L. Alverson and K.
Dunlop, November 1998].
Small declines in some demersal stocks have been observed in the Northeast Pacific.
From the Eastern Central Pacific region, total production has been fluctuating mainly due
to environmental reasons. Catches in the Southeast Pacific have moved sharply upwards,
while landings from the Southwest Pacific have decreased since 1991, at which they
picked. In 1993 and 1994, FAO reported species like the orange roughy and greenback
horse mackerel to have dropped from 50% to 90%[A. Bakun, FAO, Rome 1997].
50
50
2. Indian Ocean
This section is covering the most important organizations, whose areas of jurisdiction are
in the Indian Ocean, and the status of fish stocks in the FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57.
5.1 Most Important Organizations:
5.1.1 Western and Eastern Indian Ocean (FAO Statistical areas 51 and 57)
200*
161M
10,*
95.2
VT
4r
57'
BW
79'
W
F
W
93"
10i"
11T
129'
13.
14T
15V
The Agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) was
drawn up at Rome on 25 November 1993, approved by the FAO Conference at its
twenty-seventh Session, and entered into force on 27 March 1996. The objectives of
51
51
IOTC are the conservation of tuna and tuna-like species and the sustainable and rational
utilization of tuna resources in the Indian Ocean (FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57),
through the establishment of co-operative measures by both the coastal states of the
Indian Ocean and other States whose nationals harvest tuna and tuna-like species in the
region. More specifically, the Commission is particularly concerned with the following
species: yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, Southern bluefin tuna,
longtail tuna, kawakawa, frigate tuna, bullet tuna, narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, IndoPacific king mackerel, Indo-Pacific blue marlin, black marlin, striped marlin, IndoPacific sailfish and swordfish. Although IOTC has contributed significant information on
tuna resources in the region, it has encountered problems in assessing tuna stocks and in
negotiating and enforcing quotas among its members. The States that constitute the
Commission are Australia, Eritrea, European Community, France, India, Japan, Republic
of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, and
United Kingdom.
The Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO) was created by the
homonymous Convention, which was signed in Seychelles, on 19 June 1991, enforced
the following year, but currently not operative. The objectives of the Organization are to
promote cooperation and coordination among its members and achieve harmonization of
policies with respect to fisheries, relations with distant water fishing nations, fisheries
surveillance and enforcement according to arrangements, which may be concluded. Also,
development of fishing capacity of members and fish technology, processing and
marketing, and finally access to exclusive economic zones of Members, according to
arrangements which may be concluded. The founding States of this Convention are
52
52
Comoros, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri
Lanka, and Tanzania, however members of the Commission are only Seychelles,
Mauritius, Comoros and India. The species covered by the Commission include the
following tuna and tuna-like species: albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, bullet tuna, frigate tuna,
longtail tuna, skipjack tuna, southern bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, kawakawa, narrowbarred Spanish mackerel, Indo-Pacific king mackerel, Indo-Pacific blue marlin, black
marlin, striped marlin, Indo-Pacific sailfish, swordfish.
5.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks
In the Indian Ocean, landings have increased steadily from the 1950s to 1994,
accounting for 8% of the world's total marine production. Between 1992 and 1994,
landings in the Western Indian declined, primarily due to declines in catches of small
pelagic species, such as the Indian oil sardine. On the other hand the abundance of
commercial species like tunas and shrimps has been demonstrating a significant increase
[D.L. Alverson and K. Dunlop, November 1998].
53
53
Southern Ocean/ Antarctica (FAO Statistical Areas 48, 58, and 88)
5*0S48.4
ww
48.3-
ffow
48.6
Was 6r.lk
w.o
GTWE 58A4.3
49.2
45S
su
Eq~
tAQ. *&U1
FII~I-u
.
scale it60"SWS
FA
58.4.1
5..
58.4.4.a /
48.5
m
.1
NEl
58A.4b
140
sm==-N--e
170*
1700W
1'
130"
120'
160
1000 km
-
6.
60*00'S
8 .
10
90"
1051001W
80.
160"
88.1
8.
70*
150,
70100'W0
140'
60"
1IWOO'E
60*S
650S
FAQ, 111-2001
75"S
65'S
700S
Equidistant
600S
azimudhai projection
6.1 Most Important Organizations:
The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources (CCAMLR)
was signed in 1980 and entered into force in 1982. CCAMLR's objective is the rational
use of Antarctic marine living resources. In Article II of the Convention, the following
54
54
principles are declared: (a) prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population
to levels below those, which ensure its stable recruitment. For this purpose, its size
should not be allowed to fall below a level close to that which ensures the greatest net
annual increment. (b) Maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested,
dependent and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the
restoration of depleted populations to the levels defined above. And, (c) prevention of
changes or minimization of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem, which are not
potentially reversible over two or three decades. The parameters to take into account are
the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect
of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associated activities on the marine
ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible
the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. The member countries of
the commission are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, European Community,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Namibia, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United
States of America, and Uruguay. The parties members of the Convention, but not of the
Commission are Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Peru and Vanuatu.
55
55
6.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks
Overfishing and the natural characteristics of the whale life cycle, led to the collapse of
Antarctic marine mammals, and any recovery is unlikely to occur in the near future. The
blue whale, the humpback and sei whales are the species most seriously threatened. Apart
from the Minke whale, crabeaters and fur seals, which have increased, the numbers of the
other major mammals.
The larger demersal fish in this area have been heavily fished, mainly by longline, and
often in an unregulated manner as the species of the area are sold in international
markets. An example for unregulated fisheries is the Patagonian toothfish, which,
according to incomplete knowledge, it is widely distributed in the sub-Antarctic zone.
CCAMLR believes that reported landings in the Convention areas don't represent the
actual weight of annual landings, but estimates that the true number is double the one
officially recorded. Indeed, large illegal Patagonian toothfish catches to be landed by
FOC and re-flagged vessels have persistently been reported. The fishery for ice-fish is
officially closed, and these species show no sign of immediate recovery [R. Shotton,
FAO, Rome 1997].
56
56
7. Global
12r
W
16r 14
2(14r oU 40, I2u-
27
WO (rT r
40'
27
6WI
-
18
77
37
I
587
7
4
ZVVCrb
81
k
48
858
7.1 Most Important Organizations:
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling entered into force in 1949,
and established the International Whaling Commission (IWC), whose purpose is to
establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and
effective conservation and development of whale stocks. Although the term 'whale
stocks' doesn't clearly define the species covered by IWC, the Commission's recent
proposed measures concern bowhead whales, pigmy right, humpback, blue, fin, sei,
Bryde's, minke, sperm, Arctic and Antarctic bottlenose whales. Its member States are
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Grenada, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Kenya, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
57
57
Norway, Oman, Peru, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and The Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, UK, USA, and Venezuela.
The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) was
established in 1993, in the homonymous Convention, which was signed by Australia,
Japan and New Zealand, to ensure, through appropriate management, the conservation
and optimum utilization of southern bluefin tuna. Southern bluefin tuna can be found in
the waters of the Indian Ocean, the Southern Atlantic and the South Pacific. Juveniles
migrate from the Indonesian fishing zone eastwards to the southern part of the Australian
EFZ towards New Zealand. Some other juveniles from the same breeding ground migrate
west towards South Africa. Therefore, the members of CCSBT are Australia, Japan, and
New Zealand.
The following map shows the approximate boundaries and the world's ocean coverage
from the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).
a
NPAJ~CNPAFC
WdO
(LPt IFA)
C
Cf
SPC
FFA
M
4
M
R
A
Source: FAQ0, Regional Fisheries Bodies, World Ocean Coverage -FisheriesHomepage.
58
58
7.2 The Status of Fishery Stocks
According to the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports
on the state of world's marine fisheries since the 1970s, a large amount of evidence
points to the fact that marine resources have been over-exploited. Some species
considered overfished are New England groundfish and flounder, Southeast Spiny
Lobster, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Swordfish, Main Hawaiian Island Bottomfish and
Pelagic Armorhead, Large Coastal Sharks, Gulf of Mexico King Mackerel and Pink
Shrimp, Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Reef Fish Complex, Pacific Ocean Perch,
North Pacific Albacore, Oysters, Hard Clams, and Abalones in many locations [Declines,
Potential and Human Reliance, University of Michigan, 2003].
1950
Squids, Other groups
12%
octupuses
21%
billfishes
4%
Misc. marine
fishes
Redfishes,
---
-bass,congers
8%
Mack.,
snoeks,
10%
cutlassfishes
5%
Cods,
hakes,haddoc
Jacks, mullets,
sauries
Tunas,
bonitos,
billfishes
4%
Herrings,
sardines,
anchovies
31%
5%
Figure 2: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1950
Source: FAO FISHSTA T Database
59
59
1980
Cods,
hakes,haddoc
Squids,octupu Other groups
ses
10%
ks
17%
3%
Misc. marine
Redfishes,
-bass,congers
fishes
12%
Mack.,
9%
snoeks,
cutlassfishes
Jacks, mullets,
7%
sauries
12%
Tunas,
bonitos,
billfishes
Herrings,
sardines,
anchovies
26%
4%
Figure 3: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1980
Source: FAQ FISHSTA T Database
1994
0 ther groups
Squids,
octupuses3%
12%
Misc. marine
fishes
13%
Mack., snoeks,
cutlassfishes
Cods, hakes,
haddocks
11%
Redfishes,
-bass,congers
8%
JEacks, mullets,
sauries
12%
5%
Tunas, bonitos'tos,
billfishes
5%
Herrings,
s ri
sardines,
anchovies
31%
Figure 4: Percent contribution of major fish species groups in 1994
Source: FAO FISHSTAT Database
60
60
8.
Summary and Conclusion
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) can be divided into three
groups according to their responsibilities and power over their jurisdiction areas. The first
group is comprised by the Management Bodies that have the power to directly establish
management measures. Among those mentioned, the RFMOs that belong to this group
are CCAMLR, GFCM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IOTC, IPHC, IWC, NAFO, NASCO,
NEAFC, NPAFC, PSC, and SEAFO (See Appendix 2, the Acronyms List).
The Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs) that constitute the second group are the advisory
bodies, which provide their members with scientific and management advice. APFIC,
CECAF, FFA, NAMMCO, and WIOTO belong to this group.
The third group refers to the purely scientific bodies that provide their members
scientific and information advice. ICES and PICES are such bodies.
Whether management, advisory or scientific bodies, RFMOs seem to have made only
limited contributions to conserving fish stocks. Enforcing or implementing measures is a
difficult task for management bodies, mostly because their incentives are less motivating
than the economical benefits from ignoring or violating conservation measures.
In addition, although the tonnage of seafood is relatively small compared to the global
grain harvest, fish supply a critical protein supplement to many nations, with demand
rising globally. Because of this steep rise in demand for fish worldwide, the oceans were
rapidly plundered by industrial scale fishing vessels, which aimed to profit from this
market opportunity. That means that fish stocks are usually overfished, before any
management strategies are developed [DSP, Doctors for a Sustainable Population].
61
61
Traditional fishing practices by local or long-distance fishing fleets, the surplus - often
heavily subsidized - of fishing vessels, and the increase in demand for fish, lead fishing
fleets of many nations to violate or ignore conservation measures and fisheries
management regulations [FAO, 1989]. Flags of Convenience facilitate illegal fishing.
For example, European Union vessels, in order to avoid restrictions designed to protect
European fish stocks, re-flag and head south to plunder West African waters, especially
off the coasts of Guinea, Sierra Leone, and other coastal developing countries that lack
the means for adequate surveillance of their offshore waters [ITF 2001]. Pirate fishing
vessels flying Flags of Convenience have also been reported to fish illegally Patagonian
toothfish in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, while they plunder the Atlantic Ocean
for tuna and tuna-like species to profit from the increase in global demand for this fishery
[Greenpeace, 2003]. In general, FOC vessels target all commercial fisheries subject to
restrictions and management measures, aiming to cash in the profit potential arising from
their competitive advantage and ability to ignore regional regulations.
Some stocks fail to respond to the adopted management measures. Examples of this
failure are the cases of haddock, redfish and cod in the Northwest Atlantic, and the stocks
of Northern and Southern bluefin tunas in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.
Increased fishing pressure threatens some of the deep-water resource in the Indian Ocean,
the South Atlantic and the South Pacific, particularly orange roughy, alfonsinos and
dories, while concern has also been expressed regarding the severe decline of Patagonian
toothfish stocks in the Southern Oceans [FAO, SOFIA 2002].
In order to understand the operational patterns of the FOC fishing fleet, one has to
recognize the countries of origin of those fleets, their position and share in the world's
62
62
fish trade and their contribution to the global fish production. Commercial, scarce and
valuable fisheries are usually the target species of the FOC fishing vessels. The following
chapter examines the trade flows in the world's fish production- particularly capture
fisheries- the major importers and exporters, and the most commercial fisheries.
63
63
Chapter III
WORLD TRADE FOR FISH
1. Global fishery Production
According to FAO Overview of fish production, in 2001 the total fishery production,
aquatic plants excluded, reached 130.2 million tonnes, of which 29% came from
aquaculture and 71% from capture fisheries. World capture fisheries production
decreased by 3% from 2000 to 2001, mostly due to decreased catches of small pelagics
fisheries in South America, particularly in Peru, and the fluctuations in catches of the
Peruvian anchoveta, which are environmentally sensitive (i.e. El Nino, see Chapter II,
Status of Fishery Stocks in Southeast Pacific). On the other hand, global capture
production for the majority of the other species has remained stable for the last 8 years.
In 2001, the leading producing countries in capture fisheries were China, with the 16.5
million tonnes, followed by Peru (8.0 million tonnes), the USA (4.9 million tones), Japan
(4.7 million tonnes) and Indonesia (4.2 million tonnes). However, it is estimated that in
2001 about 30% of world fishery production were used for non-food purposes, virtually
all from capture fisheries, while out of the 75% of total quantity of fish processed per
year, 40% goes to fishmeal and fish oil production, and only 60% was destined for
human consumption. About 38% of world fish production in live weight was traded in
the global market in 2001, out of which more than 50% came from developing countries
[H. Josupeit, World TradeforFish, FAO-GLOBEFISH, Rome, March 2003].
64
64
2. International Trade
Although the contribution of developing countries has been declining since the midnineties, when their exports reached a higher volume than those of developed countries,
their net receipts of foreign exchange for fish have increased. Currently, Thailand and
China are the world's major exporter of fish products in value terms, followed by
Norway, USA, Canada, Denmark, Chile, Spain, Taiwan and Vietnam.
In contrast, in 2001 developed countries hold more than 80 percent of the total world
imports of fish products in value terms, with Japan being the biggest importer of fishery
products, accounting for almost one fourth of the global total. However, Japan's
persisting economic recession has led to a 15% decrease in the country's imports of fish
and fishery products from 2000 to 2001. For the same year, United States was the second
biggest importer of fish products in value terms, followed by Spain, France, Italy,
Germany, the UK, China, Hong-Kong, and Denmark. The EU share of world imports was
$ 23,098 million import value of fish commodities, representing a 6% increase from the
previous year [S.Vannuccini, Overview of Fish Production, Utilization, Consumption and
Trade, FAO 2003].
65
65
International Trade
Imports
Others
7%
EU
33%
Developing
countries
17%
%
17%
Japan
-26%
Figure 5: International Trade, Imports
Source: FAQ - GLOBEFISH, World Fish Trade, Rome, March 2003.
International Trade
Exports
Others
21%
Japan
1%
USA
Developing
USAcounties
51%
6%
EU
21%
Figure 6: International Trade, Exports
Source: FAG - GLOBEFISH, World Fish Trade, Rome, March 2003.
66
66
3. Major Fisheries and Fish Commodities
The most important species of international fish trade in value terms are, in the order of
market share, shrimps (19%), groundfish (11%), tuna (9%) and salmon (9%). Non-food
fishing commodities like fishmeal and fish oil account for less than 5 % of the value of
exports. Exports of developing countries consisted mainly of tuna, small pelagics, shrimp
and prawns, lobsters, cephalopods, fishmeal and fish oil. Trade of developing countries is
gradually evolving from exports of raw material for the processing industry of developed
countries to value-added products.
Exports in 2000 (value)
shrimps
19%
others
29%
fish oil
1%
groundfish
11%
fishmeal
tuna
9%
4%
cephalopods
sa Imon
4%
freshwater
4%
motluscs
(other)
5%
9%
small pelagics
5%
Figure 7: Exports for major fish commodities in 2000 (in value terms)
Source: FAO - GLOBEFISH, World Fish Trade, Rome, March 2003.
67
67
3.1 World Trade in Shrimp
The
world's
major
importers
of
shrimp
[H.
Josupeit,
FAO-GLOBEFISH
ICA/ICFO/CFA, March 2003], the world's most important fish commodity, are the EC,
Japan and the United States. While the US market demonstrates a constantly rising
demand for shrimp imports, Japanese imports have remained stable for the last couple of
years, as have imports into Spain, Europe's main shrimp market. France is following the
US trend with rising imports, while Italian shrimp imports have slightly declined.
On the supply side, the dominant export countries are Vietnam and Brazil [MMR
Shrimp, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, September 2003]. In 2003, Brazilian and
increasingly Ecuadorian, shrimp products are making the biggest impact. However,
Argentinean shrimp sales increased significantly and penetrated both the Spanish and
Italian markets. Argentina's landings of wild shrimp reached a record 83,500 MT during
the 12-month period to June 2002. This figure was more than double the level for the
previous 12 months. A decrease of Argentinean landings (year ending June 2003) is
reflected in lower imports into Spain and Italy this year. France continues to increase its
imports of shrimp, mainly from Brazil, which is the number one supplier to France in
volume terms, and from Madagascar, which remains by far the leading supplier in value
terms.
Despite the uncertainty created by SARS and the imposition of the EU import ban on
Chinese seafood in 2001, there are signs of growth in Chinese shrimp exports to key nonEU markets [Chinese Shrimp Industry: volume sales boosted by weaker prices, INFOYU
Monthly Market Report on Shrimp, August 2003]. China was the second largest supplier
of shrimp to the US market in 2002, but although volumes for the first 5 months of 2003
68
68
showed a 55% increase, Vietnam is most likely to overtake China and rank second. China
is a key supplier in the Japanese market also, ranking fourth in Japanese frozen shrimp
imports.
69
69
3.2 World Trade in Groundfish
The major groundfish species are the Atlantic pollack, seabass and seabream, hake, hoki
and cod. The recourses of Alaska pollock in Alaska and hake on the west coast of the
USA were either processed into a fish paste called surimi and exported to Japan and other
Asian markets, or processed into frozen fillets and directed mainly to the US domestic
market. US and Europe are leading the international market for frozen groundfish fillets.
In the US, Alaska groundfish, with pollock being the dominant species, accounts for 47%
of the quantity and 17% of the value of the total US domestic landings [MMR: Alaska
Pollock, Downward price tendency during first quarter of 2003, GLOBEFISH April
2003].
Currently there is pressure on the Alaska pollack market, which is expected to further
increase, due to the easing of EU controls on Chinese seafood imports, good catches in
2003, and very low prices of Russian blocks [MMR: Cod, Currency movements the key
market parameters during the first half of 2003, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report,
May 2003].
Similar pressures have been observed on cod prices, primarily due to increase of cod
availability reflected in increases in Norwegian and Icelandic cod exports for the first
quarter of 2003. The lowering of the cod quota in the Barents Sea had negative effects on
the Norwegian and Russian Federation cod fishery, and their fishing fleets are now
targeting small cod, that means 3-4 year old, which also does not help in rebuilding the
stock.
Danish frozen cod exports are also up for the period although there is a drop in fresh
exports. In addition, competition from double frozen Chinese fillets may undermine any
70
70
further increase in cod fillet prices in 2003. UK remains the main European market for
cod, with relatively stable prices for frozen cod products.
The largest European market for seabass is Italy, which in addition to its domestic
production from both farmed and wild sources, imports large quantities of farmed bass
and bream from Greece and Turkey. Spain is the second largest market for bass and
bream in Europe showing good growth prospects. Domestic consumption is being
satisfied mostly by local production, and by imports, again with Greece being the largest
exporter. Some smaller quantities of wild bass at high prices were also imported from
France.
