Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

1. Poor Vessel Identification, Data Recording and Information Sharing

• National fisheries or enforcement authorities of most countries could not provide more information on vessel movements than is documented in the commercial databases; several countries did not even possess information on all the port visits that appeared in the Lloyd’s MIU or Sea-web databases.
• Insufficient recording and sharing of vessel information, together with non-mandatory unique identifiers for fishing vessels, hinder the effective implementation of port State measures.

Our research shows that more IUU-listed vessels could have been tracked if RFMOs had provided IMO numbers on their IUU-vessel lists. For 32 vessels we were able to assign IMO numbers that were not recorded in the RFMO IUU vessel lists although these vessels had one. At least these 32 vessels, representing 18 percent of all vessels on IUU vessel lists, could have been identified by national authorities and subjected to closer scrutiny and port State measures if listed with IMO numbers. Moreover, enforcement authorities themselves seldom record IMO numbers, instead using data that may change such as vessel name, IRCS or flag. We were unable to gather reliable information on the movements of the 73 vessels with no IMO number. It is likely to be as difficult for the relevant domestic authorities to identify these vessels as it was for us. Without IMO numbers, IUU vessel lists are rendered largely ineffective. 

Although vessels solely engaged in fishing are not obliged to have an IMO number, many fishery support vessels (e.g., reefers) are. For this reason, the movement data used in our analyses is potentially biased toward reefers: While only a small number of reefers were tracked, these made more than half of the recorded port visits. The large proportion of visits by reefers, however, may be a true phenomenon of IUU fishing activities. Support vessels offer IUU fishing vessels a way to elude authorities by reducing the frequency with which a fishing vessel enters port—through transshipment of fish, refueling and resupplying, and the exchange of crew at sea. Accordingly, reefers involved in supporting IUU activities may indeed make more visits to port than IUU-listed fishing vessels. Nonetheless, it is poor record keeping of IMO numbers that prevents vessels from being correctly identified and sanctioned. This represents a significant, yet easy to solve, loophole in mitigation measures.

The combination of vessels being recorded on IUU vessel lists without an IMO number, ports failing to identify vessels with IMO numbers, and reliance on changeable vessels information to identify vessels and their movements, makes it easy for IUU-listed vessels to evade identification when entering a port.

2. Inadequate Implementation of Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) by Port States

• Non-compliance by port States with RFMOs’ CMMs occurs globally.
• A lack of accountability of port States by RFMOs contributes to their CPs’ non-compliance with CMMs.

Our research found poor compliance with RFMOs’ CMMs by many port States across the globe. Almost three-quarters of the visits by IUU-listed vessels to ports of RFMO CPs were in violation or potential violation of the port State’s obligations in relation to the RFMO’s port State measures. Although authorities could have identified these vessels, our communications with port States revealed cases where officials were not aware of the port visits or fisheries and other relevant authorities failed to share such information. However, on no occasion were we informed of any attempts by port States to address these issues. At times, misinterpretation of port State measures also resulted in situations of non-compliance. It was evident that the denial of port access and port services to vessels on an IUU vessel list can be subject to broad interpretation by port States. Some States considered they had to deny access to any vessel on an IUU vessel list, while others indicated that such a denial is required only if the vessel, when requesting port access, is carrying fish or fisheries products that have been caught in contravention of CMMs. Ambiguity in CMMs and their misinterpretation by domestic authorities when incorporating them into national law can allow IUU-listed vessels to continue their activities instead of discouraging them from visiting ports.

Correspondence with RFMOs indicated that most of them did not have information on port visits (and denial of access) or on any subsequent enforcement actions. Most RFMOs did not routinely request or receive any information on visits by IUU-listed vessels to the ports of their CPs, nor did they consistently assess the compliance of their CPs with port State measures. Given that RFMOs are only as strong as the agreement and implementation of their CMMs by their member states, this lack of accountability by port States at the RFMO level weakens the organisation’s own management systems put in place to combat IUU fishing.

Although obvious, it is worth mentioning that a country that is not a CP of an RFMO is not in any way obliged to enforce the RFMOs’ CMMs. Accordingly, port access and services given to IUU-listed vessels in these countries are never in violation of regulations. Of the 71 port States with recorded visits by IUU-listed vessels during the research period, 12 were not Parties to any RFMO. Thus, these 12 coastal nations show a “clean record” under our study, and IUU-listed vessels can visit their ports without risking sanctions. Singapore is such a country: Thirty-two visits were made by IUU-listed vessels to the ports of Singapore, none of which could be considered a violation of CMMs because Singapore is not a Party to an RFMO. The lack of global application of port State measures provides a significant loophole for IUU operators to exploit.

3. Regional Focus of Port State Measures Leads to Implementation Gaps

• Unless port State measures are enforced globally and effectively, IUU operators have the option to move out of the area where their vessels are listed and where they face port State control.
• Mutual recognition of RFMO IUU vessel lists would contribute to preventing IUU-listed vessels from operating with impunity outside the convention areas that originally listed them.

The regional application of the port State measures currently in force allows IUU-listed vessels to simply move to other regions when measures are effectively enforced. Our data on NEAFC clearly demonstrated this phenomenon. After strengthening port State measures, the proportion of NEAFC’s IUU-listed vessels visiting ports of States that are not Parties to NEAFC doubled. While this result indicated the desired impact of effective port State measures at RFMO level, it also illustrated that as long as port State measures remain regional, the problem will be shifted elsewhere.

