PLAN TO HALT "PIRATE FISHING" RIDDLED WITH LOOPHOLES
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL statement on the 24th Session of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Committee of Fisheries (COFI) whose agenda included finalisation of an International Plan of Action (IPOA) on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing (Rome 26 Feb - 2 March, 2001).
United Kingdom, 2 March 2001 - BirdLife International 1. today condemned the failure of the world's States to take tougher action to combat pirate fishing at a key FAO meeting in Rome
Over 90 FAO member countries met this week to finalise an International Plan of Action which aims to "prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing".
Pirate fishing in the Southern Ocean has killed an estimated 100,000 - 250,000 seabirds in the last four years, including a maximum of nearly 70,000 globally threatened albatrosses.
But while the International Plan of Action finalised today will tighten the net in some respects, the end product is a compromise which still leaves too many loopholes for pirate fishing.
"The Plan of Action finally agreed will hardly leave pirate fishers quaking in their boots. For many it will be business as usual for plundering the world's dwindling fish stocks and driving albatrosses towards extinction", said Euan Dunn RSPB Fisheries Officer who attended the meeting on behalf of BirdLife International.
IUU or so-called "pirate" fishing is the biggest single threat to global fish stocks and kills tens of thousands of seabirds and other marine wildlife as by-catch every year. Pirate fishing has doubled in the last 10 years and is now estimated to account for one quarter of the world's fish catch. At the meeting, Tanzania referred to 'IUUU' fishing - the extra 'U' for 'Unfair' because of the disproportionately serious impact that pirate fishing has on coastal States in developing countries.
With the UN conceding that international efforts have so far been powerless to curb the runaway piracy of fish stocks on the high seas, the challenge was to draw up a FAO Plan of Action which would clamp down hard on IUU fishing.
However, an initially promising Plan of Action was badly weakened in successive draftings, mainly by Mexico which flagrantly blocked recommendations for stronger measures. Mexico was alone in rejecting the participation of environmental NGOs, including BirdLife International, in the working group set up in Rome to resolve sticking points in the Plan of Action. Canada also resisted toughening one key part of the Plan, and other parties including the European Union failed to resist Mexico’s weakening proposals.
The Plan of Action, which is in any case voluntary, leaves far too much to the discretion of States to take action, and in several key areas calls for weaker measures than those already agreed in regional fisheries management organisations 2.
Critically, the Plan of Action fails to face up to the challenge of curbing trade in pirated fish - trade which should be illegal and punished with stiff penalties. Text requiring severe sanctions against traders in pirated fish was dropped. Now there is no guarantee that any of the measures to combat trade in IUU fish will amount to more than a slap on the wrist.
A major loophole in the Plan of Action was its failure to consistently extend the scope of measures to combat the activities not only of pirate fishing vessels, but also other sorts of vessels which support pirate fishing such as vessels which supply the pirates at sea or to which pirated fish are transferred for shipment to markets.
"Unless the trade in IUU fish is declared illegal, the FAO Plan of Action is deeply flawed. Those who benefit commercially from the sale or purchase of pirated fish must be brought to book and punished", said Euan Dunn.
BirdLife welcomed the fact that the Plan encouraged States to cooperate to identify companies and individuals engaged in pirate fishing. Strong measures were agreed for port States 3, including the requirement of vessels to give advance notice of arrival at port and evidence to allow the port State to assess whether or not vessels have been involved in IUU fishing. Also helpful was the agreement that a vessel fishing in the zone of a regional fisheries management organisation, but which was not a party to that organisation, did not have to be 'sighted' to presume it was engaged in IUU fishing. Instead, the vessel only has to be 'identified' and such identifications could be through, e.g. trade statistics. This keeps up the pressure on one of the worst sources of IUU fishing - 'Flag of Convenience Vessels' which are rarely caught in the act or 'sighted', when they flout rules.
Taking the FAO Plan of Action as a whole, Euan Dunn said: "The Plan certainly offers fishing nations some valuable new tools to help curb pirate fishing, but in the end the parties have not buried their differences to mount a powerful enough attack on the pirate fishing problem."
