EU IUU Catch Certification Scheme Francisco Blaha www.franciscoblaha.com
But mostly, I’m just an overqualiﬁed ﬁsherman Who am I? l Ridiculous mixture of Austrian, Argentinean and New Zealander. l Involved in commercial ﬁshing since Im 17. As a ﬁsherman, 2nd mate, ﬁsheries observer, researcher, QC, R&D Manager, Fishery Industry Ofﬁcer at FAO Rome and a Consultant. l I work with industry in the Paciﬁc since 93 (since 95 based in New Zealand), and as a advisor for DEVFish, ADB, AUSAid, EU, FAO, WTO, SIPPO, etc. l I have a MSc in Fisheries Biology (1991), a MSc in Food Science (2000) and Im doing a PhD in Governance & Public Policy. l When I’m not doing this I do family, surﬁng, swimming, music and still go ﬁshing (and spearﬁshing) as much as I can.
The EU Market Access The European Union (EU) is the biggest single market for ﬁsh and ﬁshery products worldwide. Over 60% of the seafood consumed there originates in 3rd Countries. (For Tuna the estimated ﬁgure is 80-90%) The EU bases its seafood import on government-to-government assurances (ofﬁcial certiﬁcates), without the intervention of any private type certiﬁcation or ecolabel scheme.
The certificationsI will keep my presentation focused on 2 types of certiﬁcations The “usual” deals with “ﬁsh a safe food”, and provides ofﬁcial guarantees from the exporting government to the EU that the ﬁsh has been submitted to processing conditions as required by the EU legislation. It relates to the “health of the consumers”. The “new one” who deals with “ﬁsh as a legally caught resource”, and provides ofﬁcial guarantees from the vessel’s ﬂag state to the EU, that the ﬁsh was harvested in accordance with applicable ﬂag state laws and international conservation and management measures.
What comes first? Both go in parallel. To access the EU a country must be sanitary approved, then all its vessels intending to provide the EU market need to be too. Around 100 countries are presently approved. While both regimes are as different as the work scope of a Seafood Safety Inspector and a Fisheries Ofﬁcer, there should be synergies in between both certiﬁcations. Both certiﬁcates cannot contain discordant information.
Health certification Your country CA EUregistration approval listing DG Sanco BIP Market list that goes to the EU FBOs allowed to FBOs allowed to FBOs allowed toproduce food and export directly to process and update the list supply to FBOs and pass it to all the BIPs feed the EU (EU #) exporting to the EU all FBOs vessels freezer vessels under your reefers factory vessels legislation cool stores reefers ice factories cool stores transporters processing est. landing sites Health Health This list stays in the country Certificate Certificate
Catch Certification Provides ofﬁcial guarantees from the vessel’s ﬂag state to the EU: that the ﬁsh was harvested in accordance with their own applicable laws and international conservation and management measures The catch certiﬁcate is speciﬁed in a expressed format, and shall be validated by the CA of the ﬂag state of the catching vessel. The catch certiﬁcate may be established, validated or submitted by electronic means.
What it means? The fish was caught... By who? Where? In what When? How? quantity? Primarily concerned with vessel ID : & fishing ground la ted Primarily concerned with catch quantity, re gu : perhaps closure period and gear type l/ un rted ga re po All data types are relevantIlle Un e: a nc pli Primarily concerned with area, quantity, season Co m e: ie nc Sc
What it means?Flag State needs to provecompliance with: Fisheries law MCS activities NPOA - IUU International agreements Bilateral agreements Coastal State controls Port State controls Flag State controls Market State controls Management measures of RFMOs
Scenarios National industrial ﬁshing vessel – domestic or overseas landings Importation of raw ﬁsh. products. accompanied by validated catch certiﬁcates – domestic processing or for direct export. Mixing of imported and landed ﬁsh. products – domestic processing. Transshipments – National industrial vessels transshipping for re-export Transit with no processing. Similar scenarios for artisanal ﬁsheries...
Paper is easy Most countries do the certiﬁcates and most products enters the EU. Signing the paper is easy enough, but how meaningful that certiﬁcate is, varies intensely in different countries. And ﬁsheries at each country is a unique universe. As with the sanitary certiﬁcations, there should be a system that can be audited in order to provide a background on legality to all statements. If you sign and ofﬁcial document, but can’t prove the truth behind it, problems will follow.
Coastal State controls Laws are not up to date with the present situation of the sector, nor the international and RFMO agreements. NPOA–IUU are not totally complied with, do not incorporate the best international practices, nor facilitate focussing of MCS activities in higher risk areas. Most lack of a Fisheries Information System to integrate all MCS data and the capacity to evaluate effectiveness over time. Under-reporting is hard to quantify.
Coastal State controls Sanctions system is not normally even-handed and dissuasive – providing proportionate penalties for both artisanal and industrial ﬁshers. The sanctioning regime does not eliminate incentives for appealing and taking matters to long court battles, while the vessel continue operating. VMS application does not completely regulate the operational and legal aspects of it, in order to establish non-conformances as solid legal electronic evidence. This, however is changing rapidly.
Coastal State controls Tuna vessels landing in 3rd countries are not consistently reporting catches to its ﬂag state ﬁsheries authorities as per their permit conditions. Log book reporting is patchy. Observers programmes are partially implemented and reporting has variable time lags until analysis is performed. Licensing systems is not transparent. Political and economical interference, etc.
