EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
 






 
1999
2004
Committee on Fisheries
11 April 2001
WORKING DOCUMENT 2
on the role of flags of convenience in the fisheries sector
Committee on Fisheries
Rapporteur: Patricia McKenna
DT\286567EN.doc
EN
PE 286.567
EN
MEASURES TAKEN TO COMBAT FISHING BY
VESSELS FLYING FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE
HOW ICCAT IS COMBATING IUU FISHING ACTIVITIES
Regional fisheries organisations have taken a number of actions over the past decade against
fishing vessels operating under Flags of Convenience (FOC). Among the most active of these
organisations has been ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tuna. The attached document was written by Peter Miyake, the Assistant Executive Secretary of
ICCAT. It gives a brief history of the use of Flags of Convenience by tuna fishing vessels in the
Atlantic Ocean and describes the measures adopted by ICCAT, including statistical
documentation schemes, import bans, vessel registers, port inspection schemes and others. The
final page of Dr. Miyake's paper lists the ICCAT resolution, all of which can be found on the
ICCAT website at http://www.iccat.es/ under "Management".
This document was originally tabled at the FAO's Technical Consultation on the International
Plan of Action to combat Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing, which took place in
Rome in October 2000.
PE 286.567
EN
2/7
DT\286567EN.doc
CASE STUDY:
HOW ICCAT IS COMBATING IUU FISHING ACTIVITIES
by Peter Miyake, PhD
ICCAT Assistant Executive Secretary
HOW DOES ICCAT DEFINE IUU VESSELS OR FISHING ACTIVITIES?
In virtue of its Convention, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) has the mandate for the management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic
Ocean and its adjacent seas. When ICCAT started adopting various stringent management
measures including catch quotas, time/area closures, size limits etc., numerous fishing vessels of
Contracting and non-Contracting Parties started registering their vessels to countries that had
open registry systems. At about the same time, numerous new fishers entered the fisheries
under ICCAT mandate and were similarly registered. Those vessels have been sighted fishing
tunas in many areas of the high seas and often within the EEZ of coastal States in contravention
of ICCAT's conservation and management regime. ICCAT received no information whatsoever
on these fishing operations (e.g. catch, effort, fishing grounds, fishing season, fishing practices,
etc.) either from flag country or the vessel owners. These are the vessels that ICCAT defines as
Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported or IUUs.
Since fishers who diligently comply with fisheries management measures are often adversely
affected by IUU activities, the feeling of unfair treatment is very strong. Besides, such illegal
activities also adversely effect the precision of species stock assessments conducted by
Commission's scientists whose duty is to provide appropriate management advice based on the
results of their assessments. Furthermore, any gain obtained by strict regulations is offset by
these illegal practices.
VESSELS REGISTERED TO FLAG COUNTRIES HAVING OPEN REGISTRY
As early as 1970, a significant number of vessels were detected that were flying flags of
countries that have open registry systems. At that time, most of these were Asian longliners and
there were also some European purse seiners. The major reason the boat owners opted for such
registration was to be fee from the licensing system tariffs and other restrictions imposed by
their mother countries. Not all of these vessels, however, were necessarily IUU boats. Many of
them reported their catches and other fishing information through their mother countries and/or
flag countries. ICCAT also covered the catches and landings of such vessels at the transhipment
ports or directly from the captains and fish brokers.
In the early 1980s when more stringent ICCAT management measures were implemented, such
vessels with open registry increased significantly and the reasons for their seeking such registry
changed at that time. As those countries with open registry are not members of ICCAT and
hence are not legally bound by the ICCAT regulations, these vessels started fishing without any
DT\286567EN.doc
3/7
PE 286.567
EN
intention to comply with the ICCAT measures or to provide any information on their fisheries.
ACTIONS TAKEN BY ICCAT AGAINST IUU FISHING ACTIVITIES
As it became more and more evident that IUU vessels were seriously undermining ICCAT's
conservation and management program, the Commission took immediate action, starting as
early as the late-1980s. A step-by-step summary of ICCAT's actions is provided here below:
1. Identification and quantification of illegal catches
To carry out this work, trade data were utilised, inasmuch as possible, to identify and quantify
the unreported catches of Atlantic tunas. In addition, data from the port sampling organised and
conducted by ICCAT were used.
2. Request for collaboration of non-members
ICCAT organised a campaign to inform all those non-Contracting Parties, Entities and Fishing
Entities that fish tuna and tuna-like fishes in the Convention waters and other waters of its
regulatory measures and requested their collaboration with the Commission in complying with
these measures. Special diplomatic dimarches were sent to numerous countries that were not
co-operating with ICCAT. At the same time, ICCAT adopted a Resolution that defined Cooperating Parties Entities and Fishing Entities which encouraged such parties to request Cooperating Party status.
