Open warfare on “illegal, undeclared, unregulated” fishing
The EU has decided to attack a crisis head-on that could affect almost a fifth of the global volume of fishing: illegal practices. This initiative is headed by Cesar Deben Alfonso, Director of monitoring and implementation at the Directorate-General of Fishing and Maritime Affairs at the European Commission.
Inspectors arrive to control a fishing boat, 2002.
© EC
“For the ACP countries – and our relations with them – the issue of illegal fishing is of great importance,” explains Cesar Deben. He continues, “…in as much as we are seeing an increase in this type of fishing and Europe plays a major role in the fact that we are the biggest growth market (even with the emergence of Russia and China) for quality products.”
The EU is a big player in the international fish product industry. In 2003, the quantity imported by the then 25 Member States was more than 10 million tonnes totalling some €24 billion. In the same year, the EU exported just 6 million tonnes of fish products – a total value of around €14 billion. The EU is, hence, a net importer of these products and this is a growing trend. This is why, over a period of time, the EU has concluded fishing agreements with various ACP coastal states.
They include mixed agreements (permitting different species to be caught), in particular with West African States close to European coastlines (especially the Spanish coast), and tuna fishing agreements with Indian Ocean countries (primarily the Seychelles and the Comoros) and countries of the Pacific Ocean (the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and the federated states of Micronesia), which is one of the regions rich in migratory species.
Above all, these agreements aim to ensure regular stocks for the European fleet. However, the international market in fish products has grown to such a size that ever-increasing numbers of pirates roam the seas, lured by the lucrative profits to be made by those who don’t observe the rules (fishing methods and quotas) which are imposed on legal boats.
An enormous task
“There are three reasons why we are tackling this enormous task,” says Cesar Deben. “First of all, it’s about preserving a resource. Secondly, the rules that we put on the table in October 2007 offer a framework of cooperation, particularly with ACP countries, as they are the primary victims since they lack the structural capability to confront this threat and deal with corruption. Therefore we must bear in mind that controlling fishing activity involves huge costs that many countries are unable to meet. Thirdly, we want to put European fleets on an equal footing with third-country fleets.” He continues, “Our fleets are the most regulated in the world and they must be allowed to operate under conditions of fair competition.”
The toughness of the regulation is illustrated by the requirement for EU boats to carry a ‘blue box’ on board (so they can be located by satellite) and an electronic logbook, to be in general use from 2009.
However, Cesar Deben recognises that illegal fishing affects all fleets, whether in the form of companies created in third countries or the use of certain flags of convenience.
Restrictive measures
To date, the EU has backed the adoption of various measures of regional fishing organisations to combat illegal fishing, but this is the first time that legally binding measures (in the form of EU Council rulings) can be adopted by European Fisheries Ministers. So, what are they? The first is aimed at attacking the status of flags of convenience.
Notes Deben: “The Maritime Law states that countries are responsible for the activities of ships that sail under their flags and we have to ensure that this obligation is fully upheld.”
Happily, says Deben, cases are becoming rarer as countries like Equatorial Guinea, the Dominican Republic, Belize and Panama abandon the practice. “But there are still many others.” He adds, “We want to deal with this on two fronts. Firstly to compel states to strengthen their controls – if they don’t cooperate we will not accept their products at European ports. Then we want to change the legal framework by reversing the burden of proof, so that boats wishing to export to Europe must prove that their catches are legal – normal practice in the United States. To make this possible, the rules provide for a certification mechanism, which already exists for tuna fishing, and countries that don’t cooperate could be ‘decertified’.”
So, it will not be a case of drawing up a blacklist of pirate boats, but rather of withdrawing an automatic right. “There are already adequate rules, adding a legal requirement suffices,” says Deben.
Accompanying measures
“The mechanisms to make this work,” continues Cesar Deben, “must also respect World Trade Organisation rules, and must not have negative repercussions for developing country exporters. The main ACP exporters of fish products to Europe are South Africa and Namibia, followed by various West African countries, specifically Mauritania. On that basis it is estimated that 80 per cent of fish products stay in Africa as frozen products.”
Many of these exporting countries are also the main victims of illegal fishing and the Asian fleets that fish without a licence in their waters have become a real scourge. The EU is now drawing up financial incentives to help countries maintain legal fishing activities. Financial aid is included in the Partnership Agreements drawn up between the EU and some ACP states (destined, admittedly, to become fewer in number).
Suggests Deben: “We can expect long delays while waiting for countries to fall in line just like with the accompanying measures, especially in the training of customs officers.” These measures could be funded by the European Development Fund (EDF) or the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
“Overall these proposals have been well received, both by NGOs and the European Parliament, as well as the European Economic and Social Committee,” concludes Cesar Deben. And not just by the Europeans, but also by the EU’s prime competitors in the sector, notably Norway, the United States and China. Even the Chinese seem willing to cooperate – an important factor since the rules envisage the creation of an international network.