Total hake (including hoki) catches for 2003 have remained relatively stable compared
to total landings for 2002, but Argentinean hake has increased its market share, taking
over a dominant position in key groundfish markets [MMR: Hake: Argentinean hake
exports remain buoyant in 2003, INFOPESCA Monthly Market Report on Hake, October
2003]. Spain is the leading market for Argentinean frozen fish exporters with 29% of
sales in volume terms (50% in value terms), while other key destinations for frozen
product this year include the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Lithuania. The hoki
resources off New Zealand are mainly caught by the Japanese fleet and processed into
surimi, but frozen fillets of Orange roughy are exported from New Zealand to the USA.
The hoki resources in South America are exploited mainly for fishmeal.
71
71
3.3 World Trade in Tuna
As already mentioned, Tuna is the third most important fish commodity traded
internationally- after shrimp and groundfish, with about 9% of total trade in value terms.
However, tuna is the only fishery, for which industrial scale companies prevail. The
demand for tuna expanded more than the total catch, resulting to an increase in value of
both fresh and frozen tuna in recent years.
The main tuna catching nations are Japan and Taiwan (Province of China), Indonesia
and the Republic of Korea. Spain and France are important tuna long-distance fishing
countries, with the majority of their fishing vessels active in the Indian Ocean. Spanish,
US and Japanese tuna catch decreased significantly in 2000 and 2001, primarily due to
the voluntary catch reduction by the main tuna vessels' owners. On the other hand, during
the same period Taiwan (Province of China) more than doubled its catch, while tuna
catch in Indonesia increased by 130%.
The dominant market tuna species are skipjack, yellowfin, albacore and bigeye tuna.
Skipjack catches increased by 80% over the past decade, leading to conservation
measures in order to slow down the extraction. The market for yellowfin demonstrates a
steady growth, but prices for these species are higher, since they are also suitable for
canning. Albacore catches have remained stable over the years, while bluefin and bigeye
catches have reduced due to over-fishing and illegal fishing practices [World Tuna
Markets, Helga Josupeit and Camillo Catarci, FAO, May 2003].
72
72
Tuna catches by country (volume)
Japan
15%
Taiwan
O12%
F-__Spain
Others
~o
e
Korea
6%
ia7%
Indonesia
7%
Figure 8: Tuna catches by country in 2001 (in volume terms)
Source: FAO - GLOBEFISH, Global World Tuna Markets, May 2003.
Tuna catches by species (volume)
Skipjack
49%
Bluefins
2%
Yellowfin
33%
'Z
Albacore
6%
Bigeye
10%
Figure 9: Tuna catches by species in 2001 (in volume terms)
Source: FAO - GLOBEFISH, Global World Tuna Markets, May 2003.
73
73
3.4 World Trade in Salmon
The world's two largest salmon producers are Norway and Chile. Norway, probably due
to its geographical position, relies on the EU as its major export market for salmon,
especially on countries like France and Spain [MMR: Salmon, GLOBEFISH Monthly
Market Report, March 2003], where salmon is particularly popular and reasonably priced.
Norway is the main exporter of Atlantic salmon to Russia, and eighth most important
export market for Norwegian salmon. Norway's total salmon exports in January-February
2003 reached 49 000 tonnes, up 10 %in value and 9 % in volume over last year.
Chile major export markets are the United States and Japan, with some frozen sales to
Europe and fresh sales to neighboring South American countries. US demand for Chilean
salmon fillets is increasing, while demand is also being satisfied by Canadian imports and
domestic production [MMR: Salmon, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, May 2003].
Moreover, while Chile is considered the most efficient producer today, the future
prospects for the Polish market are promising. Poland is rapidly expanding its
consumption of salmon, as well as its processed and re-exported salmon products, and
has gained a significant market share of Russian imports. There is a high-value black
market for salmon species, which is described in the following chapter.
74
74
4. Summary
In Chapter II, we used FAO data sources to evaluate trends in production of global
marine fish stocks and the impact of Regional Fisheries Bodies on the trends regarding
the status of fishery stocks. The conclusion was that conservation of marine fishery
resources has been less than adequate to maintain sustainable production of fishes from
the world's oceans. Chapter III provides information on global fish production,
international trade, the major importing and exporting countries, the most important
fisheries and the world's most commercial fish markets in order to give a notion of most
profitable fish trades and provide the rational for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
fishing. In the following chapter, it will be made evident that major stakeholders in the
world fish trade and countries of high demand for the most commercial fish commodities
are driving IUU fishing and turn their blind eye to the "dummy companies that register
their fishing vessels under Flags of Convenience" [Greenpeace, 2001].
75
75
Chapter IV
FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE AND IUU FISHING
1. Introduction
The devastating effects of the ever increasing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
fishing operations, bring into focus the issues the maritime industry has been facing for
years and highlight the need for the stakeholders to meet with their international
obligations [Shipping at Crossroads, ITF, July 2003]. Various organizations' campaigns
aim to increase global public awareness, as well as the pressure for greater security in the
ocean shipping system. In particular, their efforts' objective is the creation of a genuine
link between the real owner of the vessel and the flag the vessel flies. For example, the
ageing single-hulled oil tanker Prestige, which sank off the Spanish coast in November
2002, was carrying fuel oil from Latvia to Singapore for a Swiss oil company, was owned
by a Liberian company, flagged in the Bahamas, managed in Greece, insured in the UK
and classed by US classification society [Lloyd's, 2003].
As with the Shipping industry and all industries in general, the competition in fishing
operations over a given market environment, has always been the determinant factor in
decision-making. The inter-dependency of the various interests involved in maritime
global interaction creates fiscal advantages for the participants who wish to maximize
profits [Lloyd's, 2003]. In this context, the complex ownership structures of many
industrial fishing companies, on the one hand obscure the real owner's identity, but on
76
76
the other hand they demonstrate one of the various tools that have been developed in the
shipping industry to minimize costs, improve resource exploitation capability, facilitate
fund raising and improve the efficiency of international trade operations overall.
Under International Law [See Chapter II] every ship must sail under a flag that gives its
nationality to the ship, and each flag state must accept responsibility for the on board
conditions and operations of its fleet. The flags of countries, whose laws allow foreign
nationals or companies to fly their flags, guaranteeing the minimum of rules, regulations,
taxes and control are called flags of convenience.
This practice facilitates IUU fishing by allowing foreign fishing vessels to use their flag
to avoid international or regional fisheries management regulations which the vessels'
own flag state would have applied. FOC countries often offer economic benefits realized
in tonnage taxes and registration fees, franchise and/or royalty fees, reduced government
expense due to outsourcing, as well as other conveniences like easier registration, no
safety or labor standards for the crew, while they allow fishing vessels to operate under
their flag without enforcing or even respecting current legislation and regulations. Flag of
convenience countries are rarely members of international or regional fisheries
management commissions, and therefore don't consider themselves subject to their
prohibitions, however some that are, still violate conservation regimes.
The following 27 countries have been declared Flags of Convenience (FOCs) by the
ITF's Fair Practices Committee, which runs the ITF campaign against FOCs:
Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba (Netherlands), Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda (UK),
Burma, Cambodia, Canary Islands (Spain), Cayman Islands (UK), Cook Islands (New
Zealand), Cyprus, German International Ship Register (GIS), Gibraltar (UK), Honduras,
77
77
Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands (USA), Mauritius, Netherlands
Antilles, Panama, St. Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
Among these, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bermuda, and Liberia claim that they do
not currently register fishing vessels, but had fishing vessels registered as of December
31, 2001 (Lloyd's Register Fairplay - World Fleet Statistics 2001).
Apart from using flags of convenience, IUU fishing vessels are facilitated by "ports of
convenience", which allow IUU fishing boats to unload or transship their illegal catches
without controlling their origin, quality or quantity. For instance, among the 24 members
of CCAMLR, Namibia, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay, have been identified as IUU
landing sites, while Mauritius and Canada also have problem ports allowing landing of
illegal fishing vessels [Tangi Corveler, WWF, April 2002].
According to WWF, government subsidies have played a significant role in worsening
the problem, by keeping illegal fishing vessels in operation or encourage the export of
excess capacity to other areas of the world [TRAFFIC Bulletin, M. Lack & G. Sant,
2001]. These subsidies include boat construction, tax reductions, harbor and processing
facilities, fuel subsidies, financing joint ventures, export of vessels to third countries, and
reduced insurance costs. Overcapacity of the fishing fleet heightens competition and
many countries have introduced measures for even resource allocation and sustainable
fishing rates, but such measures are often undermined by fishers who do not report or
misreport their catch, when they deliberately or accidentally exceed their allowable catch.
In this chapter, we are going to examine flags of convenience and their impact on the
effectiveness of conservation measures and present some examples of the major IUU
markets, in order to identify the weakest link in the chain of piracy.
78
78
2. Obstacles to Control of IUU Fishing
According to the conclusions of the Santiago de Compostela International Conference
on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing, which was held on 25 and 26 November
2002, the factors that contribute to conservation measures' ineffectiveness and facilitate
the increase of IUU are the lack of political willingness, the insufficient cooperative
efforts and the exploitation of the legal Vacuums.
In addition, the lack of effective flag state control of fishing vessels, in particular those
flying flags of convenience, and the unequal commitment by all states or capacity to
enforce or implement existing measures.
Another important factor is the problem faced by some states, especially developing
countries, in finding sufficient human and financial resources to tackle IUU fishing
effectively, for which purpose specific forms of technical and financial assistance are
needed, in addition to improved market conditions.
Other factors recognized by the conference are the lack of agreed, effective, compatible
and stringent port states measures, the difficulty faced by RFMOs in applying
conservation and management measures to vessels from non-contracting Parties,
especially fishing vessels registered under flags that do not cooperate with RFMOs, in
particular flags of convenience.
Finally, the lack of compliance by Members and Contracting Parties of the RFMOs and
their conventions combined with the inadequate degree of cooperation among these
organizations, considering their limited competence, support illegal fishing activities
[FAO Report, January 2003].