3. Encourage full membership of ICCAT
Once a flag vessel engaged in IUU activities is identified, ICCAT writes special letters to the
authorities of these countries to urge them to observe ICCAT's regulatory measures and to
monitor and control their fishing vessels. In that same letter, the Commission encourages these
countries to become full members of ICCAT and to take an active part in ICCAT's conservation
and management program.
4. Establishment of Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program (BTSD)
ICCAT adopted the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program (BTSD) for frozen bluefin tuna
products (1993) and fresh bluefin tune products (1994). According to this Program, all bluefin
tuna imported into a Contracting Party must be accompanied by a BTSD, duly validated by a
Government official(s) whose signature and seal have been previously registered with the
ICCAT. The information requested in the document includes the flag of the fishing vessels,
area of catches, products, product weight, shipping port as well as other useful information. As
a result of this Program, considerable information has been compiled on unreported catches.
5. Other measures associated with the BTSD
Other measures associated with the BTSD that ICCAT has taken to combat IUU fishing include:
the adoption of a Port Inspection Scheme (1997); the establishment of a Vessel Sighting System
to report IUU activities (1994, 1997); a vessel registry system (large pelagic longliners: 1994); a
scheme to monitor the landings and transhipments of foreign vessels (1997) as well as other
measures (see Appendix 1).
PE 286.567
EN
4/7
DT\286567EN.doc
6. "Action Plans" to curb illegal fishing
ICCAT has adopted two "Action Plans", one for bluefin tuna (in 1994) and another for
swordfish (1995). These Action Plans provide specific actions aimed at curbing noncompliance with ICCAT management measures to the effect that: (1) ICCAT will inform the
flag country concerned of any illegal fishing of its flag vessels: (2) ICCAT will request the
collaboration of such flag countries in rectifying their illegal activities: (3) ICCAT will warn
these flag states that non-discriminatory, trade restrictive measures consistent with other
international agreements, may be taken against them.
7. Non-discriminatory, non-restrictive trade measures
Once a warning has been issued, in accordance with one of the Commission's Action Plans, at
the Commission meeting following the issuance of that warning, and if it is found that these
non-Contracting Parties have not rectified their illegal fishing practices, the Commission will
invoke the provision of the Action Plan Resolution (paragraph f) that recommends its
Contracting Parties to take non-discriminatory, trade restrictive measures including the
prohibition of imports of products of the pertinent species (bluefin tuna and/or swordfish). Up
to the time of its last annual meeting (November, 1999), the Commission has taken such action
prohibiting the import of bluefin tuna and/or swordfish from Belize, Honduras and Panama. In
the case of Panama, the sanction was lifted later when Panama demonstrated that it had taken
appropriate effective measures.
8. Measures taken against Contracting Parties
In addition to the Action Plans, the Commission has also adopted compliance arrangements,
according to which, very similar non-discriminatory, trade restrictive measures can be taken
(1996, 1998). At its 1999 Meeting, the Commission decided to take such action against
Equatorial Guinea, a Contracting Party to ICCAT, because of illegal fishing activities relating to
bluefin tuna and swordfish.
9. More recent measures against IUU activities
Other recent measures taken by ICCAT against IUU activities include a ban on landings and
transhipments of vessels from non-Contracting Parties identified as having committed a serious
infringement; a request of import countries to information on unreported and unregulated
catches of tunas by large-scale longliners in the Convention Area; the collection of information
on catches and landings of IUU large-scale longline vessels; and urge importers, transporters
and other related industries to refrain from transactions of tunas from IUU vessels. Appendix 1
provides a list of all the measures taken by ICCAT relative to IUU issues. The actual texts of
these ICCAT Recommendations and Resolutions can be downloaded from the ICCAT home
page (http://www.iccat.es/).
10. Identification IUU vessels
According to these recommendations, at its 1999 Meeting, the Commission examined
information on IUU vessels that had been presented by its Contracting Parties and based on this
information, a list of IUU vessels alleged to have engaged in IUU activities was compiled,
including the vessel names, owners names and addresses, country of registry.
DT\286567EN.doc
5/7
PE 286.567
EN
ARE THE ICCAT MEASURES PROVING EFFECTIVE?
Most of the measures explained above have provoked significant reactions. The BTSD
identified all bluefin tuna caught illegally, in terms of flag country and quantities caught. The
trade measures have had considerable impact for those flag countries. Many of them have
reacted by initiating rigid measures to monitor and control the vessels registered to them. For
example, Panama has cancelled all the licences of fishing vessels for tuna and new licences are
only granted to those that obtain an international fishing licence from the Panamanian
authorities. The Panamanian Government has also prohibited the catch of bluefin tuna.
Unofficial information also indicates that other countries are taking similar actions.