Footnotes
1. Birdlife International is the world's leading authority on the conservation of birds and their habitats, represented in more than 100 countries. RSPB is the UK Partner of BirdLife International.
2. Regional fisheries management organisations such as CCAMLR (Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), ICCAT (International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) and NAFO (North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation).
3. A port State is a country whose ports a vessel visits.
Background Notes
1. What is IUU Fishing?
'IUU fishing' stands for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing, often generally called "pirate fishing".The scope of the IUU fishing includes fishing and related activities:
2. How serious is IUU Fishing?
According to the FAO, IUU or 'pirate' fishing is a growing problem. It has doubled in the last 10 years and accounts for an estimated quarter of the world's fish catch. It is fuelling overfishing on a massive scale, undermining national and regional efforts to conserve and restore depleted fish stocks and other marine biodiversity.
The biggest problem arises from 'flag of convenience' vessels which flout the rules to poach commercially valuable fish such as tuna and Patagonian toothfish. Illegally harvested toothfish accounts for 50-80% of the world trade, worth an estimated US$500 million annually, prompting a massive 'goldrush' for this species in the last decade. So valuable (US$12 per kilo, ship to shore) are these fish on the international market (notably for sushi and sashimi) that it has been estimated that in 6 months a pirate vessel's catch may pay for the vessel. Individual bluefin tuna have also fetched up to £30,000 on the Japanese market.
Pirate fishing is a major threat to the world's fish stocks (up to 70% of which are already fully exploited or over-exploited according to the FAO) and threatens to drive some species (e.g. bluefin tuna and Patagonian toothfish) to extinction. Pirate fishers have driven toothfish to commercial extinction in just two years of fishing in the waters surrounding Crozet Island in the Southern Ocean.
Pirate fishing also inflicts immense damage on other marine wildlife. In the Southern Ocean, for example, longline vessels pirating toothfish ignore CCAMLR rules for reducing seabird by-catch, caught accidentally on baited hooks. CCAMLR estimates that pirate fishing in the Southern Ocean has killed 100,000 - 250,000 seabirds overall in the last four years, including a maximum of nearly 70,000 globally threatened albatrosses. According to CCAMLR, these losses are completely unsustainable. BirdLife International's "Save the Albatross" Campaign recognises pirate longline fishing as the main force driving several albatross species towards extinction.
3. Flags of Convenience
A flag State is a country that grants its nationality to a ship and so allows that ship to fly its flag. Certain vessel owners or operators choose "flag of convenience" flag States because it is "convenient", usually financially, for them to do so. This convenience often arises because there is a weak "economic link" between the State and the vessel. However, in the context of fishing, the convenience may also arise because the flag State consistently fails to ensure that vessels flying its flag comply with applicable fisheries conservation and management measures. In this respect, BirdLife International considers that Belize and Honduras, for example, are flags of convenience.
4. What is the FAO International Plan of Action?
The FAO International Plan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing has been developed within the framework of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, in recognition that existing international efforts to address IUU fishing have failed due to lack of political will, priority, and resources.
The Plan of Action is a complex set of flag State, port State, coastal State and market-related measures to combat IUU fishing and related activities.
The Plan of Action has been developed in less than a year (starting with an experts' meeting in Sydney in May 2000, then two drafting sessions (Technical Consultations) in Rome in Oct 2000 and Feb 2001, respectively). The Action Plan was finalised at the FAO Committee of Fisheries (COFI) in Rome this week (26 Feb - 2 Mar 2001) and now has to be adopted by FAO Council later this year to make it part of official FAO guidance.
The FAO Plan of Action is voluntary and its success will depend on the commitment of states, both individually and through regional fisheries management organisations to take measures to ensure that vessels and the companies behind them do not engage in or support IUU fishing and related activities.
Further Information:
Dr Euan Dunn, RSPB Senior Marine Policy Officer, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds SG19 2DL, England, UK (Tel 01767-680551).
Michael Szabo, Communications Manager, BirdLife International (Tel 01223-277318). michael.szabo@birdlife.org.uk