Impacts of IUU fishing in the Asia-Pacific region

1,931 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,931
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
228
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • IPOA definition not without its problems
  • Aimed at minimising the scope for IUU fishers to capitalize on loopholes in broader governance arrangements in high seas fisheries managed by RFBs.
  • A response to IUU fishing but also to growing demand for seafood from sustainable sources.
  • Impacts of IUU fishing in the Asia-Pacific region

    1. 1.  Summary of findings Initiatives to address IUU Fishing in a global context  Mary Lack  Shellack Pty Ltd
    2. 2.  Frank Meere and Mary Lack in 2008 On behalf of Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Fisheries Working Group
    3. 3.  21 member countries ◦ Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, USA, Viet Nam IUU study involved all of these plus all other countries bordering the Pacific Ocean (48)
    4. 4. • To improve the understanding of the challenges and obstacles to combating IUU fishing in the region; and• To recommend actions to address the problem
    5. 5.  Questionnaire to elicit views and data on IUU fishing ◦ to fisheries agencies in APEC member economies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations Published studies Grey literature Case Studies Expert input
    6. 6.  Case studies ◦ Sulawesi Sea (Palmer and Tsamenyi, 2008) ◦ East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (SeaResources Management, 2008) ◦ Russian IUU sea urchin fishery (Krause, 2008) ◦ The Regional Plan of Action to promote responsible fishing practices including Combating IUU fishing in the Region (DAFF, IMMAF, 2008)
    7. 7. • Included each of the three forms of IUU fishing ◦ Illegal, unreported and unregulated• Focused on IUU fishing by foreign vessels within other EEZs and IUU fishing on the high seas
    8. 8.  Data and information is limited and variable in its reliability Responses to questionnaire not comprehensive Conclusions may not apply to each and every country and necessarily involve some extrapolation Analysis was up to 2008
    9. 9.  Grouped the 48 economies into 4 groups ◦ North Pacific ◦ Southeastern Pacific ◦ Southeast Asia ◦ Western and Central Pacific
    10. 10.  International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU Fishing
    11. 11. At its broadest occurs where: Vessels operate in violation of the laws of: ◦ A fishery under the jurisdiction of a coastal State ◦ High seas fisheries regulated by regional fisheries bodies (RFBs) Includes fishing: ◦ Without the necessary authorization ◦ In contravention of established rules
    12. 12. Refers to fishing activities which have not beenreported, or have been misreported, to: the relevant national authority or a RFB, in contravention of national laws and regulations or the reporting procedures of that body.
    13. 13. Generally refers to fishing activities:In the area of an RFB by unflagged vessels vessels of flag States not party to the RFBCan also refer to fishing in areas or for fishstocks where there are no conservation andmanagement measures in place.
    14. 14.  Estimates are piecemeal and uncertain  Countries generally do not estimate the extent/value of IUU fishing in their waters Estimates of IUU fishing in the region from the literature: • WCPO tuna US$134-400m • Sulawesi Sea US$227m • Indonesia/Philippines US$3b • Papua New Guinea US$26.55m • Asia –Pacific US%5b • Asia –Pacific 3.4-8.1m tonnes (16% of catch)
    15. 15.  Poor governance ◦ lack of domestic management arrangements ◦ lack of MCS capacity ◦ lack of flag State control  in neighbouring EEZs  on the high seas ◦ undelimited or disputed boundaries Worth the risk ◦ Perception of low risk of being detected ◦ strong demand for seafood products Socio-economic factors ◦ lack of alternative income/employment opportunities ◦ Overfished stocks Usually a combination of these
    16. 16. • Most economies in the region (in waters under their jurisdiction)• On the high seas• Hot spots ◦ Eastern Pacific ◦ Northwest Pacific ◦ Southeast Asia ◦ Pacific Islands
    17. 17. • Vessels from countries in the region• Often vessels from neighboring countries• Relatively few instances of vessels from outside the region• Vessels flagged in the region are also involved in IUU fishing in other regions
    18. 18. Whole region Southeast Asia WCPFCAbalone Tunas etc TunasAlaska pollock Reef fish BillfishCrabs Shark SharkReef fish TurtlesSalmonSeas cucumberSea urchinsSharksSquidTunas
    19. 19.  IUU fishing is a major threat to the region ◦ appears to be largely unchecked and low priority Losses could be as high as 16% of total catch and up to US$5 per year IUU fishing is a major problem and will get worse if not addressed
    20. 20. Main Drivers Main forms Main Species Main Obstacles Responses to IUU Assessed Impact of of IUU fishing IUU fishing fishingIneffective domestic Domestic Commercial Governance: Major: Economic:management illegal Tunas etc Political will RPOA High impact Excess capacity Reef fish Management Bilateral Overfished Foreign Shark measures initiatives Social stocks illegal Commitment to High impact Other international Other:Ineffective MCS turtles obligations Bali Plan of Environmental- Ineffective flag Sound legislation Action High impact on State control of Lack of MCS Joint MCS target stocks vessels in capacity (human activities High impact on adjacent EEZs and financial) Increased MCS vulnerable Litigation failure expenditure ecosystemsDisputed/ Alternative High impact onundelimited Broader political employment protectedboundaries sensitivity of some programmes species issues (e.g. EncouragementLack of alternative boundaries) of aquacultureemployment Priority assigned to fisheries issues Lack of a shared vision across adjacent States for improving fisheries management and addressing IUU fishing