79
79
2.1 Unwillingness to restrict IUU fishing
Indeed, responsibilities for problems associated with IUU fishing and flags of
convenience should be allocated, not only to FOC countries, but also to those countries,
that are unwilling or fail to restrict the fishing companies registered within their
jurisdiction from owning and operating FOC fishing vessels. Most notorious in this
regard are Taiwan, Korea, Japan and the European Union. The reason these countries
"fail" to restrict national fishing companies from operating flags of convenience, is
because they comprise the market for valuable illegally caught fishes, such as salmon,
tuna and Patagonian toothfish. Developed countries like the United States, Japan and the
EU are also the final destinations for black market species.
For example, according to a research conducted for Earthtrust International on high seas
driftnetting back in 1994, illegally caught salmon may be off loaded in Hong Kong or
Singapore. From there it may be shipped directly to Europe, or if it is destined for Japan,
it may be rerouted and relabeled first in another foreign state, including Chile, Canada,
and the United States. In 1990, a third of the Netherlands' canned salmon imports and a
fifth of Australia's salmon imports were supplied by Taiwanese and Korean companies
selling black market salmon, canned in Thailand, and brokered and shipped through
Singapore.
On February 13, 1989, a member of the Canadian House of Commons sent a letter to the
French ambassador complaining that "agents for business interests involving Singapore
nationals, Taiwanese nationals, and to some degree Nationals from other Asian Countries
- all involved in the North Pacific driftnet squid fishery - have been documented
supplying illegally caught salmon for sale in France". During that period it was fairly
80
80
common knowledge in Taiwan that the "squid" companies were focusing on the North
Pacific salmon stocks and that large illegal catches were being transferred at sea and were
showing up at warehouses in Singapore, canneries in Thailand, and wholesale markets in
Tokyo, the United States, and Europe [Linda M.B. Paul, May 1994].
2.2 Insufficient member compliance
In order to minimize overfishing and IUU on the high seas, according to the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states must cooperate in the conservation
and management of fish stocks [Chapter II, 2.1]. This need is best reflected in the
establishment of regional fisheries organizations (RFMOs), which however may face
problems of inadequate member compliance and insufficient cooperation among the
Contracting Parties.
An organization that had similar problems is the International Commission for
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). Recently, ICCAT had one of its worst failures
when the major fisher on the stock, Spain, along with France, refused to reduce their
share, when South Africa, Namibia and Brazil claimed an increased share of catches.
Right now, there is no internationally agreed quota for Indian Ocean Swordfish, and the
organization has to solve the dispute by establishing a fair resource allocation scheme,
respected by all parties. However, potential failure to solve the problem will lead some
countries to withdraw from ICCAT to set up a separate organization or else simply
transfer their vessels to flags of convenience [Seaweb 2002].
In fact, a major concern to prevent displaced national fishing fleets from searching for
fishing opportunities on the high seas or re-flagging to jurisdictions that do not provide
81
81
adequate surveillance of fleet activities. This concern is heightened by the fact that the
number of vessels fishing under flags of convenience (FOC), many of which are of
OECD origin, has risen in the past decade.
2.3 Ability to control
Most illegal fishing activities are carried out beyond the EEZ on the high seas where the
regulatory scheme is sometimes vague or weak and where resources are accessible to any
fleet of any nationality, unless a regional fisheries management organization has been
established to control activities within the area. However, the use of flags of convenience
by fishing vessels makes it extremely difficult for regional fisheries management
organizations to deal effectively with IUU fishing within their jurisdiction area.
Under international law, a country is not formally bound by the decisions of an
international organization to which it does not belong and consequently, the international
community cannot oblige a country to join an RFMO. This allows for vessels flying flags
of non-member countries to plunder the oceans as they wish, while fishing activities of
member countries are subject to management and conservation measures. Therefore,
shipowners in member countries transfer their vessels to these "flags of convenience" in
order to evade restrictions.
Illegal fishing is often carried out in coastal waters of developing countries (for example,
off the coasts of Africa), which lack the resources to patrol and control their offshore
waters. The high local consumption of fish in coastal states combined with illegal
overfishing by long-distance fishing fleets can result in detrimental impacts on local fish
stocks, employment and food security.
82
82
2.4 Ports of Convenience
Ports of convenience are called those ports in countries, which do not conduct rigorous
inspections of FOC vessels when landing their catch or re-supplying. Pirate fishing
companies often use ports of convenience, because authorities there ignore deliberately
the origins of the catch and the environmental consequences. These ports are the link
between illegal fishing and the legal market. The most known ports to be frequented by
FOC vessels are Las Palmas, in the Canary Islands, Spain (Atlantic Ocean), Table Bay in
Cape Town, South Africa, and Port Louis in Mauritius (Indian Ocean).
Although both the South African and the Mauritius Governments have made
declarations, very little has been done to strengthen their landing requirements. IUU
fishing vessels, including some owned by South African companies, continue to land
their southern Indian Ocean catches in Cape Town and Durban. In 1996 South Africa,
placed stricter controls on illegal toothfish longliners, forcing some pirate landings to
Mauritius. Since then Mauritius became the main port for illegal fishers and number one
port for toothfish. While CCAMLR's estimations of landings in Mauritius appear to have
dropped since 1998, there are indications of increased transshipping of catches at sea
[Greenpeace, 2000].
No official records exist concerning the volume, value and destination of Mauritius
toothfish exports, however national market statistics of the importing countries show that
significant volumes of Patagonian toothfish landed in Mauritius have been imported by
Japan and the United States. Very little information is available concerning the
destination of the remaining catches, however some is known to be exported to South
East Asia via Singapore, while the rest is suspected to be exported from Mauritius to
83
83
Chile and Argentina for processing and re-export [Greenpeace, Southern Ocean Pirate
Fishing, Expedition 2000].
2.5 Dealing with Non-Contracting Parties
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations face serious difficulties in applying
conservation and management measures to vessels from Non-Contracting Parties,
especially to those registered under flags of convenience. RFMOs have been trying to
encourage non-contracting parties to adopt international laws and regulations, as well as
regional or sub-regional conservation and management measures. However, FOC fishing
fleets have been unwilling to cooperate and RFMOs have often taken more drastic
actions, like introducing rules requiring authorizations to fish, e.g., the IBSFC Fishery
Rules provide that all fishing can only take place with an authorization of a contracting
party [Judith Swan, FAO, Rome 2002].
FOC countries often refuse to exchange information with RFMOs concerning their
fishing fleet, while some Open Registers, in countries members or non-members of
RFMOs, are privatized obscuring even more the real identity of shipowners of pirate
vessels.
84
84
2.6 Regional Cooperation
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations sometimes fail to cooperate with each
other as well for a number of reasons. The first observation one makes is that the areas
covered by each RFMO are not always discrete or independent, creating confusion over
jurisdiction waters and responsibility areas. CCAMLR, for example, is responsible for
managing fisheries over the entire Antarctic Ocean, while ICCAT covers the waters from
Iceland to Cape Horn.
The lack of sufficient information about the status of fishery stocks, level of sustainable
catches and appropriate quotas that should be set, weaken the RFMO credibility and
goals are often vague. Even if data are aggregated or historically observed, and
agreement on the level of quotas for fish stocks is achieved, the RFMOs also have to
decide on how to allocate that quota among the member countries.
2.7
Members Violators
The lack of compliance by members and contracting parties of the RFMOs and their
conventions is one of the most critical issues the organizations have to deal with. In order
to be effective, conservation measures must be respected and implemented by all
contracting parties. However, reports from the RFMOs indicate that the number of
violations by member countries is very high, while the owners of FOC vessels that have
been fishing illegally in the convention areas are based in member countries. Because the
notion that IUU fishing is being condemned by those who perform it is the essence of
piracy, it is useful to examine the examples of three different RFMOs and how fishing
85
85
fleets from their member countries violate conservation measures. Of particular interest is
the case of CCAMLR and the illegal fishing and trading of Patagonian toothfish.
2.7.1 FFA
In the South Pacific, the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) had estimated serious noreporting and under-reporting by Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province of
China tuna purse-seiners in the early 1990s - based on comparisons with US catch data
for the same region and other indicators. According to an Analysis of the Reported
Fisheries Violations and Prosecutions in the EEZs of FFA member countries, 1978-2001,
the number of recorded violations for that period is dominated by Taiwanese vessels
(40%), particularly longliners. Japanese longliners (14%), Korean (9%) and Taiwanese
(8.5%) purse seiners also sustain a significant share.
Although FOC vessels do not contribute significantly to the total number of violations,
some of the smaller fleets, such as Belize, have a higher percentage violation rate
(number of violations by flag versus the size of each fleet active in the region) than the
larger fleets of Japan and China. For example, in 1995, 30% of Belize's fleet and 20% of
Vanuatu's fleet were involved in violations compared to 3.8% of Korea's and 1.8% of
China's fleets. From the total amount collected in fines by FFA members, a percentage
7.5% of these fines were paid by vessels operating under the open registers of Belize,
Honduras, Marshall Islands and Panama [Judith Swan, FAO, Rome 2002].
86
86
2.7.2 ICCAT
In 1999, ICCAT identified 345 tuna longline vessels currently engaged in FOC fishing
activities in various oceans, including the Atlantic Ocean. The countries identified were
Belize, Honduras, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Singapore, Philippines, Cambodia, GuineaConakry, Sierra Leone, St. Vincent & the Grenadines and Trinidad & Tobago. Among
these Equatorial Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago are members of the ICCAT
Commission, while Philippines have been granted a co-operative status with ICCAT.
In November 2000, ICCAT members took a number of significant steps against both
ICCAT member and non-member countries to combat pirate fishing. Among the
mandatory measures taken, they agreed to ban bluefin tuna from Belize, Equatorial
Guinea and Honduras, swordfish from Belize and Honduras, and all bigeye tuna caught
by vessels flying the flags of Belize, Honduras, Equatorial Guinea, St Vincent and the
Grenadines and Cambodia, restricting this way market access for IUU catches in the
Convention Area. However, these restrictions would directly affect the major importers
for these fisheries, like the European Union, Japan, the United States and China,
members of ICCAT also [Greenpeace, February 2000].