Examples show that when RFMOs recognize each other’s IUU-vessel lists, however, regional shifts in IUU fishing activity are abated. The prolifically active refrigerated transport vessel Polestar was subject to port State actions. Morocco, which was not a NEAFC CP but recognized NEAFC’s IUU-vessel list, was among those States that took action against Polestar.

Recommendations

The conclusions from this Port State Performance research highlight that to improve the effectiveness of port State measures in combating IUU fishing three steps must be taken:

1. Initiate effective procedures for identification and tracking of fishing vessels.
2. Implement effective and timely port State CMMs by RFMO CPs.
3. Expand port State measures from a regional to a global level, including the provisional implementation of the UN FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) pending its entry into force.

These three objectives can be successfully achieved by improved cooperation and coordination among RFMOs, and by broad ratification and effective implementation of the PSMA by port States. National laws, resources to enforce port State measures, and centralized information-sharing must support these international initiatives.

1. Improvement of Vessel Identification and Tracking Procedures

Our research points to three key areas that require actions.

1. To improve the identification of vessels and deter efforts by owners and operators to disguise their vessels’ identities, the number of fishing vessels operating on the high seas without a permanent unique vessel identifier must be significantly reduced.
1. States, individually or through RFMOs and other appropriate instruments, should create incentives for vessel owners to apply for IMO numbers, in particular and as a priority, for vessels authorized to fish in areas beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the flag State concerned. For example, it should be necessary for all high seas operators (and possibly other operators) to have an IMO number either when applying for a license or as a condition of access to a market for their fish. There should also be a mandatory inspection of vessels that do not have an IMO number.
2. As already acknowledged by the FAO Committee on Fisheries, mandatory unique vessel identification for fishing vessels as well as transport vessels needs to be established as a matter of priority.
2. To improve tracking of vessels, RFMOs and domestic fisheries authorities must build their vessel identification and fishing authorisation on IMO numbers and agree on a range of additional standardised information requirements. Annex A of the PSMA offers a useful basis for such standardisation.

 

3. Sharing and updating vessel information is essential to thwart IUU-vessel owners’ strategies to disguise their illegal operations.
1. A combined IUU vessel list (from all RFMOs) should be established, along with a system for maintaining and updating it, similar to the one generated for this research. A centralized updating service that provides RFMO secretariats and interested States with the most comprehensive and up-to-date information would improve the quality of IUU vessel lists and be far more efficient for identifying and tracking IUU-listed vessels. Such a system could be supplemented by RSS feeds from online databases.
2. RFMOs should ask their CPs to submit information to the RFMO secretariat on visits made by IUU-listed vessels to their ports and the measures taken by the port State (including the results of any inspections). This would allow RFMOs to regularly review the effectiveness of their port State measures and provide for RFMO IUU-vessel lists to be updated in a timely manner. Such data should be shared with other RFMOs and interested States.
3. A publicly available information-sharing system, as envisaged in Articles 6 and 16 of the PSMA, should be established to host information on vessels and their requests for port entry (Annex A) and on reports of inspection (Annex C). However, if the PSMA is to be truly effective, information-sharing mechanisms need to be significantly enhanced. A user-friendly format is necessary to ensure information is swiftly and broadly exchanged and easily accessible. Initiatives such as the FAO-endorsed Global Record of Fishing Vessels, which is currently under development, should be considered in the PSMA’s implementation.

2. Effective and Timely Implementation of Port State Measures by Contracting Parties

RFMO CMMs need to be incorporated into national legislation to ensure that flag and port States can implement them effectively. Even in some developed countries, this process has proved difficult, leading to a substantial delay and discrepancies in the implementation of CMMs. Additionally, the current generation of port State measures suffers from coordination problems between fisheries and enforcement authorities. To avoid unnecessary delays in the implementation of the PSMA and future CMMs, port States should consider the following four measures:

1. As CPs of the RFMOs, States should contribute to harmonizing port State measures between RFMOs and the PSMA.
2. Launch an effort to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing as a national priority, and integrate all relevant authorities and ministries in the development of strategies and measures, including port State measures, to combat IUU fishing.
3. Intensify inspection and enforcement measures.
4. Sign and ratify the PSMA and take measures to provisionally implement the PSMA before it enters into force.

3. Expanding Port State Control: From a Regional to a Global Approach

Many RFMOs are taking steps in the right direction by establishing or improving their port State measures schemes to meet the minimum standards of the PSMA. Nevertheless, IUU fishing can only be addressed if all coastal nations, including NCPs, make use of a global information-sharing system and intensify inspection and enforcement measures as a matter of priority.

To close the loopholes exploited by globally mobile high seas fishing fleets and their support vessels, port State measures must not focus on, or stop at, the regional level. This research again underlines the call for global action as formulated in the PSMA. The broad implementation of the PSMA will be important, and its effectiveness will be largely contingent on cooperation among RFMOs to combat IUU fishing. The harmonisation of port State measures in conformity with the minimum standards of the PSMA and the mutual acceptance of IUU-vessel lists are long-overdue measures that could significantly reduce IUU fishing.

IUU fishing is a hidden activity that benefits from loopholes in the current systems that were designed to mitigate it. IUU operators are constantly adapting to changing enforcement and market initiatives and devising strategies that eventually diminish these initiatives. Only a combination of enhanced political will, the swift adoption of new measures, effective global cooperation and a vast improvement in information-sharing will enable authorities around the world to cope with this challenge. What is clear from this research is that this combination of elements is crucial as part of the global toolkit to effectively combat and deter IUU fishing and help to ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marine ecosystems across the world’s oceans, for the future.