    21. 21. Main Drivers Main forms of Main Species Main Obstacles Responses to IUU Assessed Impact of IUU fishing fishing IUU fishingIneffective Foreign Main Governance Major Economic:management of illegal/ Commercial: Political will Development of Highhigh seas fleets unreported Tunas and financial coordinated impact/loss Excess etc resources multilateral MCS capacity High seas billfish Sound strategy and Social Overfished illegal and shark legislation response High impact stocks unregulated Lack of MCS (doughnut capacity Joint MCS activities Environmental:Ineffective MCS holes and (human and High impact on Ineffective high seas) financial) Additional target stocks; flag State Litigation management Low impact control failure requirements for elsewhere foreign vesselsPerverse incentives Broader political under access specific sensitivity of some agreements and access issues (loss of restrictions on arrangements revenue from access access to adjacent development agreements) high seas. assistance tied to access Lack of subregional Other cooperation on IUU Enhanced domestic fishing management and MCS arrangements Lack of coordination/ communication across national agencies
    22. 22. • Increase political will and public awareness• Significantly enhanced domestic fisheries management arrangements• Improved MCS arrangements and additional resources• Regional MCS initiatives
    23. 23. • Improved bilateral and multilateral engagement• Stronger port and market state measures• Programs to foster alternative livelihoods• Catch documentation schemes for high value species
    24. 24.  Have analyzed IUU fishing at a regional and sub-regional level Ultimately, the region’s fisheries operate in a global markets ◦ Access to markets can be affected by national, regional or international responses to IUU fishing These responses warrant consideration
    25. 25.  Those with one or more of these characteristics ◦ High value product ◦ High value to weight ratio (i.e. easy to transport/smuggle) ◦ Ease of access (e.g. inshore waters, low level of capital investment) ◦ Wide distribution of stocks ◦ Low risk of detection (inadequate surveillance) ◦ Inadequate penalties ◦ Strong market demand
    26. 26. Can’t change: The value Its transportability Its catchability Its natural distribution
    27. 27. Can change: The risk of detection The consequences of detection Market demand Access to markets
    28. 28. National level Increased surveillance Increased enforcement Adoption of legislation to prevent IUU product entering the country ◦ US law that can prohibit imports from nations that are considered not to have taken appropriate action to precent their vessels engaging in IUU fishing ◦ The European Union measures  only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU.  A European black list covering both IUU vessels and States that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities.  Introduction of substantial penalties for EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world
    29. 29.  US law that can prohibit imports from nations that are considered not to have taken appropriate action to prevent their vessels engaging in IUU fishing The European Union measures  only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU.  A European black list covering both IUU vessels and States that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities.  Introduction of substantial penalties for EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world
    30. 30. Regional Fisheries Bodies Catch/trade documentation schemes Vessel lists – black lists and white lists Trade bans on uncooperative countries
    31. 31. Internationally Binding FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
    32. 32. Industry level Ecolabels ◦ Provide primarily environmental information to buyers ◦ may or may not be associated with certification Certification schemes ◦ assurance that product, process or service conforms to a standard ◦ Can be first, second, or third party certification
    33. 33.  Rely on product differentiation in the market ◦ Facilitates consumers exercise choice for legal and/or sustainable product ◦ May ultimately reduce demand for and price of IUU product Impact on IUU fishing depends on ◦ Chain of custody arrangements ◦ Awareness in the market of IUU fishing ◦ Willingness to boycott uncertified product
    34. 34.  Key component of major initiatives to address IUU fishing Hence the focus of this workshop ◦ To identify strategies and models for effective partnerships on seafood traceability
    35. 35.  ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stages of production, processing and distribution (Codex Alimentarius) Record keeping system that identifies and tracks products from origin to consumption, while providing the ability to quickly trace back products at any point along the supply chain (Roheim, 2007)
    36. 36. Thank you

    ×