2.7.3 CCAMLR
Although the Convention aims to preserve all kinds of fisheries and mammals in the
Antarctic Ocean, recently it has focused on the over-exploited Patagonian toothfish. The
high market value of this species has generated illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing within the convention area. Management measures taken by CCAMLR fail from
87
87
to be effective for a number of reasons, among which the most important are the high
cost associated with effective surveillance, the non cooperative FOC States, the port
states or countries that allow transshipment or landings of illegal fish, and the countries
that allow nationals to be involved in IUU.
However, non-compliance by the contracting parties and the various ways in which
CCAMLR members participate in IUU fishing are undermining the effectiveness of the
conservation measures and the reliability of the organization. CCAMLR members
continue to have a 'legal' fishery market that facilitates the trade for illegal fish and
accelerates the uncertainty about the impact of illegal fishing on fishery stocks.
According to Greenpeace [Stop pirate fishing Exhibition, 2000], CCAMLR countries
make up more than 90% of the toothfish market, and instead of promoting conservation
measures for toothfish, these countries are instead home countries to IUU vessel owning
companies, or provide them with gateways to trade Patagonian toothfish. More
analytically, Greenpeace claims the following for member countries of CCAMLR:
Argentina has a toothfish fishery within its EEZ, where it is known as merluza negra or
Bacalao de profundidad. Many FOC fishing companies have Argentinean owners, some
of which have operated vessels flagged to Argentina, but possibly re-flagged them to
escape the fishing restrictions.
In Australia Toothfish is called Australian/Antarctic sea bass. Australia's has a 'legal'
fishery market for toothfish, where FOC vessels trade their landings, but illegal fishing
from FOC vessels within Australia's EEZ has been reported.
Canada is also known to be involved in the international trade of toothfish as it is a
source for a small amount of toothfish for US markets.
88
88
Chile provides licenses to fishing vessels to fish both within its national waters and the
CCAMLR area. Chile apart from being a good market for illegally caught fish, like
Argentina, is also a country of origin of fishing companies that own or operate FOC
vessels. The Chilean government introduced measures to restrain illegal fish arriving in
Chilean ports, but landings of toothfish originating both from the Chilean EEZ and from
CCAMLR waters are still traded.
France is one of the CCAMLR members continuing a 'legal' fishery for toothfish,
providing this way pirate vessels a gateway for their landings. France has EEZs around
its Kerguelen Island and Crozet Island territories in the Indian Ocean sector of the
Southern Ocean, where significant populations of Patagonian toothfish are known to
exist. The waters around Kerguelen Island border the Australian EEZ, both of which
make up the Kerguelen plateau, a known hot spot for pirate fishing. Therefore the French
government, have been taking measures against pirates, through high bonds and fines for
illegal fishing. France was the third largest exporter of toothfish (called Leigine Austral
here) to Japan in 1998. A smaller amount of toothfish is exported to the US.
Japan is the largest market for toothfish (called mero here) and its imports accounts for
more than half of the world catch. Most of its imports come from Chile, China, France
and Australia. Japan also imports from Mauritius - the number one port of convenience
for FOC fishing vessels. The high demand sets prices high, provoking this way the
member countries to gain as much profits as they can by their legal market.
The Republic of Korea is also involved in the trade of toothfish, exporting some
quantities to Japan. Republic of Korea is also known a pirate home country.
89
89
Namibia has the second largest port for toothfish, Walvis Bay. About 2%, or 920 tonnes
of Japanese and US imports of toothfish in 1998 came from Namibia. Namibia is also a
flag of convenience country.
New Zealand is a licensed fishing country with 'legal' fishery for toothfish despite
massive uncertainty about the impact of illegal fishing on stocks of toothfish. However,
in 1999, New Zealand began surveillance for pirates in Antarctica's Ross Sea region
using Orion aircraft.
Norway is home country to fishing companies that have been targeting this high value
fishery and contributing significantly to its over-exploitation, using flags of convenience
to overcome regulatory barriers. Recently, the Norwegian government has been denying
to provide licenses to Norwegian vessels that have been re-flagging or fishing illegally
for toothfish or other endangered species. However, Norway is also one of the CCAMLR
members that have a market for toothfish.
United Kingdom is a major importer of Patagonian toothfish (Antarctic sea bass)
supplying the domestic market through supermarkets, restaurants and fish stores. This
legal, but also very large, market for toothfish guarantees IUU fishers great profits. The
UK licenses UK vessels to fish in its sub Antarctic territories, particularly in the area
around South Georgia.
Ukraine is also a CCAMLR member country that licenses vessels to fish Patagonian
toothfish, while it is home to many IUU fishing vessel owners.
Spain is known to be one of the most significant participants in IUU fishing including
fishing for Patagonian toothfish. Apart from providing a legal market to illegally caught
fish, it is also exporting or re-exporting toothfish to high demand markets, like Japan.
90
90
Spain is one of the most significant bases for fishing companies that operate FOC vessels
and in this case, toothfish targeting vessels. Spain has taken no measures to restrict
nationals from owning and operating FOC fishing vessels.
South Africa used to have significant landing sites of Patagonian toothfish in Prince
Edward and Marion Islands that were fished to commercial extinction in just two years.
Despite the over-exploitation of its Sub-Antarctic fishing resources, South Africa
continues to provide IUU fishing vessels with the infrastructure and the means to catch
and trade Patagonian toothfish, being home to many IUU and FOC vessel owners,
allowing FOC vessels to unload and re-supply in its ports and finally providing a legal
market for illegally caught toothfish. As mentioned previously, before the government
introduced restrictions, Cape Town and Durban were two of the most significant ports of
convenience for IUU vessels, but after the measures were imposed, Mauritius took over.
USA on the other hand, is a major market country for patagonean toothfish, ranking
second after Japan. Its imports accounted for one fifth of the estimated world catch in
1998, with its major suppliers being Argentina, Chile, Mauritius and Namibia. Demand
for the Chilean sea bass, as toothfish is called in US, is either stable or increasing, setting
prices high.
Vessels registered in Uruguay are licenses to fish in UK sub-Antarctic waters. Many
fishing companies that are involved in IUU or operate FOC vessels are Uruguay
nationals, targeting also the Patagonian toothfish fishery. Uruguay's port of convenience
Montevideo has been facilitating FOC vessels, mostly Chilean originated, when landing
or transshipping their catches, by sustaining minimum control standards.
91
91
Vanuatu is one of the Top 10 Flag of Convenience countries, used by fishing companies
who wish to escape conservation measures.
92
92
2.8 Conclusion
From all the above, it is evident the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations have
still a long way to go, before they finally manage to gain control of their jurisdiction
areas and restrain illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. There are three
important flaws in these organizations' structures.
First, although these regional commissions have been established to preserve
problematic areas, they have been unable to defend their goals based on accurate and
indisputable data and therefore they have been unable to convince the world over the
necessity of their existence. The credibility of their thesis has often been deliberately
debated, and memberships have most of the times been part of governments political
agenda or the reflection of a 'fashion' for environmental conscious states.
Second, participation in RFMOs is voluntary and usually it doesn't incorporate any
power to enforce the conventions' provisions to non-contracting parties. On the other
hand, they restrict member States within a regulatory framework, placing their national
fishing companies in a competitive disadvantage, when compared to non-member
countries' fishing vessels that have no upper limit of fish extraction. It is only natural,
that if governments estimate that their economic benefit from unsustainable fisheries is
greater than the benefits from being a sincere member State of an RFMO, they are going
to turn their blind eye to their nationals who re-flag to escape from the restrictions.
RFMOs have failed to create real motives to their members to comply with their
regulations, or to attract non-members to participate.
93
93
Third, their efforts against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing have been focusing
strictly on setting more regulations to enhance flag state control or port state control or
coastal state control, without being able to support these measures with the necessary
resources, like capital, equipment and enforcement personnel. They have been discussing
and deciding on what should be done against flags of convenience, they have been
adopting treaties and signing agreements, but most of the times this is as far as they have
gone.
The reason for this might be that often, commission members represent governments
that are more interested in their countries' short-term prosperity than they are in
sustainable fisheries in the long term. In addition, the commissions have failed to
recognize that recognizing the problems alone is not enough. In order to design an
effective plan of action against the use of FOCs and IUU, RFMOs must examine the
rational for their use and the potential gains of members or non-members from violating
fisheries management regulations.
So far, it has been made evident that to a great extent, the chain of piracy starts from
developed countries that have a big market for IUU target species, extends to the nations
whose economies rely on fishing or shipping activities, reaches the countries that have
traditionally been involved in processing fish and re-exporting it, to the ultimate
destination countries, that are usually the same developed countries from which the chain
starts from, i.e. Japan and Spain.
The following part of this chapter is going to examine the incentives and the benefits a
fishing vessel owner might gain from re-flagging to an FOC or registering his ship in an
open register.
94
94
3. The benefits and the current state of the FOC fishing fleet
The benefits gained by both the shipowner and the flag state from flagging or reflagging a fishing vessel to a flag of convenience mostly economic and similar to those
granted for merchant FOC fleets. By economic benefits we mean cost savings through
minimum tonnage taxes and registration fees, franchise and royalty fees, low crew wages,
no safety or labor standards for the crew and other. However, for fishing vessels, the
decision to operate under an FOC is influenced by the owner's and/or the state's will to
comply with current legislation and fisheries management regulations and the potential
profit if they don't.
In addition to the economic benefits, flags of convenience in fisheries offer a number of
advantages to potential IUU fishers like lack of transparency, easy transfer from flag to
flag, or the ability to switch target fisheries, and a 'hut' for IUU fishing fleets.
The ability to move from flag to flag and from fishery to fishery, grants for the fishing
vessels constant activity and easy access to fishing resources, low operational costs due to
low labor and safety standards as well as avoidance of expensive regulatory gear, and
near term profit from black market and/or seasonal species like Atlantic tuna and
Patagonian toothfish.
Because open registers are profit oriented, they set minimal conditions and requirements
before registering a vessel, in order to attract as many shipping companies as they can.
The more vessels registered the greater the economies of scale and the lower the cost.
Often FOCs are competitive with each other and operate within a competitive market
framework, which can result in an even more beneficial position for the shipowner, while
often the potential benefits are advertised to shipowners by some open registry states.