The interest of the international community in ICCAT's scientific research and its conservation
and management program has intensified in recent years. This is evidenced by the increased
membership in the past few years, in the number of requests for information on ICCAT's work
and the procedures/requirements of ICCAT membership and the numerous visits to the ICCAT
home page.
The dissemination and publication of the list of alleged IUU vessels also caused a chain of
reactions. Those countries to which the vessels were believed to be registered started their own
investigations. Some of those countries have already or are now considering taking legal action
against vessels that illegally use their registration and many have requested that ICCAT provide
documented evidence of the illegal fishing activities. Through the dissemination of this list,
several countries discovered that some flagging is false or was rescinded some time ago. Some
countries have informed ICCAT that they are cancelling the registry of relevant boats.
WHAT PROBLEMS STILL EXIST?
Not all the problems relating to IUU activities have been solved by the actions taken by ICCAT
so far. For example, vessels whose registry has been cancelled are now seeking to obtain
licences from open registry countries. There is a notable increase in the number of vessels that
have no registration whatsoever and are still fishing!
Another emerging problem is that some of these IUU vessels are now seeking charter
agreements with countries that have not been identified as IUU countries, so that they can
legally operate, yet not necessarily be monitored or controlled.
It should be pointed out that the IUU problem is closely linked to the TAC-quota allocation
criteria. Up to now, provision of allocation for "newcomers" (or new entrants in the fisheries)
has not been clearly defined. However, ICCAT is currently in the process of reviewing its quota
allocation criteria.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the root of the problem of IUU activities in the Atlantic tuna
fisheries lies in the fishing capacity, which is currently well in excess of the level corresponding
to the harvest of the limited tuna resources available.
PE 286.567
EN
6/7
DT\286567EN.doc
Appendix 1
ICCAT RECOMMENDATIONS & RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE
1993
Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program (BTSD) for frozen fish (Sept. 1) ..................................(92-1)
1994
Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program (BTSD) for fresh fish (June 1) .....................................(93-3)
High-seas vessels registration required ............................................................................................. (94-8)
1995
Action Plan to Ensure the Effectiveness of the Conservation Program for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ....(94-3)
"Co-operating Parties" defined ........................................................................................................(94-6)
Encourage satellite tracking vessel monitoring system (Recommended in 1995) ............................. (95-3)
Vessel sighting, report sighting of fishing vessels operating not complying
regulatory measures ......................................................................................................................... (94-9)
1996
Action Plan to ensure the effectiveness of the conservation program for
Atlantic swordfish ........................................................................................................................... (95-13)
1997
BFT and SWO compliance in the North Atlantic ............................................................................ (96-14)
Monitoring foreign vessels landings and transhipments at national ports
(Adopted in 1997) ........................................................................................................................... (97-12)
Prohibition of large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing ..........................................................................(96-15)
Prohibit imports of BFT from Belize and Honduras, following the Action Plan ............................ (96-11)
Clear definition on status of Co-operating Parties .........................................................................(97-17)
Vessels sighting report for illegal fishing ....................................................................................... (97-11)
1998
SWO Compliance in the South Atlantic (objected by Brazil, Uruguay & S. Africa) ......................... (97-8)
Prohibit imports of BFT from Panama, following the Action Plan ................................................ (96-12)
Revised ICCAT Port Inspection Scheme ......................................................................................... (97-10)
Transhipment or transfer of ICCAT species at sea only from Contracting Parties
or Co-operating Parties/Entities/Fishing Entities ..........................................................................(97-11)
1999
Ban on landings and transhipments of vessels from non-Contracting Parties
identified as having committed a serious infringement ...................................................................(98-11)
Pilot program for vessels monitoring (10% or ten tuna fishing vessels over
24m, whichever larger should have VMS starting in 1999) ............................................................ (97-12)
Unreported and unregulated catches of tunas by large scale LL in Convention
Area (requesting import countries to report information on such operations ................................ (98-13)
Exchange of information of BET tuna fishing vessels .......................................................................(98-2)
Collection of information on catch and landing of IUU large scale longline vessels ..................... (98-18)
2000
Prohibit imports of SWO from Belize and Honduras, following SWO Action Plan .......................... (99-4)
Prohibit imports of BFT from Equatorial Guinea, according to 96-14 .......................................... (99-10)
Lifting of import prohibition of BFT regarding Panama (96-12) ..................................................... (99-8)
Ensure vessels not engage in IUU activities and urge importers, transporters and other
concerned business people to refrain from transaction of tunas from IUU vessels ....................... (99-12)
Endorse FAO IPOA Fishing Capacity ............................................................................................ (99-13)
Note:The years shown on the left are those when the Recommendation or Resolution entered into force. The two-digit year shown in () refers to the
year of adoption and for reference purposes. All the Recommendations and Resolutions can be found on ICCAT home page.
DT\286567EN.doc
EN
PE 286.567
EN