Port State controls Difﬁculties in coordination in between maritime, port, and ﬁsheries authorities. Difﬁcult interaction in between Fisheries CA of of the vessels Flag State and the Fisheries CA of the Port State. Limited capacity to inspects landings. Limited capacity for denial of port access and prohibition of the imports of ﬁshery products from IUU vessels. Political and economical interference, lack of transparency, etc.
Port State controls Pew’s Port State Performance project consolidates six years of movement data on IUU-listed vessels, tracking their port visits globally to evaluate port State performance in combating illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU). The final data and findings were uploaded on May 25th, 2010.
Flag State controls Difﬁculties in coordination in between maritime and ﬁsheries authorities. Difﬁculties in coordination in between registry and ﬁsheries authorities. Fisheries CA have no full control on vessels operating internationally. Limited capacity to interact with ﬁsheries authorities of landing countries. Political and economical interference, lack of transparency, etc.
Market State controls Difﬁculties in coordination in between “health cert.” and “catch cert.” authorities. Sanitary control and approval of vessels that don’t operate in national waters is difﬁcult. Sanitary eligibility of products is complex, as requires separation of ﬁsh from arrival to factory. While is not forbidden to give a CC for a vessel that does not hold the sanitary approval, issuing it does jeopardise the ofﬁcial guarantees provided by CA in the health certiﬁcate.
Catch Certification Process Is not really a catch certiﬁcate, but rather another export certiﬁcate. Not many countries have a information veriﬁcation procedure, as they lack of a FIS to integrate all data required. They not have an efﬁcient landing account systems (ﬁsh from a same landings that goes in different exports, or different landings from a same boat in one lot). Disparity in the forms and what goes in which area, not a complete understanding of the scenarios. Not many rejections, but many expensive delays.
The data first, certifications follow Fish as Fish Fish as Food Vessels Ports Factories Regional Organizations Authorthies EU SPC/FFA WCP PNA, etc Compliance, Science, trade statistics e-cert or paper ü 20
The data first, certifications follow The origin of the raw materials and the way it arrives deﬁne the eligibility in terms of “ﬁsh as food” Philippines MoU PNG PNG PNG Vanuatu / RMI FSM / Kiribati Taiwan EU listed factory Ecuador Vanuatu
The data first, certifications follow The validation of the catch certiﬁcate deﬁnes the eligibility in Flag state CA terms of IUU ﬁsh PNG PNG China EU listed factory Vanuatu Ecuador Ecuador Kiribati EU listed factory Transshipment or Non processing statement 22
Non-cooperating third countries A third country may be identiﬁed as a non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as ﬂag, port, coastal or market state, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU ﬁshing. The EC is discussing the cases of Panama (429 vessel in IATTC reg) Belize (34) Colombia Honduras Togo
Situation in the Pacific In the approved and notiﬁcation list: Fiji French Polynesia New Caledonia/Wallis and Futuna PNG Solomon Islands Not in the notiﬁcation list FSM (initially in but taken out in october 2010) Kiribati Marshall Islands Vanuatu and Cook islands In 2011, a 30 country wide EU funded evaluation programme visited PNG and found only one major issue with the validation of foreign Certs.
Situation in the Pacific The 2nd part of the that evaluation programme has just started, will visit 15 countries over the next months The reports of these missions are only of advisory nature, not audits In the Paciﬁc will visit Fiji Solomon Islands Kiribati Marshall Islands FSM In parallel, DG Mare visited Vanuatu in January 2012, and literally suggested it, as a “ﬂag of convenience”
Difficulties with the CCS The EU now has 2 mandatory export certiﬁcates instead of one. Categorical Flag State rule (Charters not contemplated) Liability of the captain to operate legally is transferred onto the factories. Immediate incentive for third countries to monitor national landings is cancelled... Detection of IUU ﬁshing occurrences becomes less likely (ﬁsh does not turn IUU inside a processing plant) National CC models not available on EU web
Difficulties with the CCS System is erected on circulation of photocopies Place of landing is not recorded Most 3rd countries do not simultaneously monitor in- & outﬂow of Certiﬁcates & related products 3rd country to 3rd country sales of partial lots complete with whole CCs 3rd country purchases of raw products through ﬁsh brokerage ﬁrms Certiﬁed weights on CCs double every single time a partial consignment is sold. Laundromat for IUU ﬁsh
Difficulties with the CCS CCs are not issued and/or recorded centrally at the EU CC “migration” and related weights go unmonitored The amount of ﬁsh entering the EU under speciﬁc certiﬁcates is unknown 3rd countries and MS cannot query individual certiﬁcates to assert legality 3rd country “e-solutions” can only be incomplete and imply a multiplication of wasteful partial non-solutions Zero “control” at EU level, beyond customs adding up & rubber stamping off (often) fake numbers
Conclusions for PI countries Very annoying, but not impossible... It offers an opportunity to strengthen MCS system. It does not offer an opportunity to transit and transshipments countries. Countries with ﬂeets need to get sanitary authorization ﬁrst. Compliance cost increases for industry and CA Fish accountancy Fisheries volumes forensic analysis It highlights the need for a comprehensive regional Fisheries Information Management System.
Conclusions for the EU Enforce Batch Integrity (Ensuring that the ﬁsh certiﬁed by the ﬂag State is the same ﬁsh imported by the EU after processing) The lack of a central database fuels the multiplication of fake certiﬁcates, de facto legalizing imports of IUU ﬁsh The CCS will not curb the importation of IUU ﬁsh in any meaningful manner unless a central electronic certiﬁcation system with global logons for authorities and operators is implemented. The idea behind the regulation is commendable – but so it should be its tools of implementation...