95
95
For example, the Antigua and Barbuda Flag offers limited or no vessel restrictions,
exemptions, favorable tax, and quick and efficient registration procedure. Belize offers
limited or no vessel restrictions, no or easy to meet nationality requirements and quick
and efficient registration procedure. Malta offers all the above, besides exemptions, plus
flexible manning requirements and bareboat charter registration.
The absence of flag state control compared to the compliance of the fishing vessels
originating country with international or regional fisheries management conventions,
provides a good motive for re-flagging a fishing vessel to an FOC. In addition, some
states, which have signed but not ratified international instruments or 'soft laws' like the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement and have not signed the Compliance Agreement, are likely to
have a high percentage of their fishing fleet re-flagging to open registry states. According
to McKenna Report [Signatures and ratifications as of January 8, 2002], 392 fishing
vessels or fish transport vessels are flagged outside the EU, or over 10% of the total EU
owned fleet. About 30% of the Greek-owned fishing fleet, 19% of the Spanish fleet, and
8-11% of the German, the French and the Portuguese, are flagged outside EU flying nonCommunity flags [Swan, J. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 980. Rome, FAO. 2002].
On the other hand, it is not certain whether compliance with fisheries regulations by the
flag state alone can result to a decrease of the number of fishing vessels flying its flag. In
November 2000, ICCAT members agreed to ban bluefin tuna from Belize, Equatorial
Guinea and Honduras, swordfish from Belize and Honduras, and all bigeye tuna caught
by vessels flying the flags of Belize, Honduras, Equatorial Guinea, St Vincent and the
Grenadines and Cambodia, restricting this way market access for IUU catches in the
Convention Area.
96
96
This measure had a positive impact on the reinforcement of flag state control in those
countries. Panama joined ICCAT and managed to have its import ban on bluefin tuna
lifted. Honduras improved its register requirements by requiring international fishing
vessels to sign an affidavit not to fish for tuna. Belize added a fishing vessel data form in
its registration application and removed 668 ships to improve the image of its register
[Lloyds List January 16, 2002], while Malta requires its vessels to have a fishing
authorization prior to registration. But while for flag states this economic 'blackmail' by
ICCAT was translated into real cost and lead to improvement of registration standards,
for the fishing vessels the impact was not big enough to influence flagging decisions, and
the number of fishing vessels under FOCs continues to increase.
In 2001, there were 1507 fishing vessels flying FOCs, about 12.5% of the world fishing
fleet, showing a 16% increase since 1997 [Lloyd's Register - Fairplay Ltd. World Fleet
Statistics 2001]. However, international pressure for better flag state responsibility and
compliance with global and regional conservation measures led to the restructuring of the
fleet allocation among the different FOCs. In 1997, Panama had 422 fishing vessels
registered but in 2001 only 229 were flying its flag. Honduras, which have claimed to be
at the process of deregistering fishing vessels, in 1997 had 423 vessels flying its flag, in
2001 the number decreased to 396. Belize went from 145 in 1997 to 481 in 2001, but
now it has deregistered most of them. However, deregistration alone only transfers the
problem as those vessels re-flag in another state that is more convenient. Moreover,
although Malta and Mauritius have also reduced the number of fishing vessels flying
their flag, there was a substantial increase in Cambodian, Bolivian and Equatorial
Guinean fishing fleets.
97
97
Greenpeace (based on data from Lloyd's Maritime Services) estimated that in 2001 there
were about 1300 industrial-scale fishing vessels flying flags of convenience. Over 80% of
these vessels were flying the flag of Belize, Honduras, Panama or St Vincent and the
Grenadines. The "registered" owners of these vessels are located in some 80 countries
with most of them listed as based in Taiwan, Japan, the European Union (primarily
Spain), Panama, Belize and Honduras [Greenpeace, February 2001].
For the same year, 1,349 fishing vessels were operating under 'unknown flag',
increasing by 30% since year 2000 and by almost 950% since 1994, when only 14 fishing
vessels were reported to fly 'unknown flag'. A number of the fishing vessels suspected to
be involved in IUU fishing in the last three years have shown no markings or name.
According to Lloyd's Register of World Fleet Statistics 2001 the average age of the
world fleet of fish catching vessels over 100 GT is 24 to 25 years, indicating an
additional risk for the environment. The FAO International Plan of Action for the
Management of Fishing Capacity underlines the dangers old fishing vessels pose to the
crew and the ocean environment. Many IUU fishing vessels belong to this elderly fleet,
probably because the risk is less for low value vessels. Although, the fish they catch is
not always much, its value is likely to be many times the value of the vessel itself,
especially in the case of Patagonian toothfish, tuna, and swordfish. Although the FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries requires flag states to provide accurate and
timely reporting of catches of fishing of vessels flying their flag, catches are constantly
undermined and FAO misinformed.
Most illegal fishing takes place on the high seas or within the 200 miles EEZs of
developing coastal states, where commercial fishing resources are richer and surveillance
98
98
less strict. FOC vessels poach the EEZ, usually of developing coastal countries, and fish
illegally. Because of the pressure for more port state control, vessels are increasingly
transshipping their catches at sea, rather than directly offloading in ports. This way the
fish loses its identity, meaning its origin, and its connection to the pirate vessel. By the
time the fish arrives on the market, it isn't illegal anymore.
The major question here is how to stop national fishing vessels from flagging or reflagging to FOCs and eliminate FOCs negative impacts of IUU. Despite international
efforts to enhance flag state responsibility, as well as port state and coastal state, the
number of vessels fishing under flags of convenience, many of which have their origin in
developed countries, has risen in the past decade. Is it rational to expect that introducing
new regulations would eliminate flags of convenience and IUU, or what has been
common practice for years? Who is the weakest link in the chain of pirate fishing, where
measures could be effectively implemented and sustainable fishing activities finally could
be achieved? These issues are addressed in the following and final chapter, Conclusion
and Recommendations.
99
99
Chapter V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The ever increasing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities
seriously undermine the conservation and management of many international fish stocks
both in coastal waters within the jurisdiction of coastal states (particularly developing
coastal States), and on the high seas.
Illegal fishing activities are facilitated by flag of convenience countries, which allow
fishing vessels to fly their flags without ensuring that these vessels respect international,
regional or national fish stock conservation measures and sustainable fishing practices.
So far, measures taken to fight to deter and eliminate IUU fishing are binding only for
those countries that have voluntarily accepted them, while often they are being accepted
by not ratified or effectively implemented. Moreover, most suggested actions against
IUU and FOCs have been focusing in enhancing the responsibilities of flag states, and in
a lower degree port states and coastal states.
The inability of single countries to implement effectively the suggested measures has
highlighted the need for regional cooperation in order to enforce fisheries management
regulations, like monitoring, control, surveillance etc. Many Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been established and have been making
efforts in applying conservation measures to the vessels of non-parties, particularly FOC
vessels. Their efforts have been ranging from trying to encourage non-contracting parties
to join RFMOs and comply with their management measures, to implementing various
100
100
sorts of bans against them - whenever they have such an enforcing power, such as
denying port access or banning imports of fish, like ICCAT.
Most of the times RFMOs do not successfully fulfill their goals. non-contracting parties
often find non-compliance to regional conservation measures to be more beneficial to
their economies and national fishing companies than accepting the rules or entering an
RFMO. Sometimes for the same reason, member states of the regional commissions,
although they formally accept the provisions of the conventions they have signed, they
may not ratify them or properly implement them or they refuse to forbid the use of FOCs
by national companies. Sometimes they even ignore their nationals who keep violating
international and regional fishing regulations.
Developing coastal states often lack the human and financial resources to effectively
combat IUU fishing, through costly surveillance and placing observes on fishing vessels,
and require technical and financial assistance from developed countries.
Other barriers to combating IUU fishing are lack of agreement and conflicts between the
different participants in the regional or global instruments, whether they are member
countries within a n RFMO, or different RFMOs within the same jurisdiction area. In
addition, since the formal legal vehicle for implementing fisheries conservation and
management measures is almost invariably national legislation or regulation, there can be
constitutional or other legal impediments to effective implementation on, for example,
the high seas [FAO, Sydney, Australia, May 2000].
In order to come up with that sort of regulations that would not only address the
existence of IUU fishing and the need for flag state responsibility, on should look at the
economic motivation for IUU fishing and FOCs and create the laws that would offset
101
101
these benefits, or eliminate their potential. The significant economic gains, available
through IUU fishing, come from the increasing demand for fish as a healthy food in all
parts of the world. As conservation measures increase and Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
limits are being set, a greater fraction of demand for fish is going to be satisfied by
illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
Fisheries management and conservation measures should be a part of a flexible
regulatory scheme that would include actions to reduce fishing fleet capacity and support
aquaculture, to satisfy the exceeding demand. In order to achieve elimination of IUU
fishing by FOC vessels, the plan should be pervasive and persuading. Since not all FOC
countries might comply with deregistration or agree to decline admission to the older
vessels that qualify the most for IUU fishing, international law should set limits to control
new building capacity of fishing vessels, without however interfering with the free
market dynamics. This can be achieved by increasing diplomatic pressure to eliminate or
at least minimize government subsidies for boat construction and an international plan
where quotas would be placed not on allowable catches, but on fleet capacity active in
each region. Each country then would decide whether to allocate that capacity to a larger
number of small-scale fishing vessel operators or to fewer industrial-scale fleets,
depending on each governments national policy and national goals.
The other key dimension for overfishing and IUU fishing, and probably the most
important is as mentioned earlier the potential profits realized by trading illegal fish. It is
common knowledge that where there's a market, there's a trade. Therefore, countries
need to introduce measures and prohibit the trade for illegally caught fish and take action
against illegal circulation of fish. These actions should extend beyond port state control.
102
102
Closing ports to FOC fishing fleets is of course a valuable measure, however as seen in
the case of South African ports that IUU vessels switched their destination to Mauritius
and Namibia, if not all states comply with this measure, there is always going to be an
alternative destination.
Import restrictions should therefore be used against not only specific vessels and flag
states that disregard international rules and standards, but against all countries that are
known to allow illegal landings, provide re-supplying of FOC vessels, and process illegal
fish. That doesn't mean banning imports from those countries, but placing an import tax
high enough to reduce this fish competitiveness and switch domestic demand to other
fishes. This would be particularly valuable in countries where demand for overfished
species is satisfied through retailing in supermarkets and hypermarkets. When illegal fish
has been processed and re-exported in the frozen market, control could be gained by
placing certification schemes and labeling [OECD Observer No. 233, August 2002].
Another way to reduce demand for endangered species is by educating the public. The
public in developed countries and major fish markets is particularly vulnerable to mass
media influences. Many environmentalist groups have used the media to inform the
public, create an environmental trend and put pressure on politicians to include their
issues in their political agenda. By educating the public on IUU species or create a 'hot'
issue even for a while could result in a decrease in demand for the certain kinds of
fisheries.
The above measures shouldn't be considered sufficient or self-standing. They are
proposed as a part of a wider IUU fishing activities' eliminating plan and as supplements
to the provisions of future or existing international and regional instruments, which
103
103
however most of the times aim to regulate fish supply rather than both supply and
demand. Indeed IUU fishing has developed because of the increasing demand for
valuable fishes and the potential for hyper-profits within a short- term period, usually a
season. Flags of convenience are only a traditional tool, used for years in the maritime
sector, to serve the purpose. Flag states are a strong link in the chain of IUU fishing,
connecting countries of demand for IUU target species and supply resources. To break
that link requires organized, constant and timely efforts. However, targeting demand at
the same time will increase the pressure along the chain and cause the weakest link to
break.
104
104
REFERENCES:
A Brief Guide to Flags of Convenience, International Transport Workers' Federation,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/flags/guide.htm
A Global Review of Illegal, Unreportedand Unregulated(IUU) Fishing, Collated and
Edited by Kevin Bray Consultant on IUU Fishing Fisheries Department, FAO, Sydney,
Australia, May 2000.
CCAMLR's Management of the Antarctic,
http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/pubs/am/man-ant/p 1.3.htm
Chinese Shrimp Industry: volume sales boosted by weaker prices, INFOYU Monthly
Market Report on Shrimp, August 2003.
FAO Fisheries Glossary, http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary/default.asp
Fishing Vessels Operating Under Open Registers And The Exercise of FlagState
Responsibilities, Information and Options, Swan, J., FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 980.
Rome, FAO. 2002.
Greenpeace, Southern Ocean Pirate Fishing, Expedition 2000,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans/southemoceans/expedition2000/pirate/index.html
High Seas Drifitnetting: The Plunder of the Global Commons -The Big Bussiness of
Driftnet Fishing, Linda M.B. Paul, Earthtrust, May 1994.
Illegal, Unreportedand Unregulated Fishing, Taking Action for Sustainable Fisheries,
Tangi Corveler, WWF, April 2002.
Inconvenient flags, By Carl-Christian Schmidt, OECD Fisheries Division September 02,
2002. OECD Observer No. 233, August 2002.
International Fisheries Organizations, Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law,
http://www.oceanlaw.net/orgs/index.htm
Is there a better way to regulate the Shipping Industry?, Folkets Hus Conference Center,
Oslo, Tuesday 23 - Wednesday 24 June 1998.
http://www.itf.org.uk/seafarers/pdf/shipping industry.pdf
Shipping at Crossroads, ITF, International Transport, Issue 12, July 2003.
http://www.itf.org.uk/TI/l 2/english/shippingAtCrossroads.html
105
105
Lloyd's Register Fairplay, World Fleet Statistics 2001.
Lloyds List January 16, 2002.
Managing Fisheries on the High Seas, Seaweb 2002,
http://www.seaweb.org/background/book/high seas.html.
McKenna Report, Signatures and ratifications as of January 8, 2002
MMR Shrimp, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, September 2003.
MMR: Alaska Pollock, Downward price tendency during first quarter of 2003,
GLOBEFISH April 2003.
MMR: Cod, Currency movements the key market parametersduring the first half of 2003,
GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, May 2003.
MMR: Hake: Argentinean hake exports remain buoyant in 2003, INFOPESCA Monthly
Market Report on Hake, October 2003.
MMR: Salmon, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, March 2003.
MMR: Salmon, GLOBEFISH Monthly Market Report, May 2003.
More Troubled Waters, fishing, pollution and FOCs, submission for the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, International
Transport Workers' Federation, Greenpeace International. August 2002.
Overview of Fish Production, Utilization, Consumption and Trade, S.Vannuccini, FAO
2003.
Patagonian Toothfish, Are Conservation and Trade Measures working? TRAFFIC
Bulletin, M. Lack & G. Sant, 2001, TRAFFIC Network, http://www.traffic.org/toothfish/
Pirate FishingPlunderingthe Oceans, Greenpeace International Campaign against Pirate
Fishing, February 2001.
Review of the State of World FisheriesResources: Marine Fisheries,by Marine
Resources, Fishery Resources Division, Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome 1997.
Shipping Industry Guidelines on FlagState Performance, BIMCO, INTERCARGO,
International Chamber of Shipping, International Shipping Federation and
INTERTANKO.
106
106
SOFIA, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Fisheries Department's premier
advocacy document, FAO 2002
Sword Play?, M. Griffiths, S. Lamberth, and T. Pitcher, Fish Bytes, The Newsletter of the
Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia, Volume 7, Issue 3, May/ June 2001
The 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
The International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreorted and
Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU), Twenty-fourth Session of COFI March 2" , 2001.
The role of Flags of Convenience in the Fisheries Sector, Working Document 1,
European Parliament, Committee on Fisheries, 11 April 2001.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 December
1982.
World Fish Trade, Helga Josupeit FAO-GLOBEFISH ICA/ICFO/CFA Seminar for
Promotion of Sustainable Development of Fishery Industry of China, Rome, 19-22
March 2003.
World Tuna Markets, Helga Josupeit and Camillo Catarci, FAO, May 2003
Yearbooks of Fishery Statistics, Summary Tables -2001,
http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/summtab/default.asp
107
107
APPENDIX 1:
[Source: FAO Fisheries Glossary, http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary/default.asp]
GLOSSARY
Albacore:
A temperate tuna species widely distributed throughout
(Thunnus alalunga)
the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.
Allocation:
The partitioning of fishery controls or fishing rights among
participating entities or operating units.
Artisanal:
Refers to catch or effort that is neither industrial nor
recreational in nature, and which is generated using simple
fishing methods.
Availability:
Refers to the distribution of fish of different ages or sizes
relative to the distribution of the fishery.
Bigeye (Thunnus obesus):
A widely-distributed species of tuna, ranging between
500n and 45o S. This species dwells in deeper water than
other tunas and shows extensive vertical movements.
Biomass:
Biomass refers to the abundance of the stock in
units of weight. Sometimes, "biomass" refers to only
one part of the stock (spawning biomass, exploitable
biomass) but this distinction is not always made.
Bluefin:
A temperate tuna distributed throughout the north
(Thunnus thynnus thynnus) Atlantic. For assessment purposes, two stocks are assumed,
although some mixing is known to occur: Western
and eastern (including the Mediterranean) Atlantic.
108
108
By-catch:
Catch of species other than the intended target species
in a fishing operation. Bycatch can either be discarded
or landed. (Alverson et al. 1994).
Carrying Capacity:
(1) Virgin biomass. (2) Refers to the holding capacity
Living in close relation with the bottom and depending on
it. Example: Cods, Groupers and lobsters are demersal of a
fishing vessel.
Catch :
The total number of fish caught by fishing operations
(or weight of fish caught). Catch should pertain to all fish
killed by the act of fishing, not just those fish that are
landed.
Commercial:
Refers to catch or effort that is commercial in nature,
typically using industrial-type vessels and gears.
Controls:
Refers to the various controls (measures) that managers
can impose to regulate fishing. Controls are usually
classified as effort controls or catch controls, depending
on what they intend to regulate. (Gulland 1974; Pallards
and Suzuki 1998).
Demersal:
The term "demersal fish" usually refers to the
living mode of the adult.
Depleted:
A stock driven by fishing at very low level of abundance
compared to historical levels, with dramatically reduced
spawning biomass and reproductive capacity. It requires
109
109
particularly energetic rebuilding strategies and its recovery
time will depend on the present condition, the level of
protection and the environmental conditions.
Diadromous :
A species, a fish, which undertakes spawning migration
from ocean to river or vice versa.
Drifting longline:
Longline kept near the surface or at a certain depth by
means of regularly spaced floats. Drifting longlines may be
of considerable length, and the snoods are usually longer
and more widely spaced than for the bottom longlines.
EEZ:
Exclusive Economic Zone
El Nino:
Abnormally warm ocean climate conditions, which in some
years affect the Eastern coast of Latin America (centred on
Peru) often around Christmas time. The anomaly is
accompanied by dramatic changes in species abundance and
distribution, higher local rainfall and flooding, massive
deaths of fish and their predators (including birds).
Endangered:
Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely
if causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa whose
numbers have been drastically reduced to a critical level or
whole habitats have been so drastically impaired that they
are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Also
included are those that possibly are already extinct, in so far
as they definitely have not been seen in the wild in the past
110
110
50 years.
Environmental restoration: Reactive environment protection. It includes (a) reduction
or neutralization of esiduals, (b) changes in the spatial
distribution of residuals,
support of environmental
assimilation and (d) restoration of ecosystems, landscape
and so forth.
Epipelagic:
Associated with the surface layer of a water body (e.g. sea
or lake).
Equilibrium catch:
The catch (in numbers) taken from a fish stock when it is in
equilibrium with fishing of a given intensity, and (apart
from the effects of environmental variation) its abundance
is not changing from one year to the next. [Ricker W.E.
1975].
Exclusive Economic
The area adjacent to a coastal state which encompasses all
Zone:
waters between: (a) the seaward boundary of that state, (b)
a line on which each point is 200 nautical miles
(370.40km) from the baseline from which the territorial
sea of the coastal state is measured (except when other
international boundaries need to be accommodated), and
c) the maritime boundaries agreed between that state and
the neighboring states.
Exploitation rate:
The proportion of a population at the beginning of a given
time period that is caught during that time period (usually
111
III
expressed on a yearly basis).
Extinct species:
Species not definitely located in the wild during the past
50 years.
Extreme fluctuations:
Extreme fluctuations occur in a number of taxa where
population size or distribution area varies widely, rapidly
and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one
order of magnitude (i.e., a tenfold increase or decrease).
FAO:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Fish stock:
The living resources in the community or population from
which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish
stock usually implies that the particular population is more
or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and
hence self-sustaining. In a particular fishery, the fish stock
may be one or several species of fish but here is also
intended to include commercial invertebrates and plants.
Fisheries management:
The integrated process of information gathering, analysis,
planning, decision making, allocation of resources and
formulation and enforcement of fishery regulations by
which the fisheries management authority controls the
present and future behaviours of the interested parties in
the fishery, in order to ensure the continued productivity
of the living resources.
Flag of Convenience:
112
The term pertains to cases when a boat is registered in a
112
different State than that of ownership, for whatever
reasons of convenience.
Fully exploited:
Term used to qualify a stock which is probably neither
being overexploited nor underexploited and is producing,
on average, close to its Maximum Sustainable Yield.
This situation would correspond to fishing at FMSY (in a
classical production model relating yield to effort) or
Fmax (in a model relating yield-per-recruit to fishing
mortality).
Gillnet:
Or Entangling net. With this type of gear, the fish are
gilled, entangled or enmeshed in the netting, which may
be either single (gillnets) or triple (trammelnets).
Several types of nets may be combined in one gear (for
example, trammelnet combined with a gillnet). These
nets can be used either alone or, as is more usual, in
large numbers placed in line ('fleets' of nets). According
to their design, ballasting and buoyancy, these nets may
be used to fish on the surface, in midwater or on the
bottom [Nedelec , C. and J. Prado, 1990].
Groundfish:
A species or group of fish that lives most of its life on or
near the sea bottom.
Growth rate:
Annual or seasonal. The increase in weight of a fish per
year (or season), divided by the initial weight.
113
113
Habitat:
The place where an organism lives or the place one
would go to find it.
Individual Quota:
IQ. A quota (possibly a percentage) of a total allowable
catch (TAC) assigned to an individual, a vessel or a
company.
Inland water:
The surface water existing inland including lakes, ponds,
streams, rivers, natural or artificial watercourses and
reservoirs, and coastal lagoons and artificial
waterbodies.
Juvenile:
A young fish or animal that has not reached sexual
maturity.
Krill:
"Krill" comes from the Norwegian word meaning
"young fish" and is now commonly used as the common
term for Euphausids, a family of crustaceans found
throughout the world oceans.
Landings:
The number or poundage of fish unloaded at a dock by
commercial fishermen or brought to shore by
recreational fishermen for personal use. Landings are
reported at the points at which fish are brought to shore.
Note that landings, catch, and harvest define different
things. [Defining Fisheries:a user's glossary, Kenneth
J. Roberts, Jerald W. Horst, John E. Roussel, and Joseph
A. Shephard, Louisiana Sea Grant College Program,
114
114
Louisiana State University].
Line fishing:
A general term used for a range of fishing methods that
employ fishing lines in one form or another (as opposed
to nets and traps). It includes handlines, hand reels,
powered reels, pole-and-line, droplines, longlines,
trotlines and troll lines.
Maximum Sustainable
The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be
Yield:
continuously taken (on average) from a stock under
existing (average) environmental conditions without
affecting significantly the reproduction process. Also
.
referred to sometimes as Potential yield
Mesopelagic:
Pelagic zone of intermediate depth, 200-1 000m.
Migration:
Systematic (as opposed to random) movement of
individuals of a stock from one place to another, often
related to season. A knowledge of the migration patterns
helps in targeting high concentrations of fish and
managing shared stocks
Monitoring:
The collection of information for the purpose of
assessment of the progress and success of a land-use
plan. Monitoring is used for assessing performance of a
management plan or compliance scheme and revising
them or to gather experience for future plans.
Mother ship:
115
Large vessel providing services to fishing vessels and
115
on which these vessels "land" their catches for
processing and transport to ports.
Multipurpose vessel:
A fishing vessel equipped so that any two or more
different types of fishing gear can be operated with
minor modification to the vessel or her outfit. Example:
Seiner-hanliner; trawler-purse seiner; trawler-drifter.
Nautical mile:
Unit of distance equivalent to 1 minute latitude of the
great circle of earth (=1852 meters).
Nominal catch:
The sum of the catches that are landed (expressed as live
weight equivalent). Nominal catches do not include
unreported discards.
Non-contracting Party:
A country that has not signed and is not obligated to aide
by the terms of an international fishing agreement.
Non-target species:
Species for which the great is not specifically set,
although they may have immediate commercial value and
be a desirable component of the catch [OECD, 1996]
Observer:
A certified person onboard fishing vessels that collects
scientific and technical information on the fishing
operations and the catch for the Management Authority.
Oceanic species:
Species distributed and caught mainly beyond the shelf
and/or which migrate extensively across the open ocean.
Overfished:
A stock is considered "overfished" when exploited
beyond an explicit limit beyond which its abundance is
116
116
considered "too low" to ensure safe reproduction.
Pelagic fish:
Fish that spend most of their life swimming in the
water column with little contact with or dependency on
the bottom. Usually refers to the adult stage of a species.
Port State authority:
Any official functioning authorized by the Government
of a Port State to administer guidelines and enforce
standards and regulations relevant to the implementation
of national and international shipping control measures.
Principal Species:
Species important to the viability of the fishery, both
target and non-target.
Pulse fishing:
Harvesting a stock of fish, then moving on to other
stocks or waiting until the original stock recovers.
Purse seine:
Nets functioning by the use of a purse line at the
bottom of the net.
Quota:
A share of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) allocated to
an operating unit such as a country, a vessel, a company
or an individual fisherman (individual quota) depending
on the system of allocation.
Rebuilding:
For a depleted stock, or population, taking action to
allow it to grow back to pre-defined target level.
Recreational fishery:
Harvesting fish for personal use, fun, and challenge (e.g.
As opposed to profit or research).
Resources:
117
A natural source of wealth and revenue (Webster
117
Dictionary). Fishery resources are those resources of
value to fisheries.
Responsible fisheries:
The concept of Responsible Fisheries "encompasses the
sustainable utilization of fishery resources in harmony
with the environment; the use of capture and
aquaculture practices which are not harmful to
ecosystems, resources and their quality; the
incorporation of added value to such products through
transformation processes meeting the required sanitary
standards; the conduct of commercial practices so as to
provide consumers access to good quality products.
Sashimi:
Japanese term for sliced fish (especially tuna) and
shellfish (scallop, abalone, lobster, squid, octopus)
served raw as a delicacy.
Shared stock:
Stocks of fish that migrate across the EEZs boundary
of adjacent or opposite coastal states.
Spawning stock:
Mature part of a stock responsible for the reproduction.
Standing stock:
The total weight of a group (or stock) of living
organisms (e.g.fish, plankton) or of some defined
fraction of it (e.g. spawners), in an area, at a particular
time.
Stock assessment:
The process of collecting and analizing biological
and statistical information to determine the changes in
118
118
the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing,
and, to the extent possible, to predict future trends of
stock abundance.
Straddling stock:
Stock which occurs both within the EEZ and in an area
beyond and adjacent to EEZ.
Sustainable fishing:
Fishing activities that do not cause or lead to
undesirable changes in the biological and economic
productivity, biological diversity, or ecosystem
structure and functioning from one human generation
to the next.
Target species:
Those species that are primarily sought by the
fishermen in a particular fishery. The subject of
directed fishing effort in a fishery. There may be
primary as well as secondary target species.
Temperate waters:
Waters in the region of higher (cooler; more
poleward) latitudes than tropical latitudes.
claims territorial waters three nautical miles in width.
Thresholds:
Levels of environmental indicators beyond which a
system undergoes significant changes; points at which
stimuli provoke significant response.
Trawl:
A cone or funnel-shaped net that is towed through the
water by one or more vessels.
Underfished:
119
Characteristic of a stock which may sustain catches
119
higher than current ones.
Vessel catch limits:
A limit on the quantity each individual vessel can land
per trip or short period of time (e.g., day, week).
Vessel Monitoring System: VMS. As part of modem Monitoring, Control and
Surveillance systems (MCS) the VMS is a vessel
tracking system (usually satellite-based) which
provides management authorities with accurate
information on fishing vessels position (and speed) at
time intervals.
Virgin stock:
A stock in its natural condition before anyone has
fished it.
Vulnerable species:
Taxa of various types, including (a) taxa believed likely
to move into the "endangered" category in the near
future if the relevant causal factors continue to operate.
These factors may include overexploitation, extensive
destruction of habitat and other environmental
disturbances, (b) taxa with populations that have been
seriously depleted and whose ultimate security has not
yet been assured and ( c) taxa with populations that are
still abundant but are under threat from severe adverse
factors throughout their range.
120
120
APPENDIX 2:
[Source: FAO List of Acronyms,
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X695 1E/x695 1e04.htm]
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFS
Asian Fisheries Society
APFIC
Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission
CCAMLR
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
CCSBT
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
CECAF
Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic
COFI
FAO Committee on Fisheries
DWFN
Distant water fishing nation
EEZ
Exclusive economic zone
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation
FFA
South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency
FOC
Flag of convenience
GFCM
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
IATTC
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
IBSFC
International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
ICNAF
International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
INPFC
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission
IOFC
Indian Ocean Fishery Commission
IOTC
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
121
121
IPFC
Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission
IPHC
International Pacific Halibut Commission
IUU
Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing
IWC
International Whaling Commission
NAFO
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Stocks
NAMMCO
The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
NASCO
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
NEFSC
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
NPAFC
North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission
PICES
North Pacific Marine Science Organization
PSC
Pacific Salmon Commission
RFMB
Regional Fisheries Management Body
SEAFO
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fisheries
Resources in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
TAC
Total allowable catch
UN
United Nations
UNCLOS
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
VMS
Vessel monitoring systems
WCP
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
WIOTO
Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization
WPFCC
Western Pacific Fisheries Consultative Committee
122
122
123
123