Methodology

Last updated 07/09/10

1. Creation of the Combined IUU-Vessel List

To date, eight RFMOs maintain or share lists of vessels that have been found to carry out or support IUU fishing within or adjacent to their own convention areas. The RFMOs are the:

The IUU vessel lists of these eight RFMOs from January 2004 to December 2009 were merged into a single list and supplemented with information from the major commercial maritime online databases: Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit (MIU) and Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay through Sea-web. In one case, additional information was gathered from an industry source (atuna.com) and from the Maltese Parliament. Information recorded on the combined IUU vessel list included a vessel’s name and name history, flag and flag history, International Maritime Organization (IMO) number (if one existed and could be assigned), international radio call sign (IRCS) and call sign history, owner(s) and operator(s) information (where available), technical details (e.g., vessel type and tonnage), the RFMO listing the vessel as IUU, and dates and reasons for IUU-vessel listing and delisting.

RFMO IUU vessel lists are based on decisions made by each RFMO’s CPs against established criteria. Vessels are generally added to the IUU list by a consensus decision of all the Parties but, subject to sufficient proof of compliance or change of operation/ownership, they can also be delisted. An accurate listing date and delisting date of an IUU vessel was crucial to determining its relevant movements globally. To obtain the best information available, all RFMOs were contacted to verify information available on their websites, reports or meeting minutes.

 

2. Compiling Data on the Movement of IUU-Listed Vessels

Worldwide movement information for all vessels on the combined IUU vessel list was searched and compiled from the publicly available databases mentioned above, as well as additional databases, and from information provided by countries and RFMOs for the period they were on IUU vessel lists within the study period.

We used the only globally recognized and currently available unique vessel identifier—IMO number—as a first parameter for searching the databases . For IUU vessels listed without an IMO number, only movements with two or more matched criteria (e.g., name, flag, call sign, etc.) were taken as valid movements of that vessel. Movement data recorded for each IUU vessel included reported flag, reported IRCS, country and location of visit, type of movement, date of arrival and departure and, when available, details of the visit (purpose, information on landings, etc.).

The majority of vessel movements, from which we identified the port visits, were found in the first source of information, the Lloyd’s MIU database. The other sources (which we used primarily to cross-check the MIU movement records) were Sea-web, shipspotting.com and two online port logs, as well as our communication with port States and RFMOs. These in turn revealed additional movements, which were again verified with other sources, among them logs of the relevant ports (Section 3.3).

The heavy dependence on the Lloyd’s MIU database as our main source of movements of IUU-listed vessels may have led to biases in our data for certain regions due to the limitations of commercial databases. Lloyd’s MIU was considered most efficient in detecting vessel movements because it uses informers in ports in addition to the electronic Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), whereas Sea-web uses only AIS. Information from other sources (Sea-web, shipspotting.com, port logs and country communications), although by no means complete, enabled us to cross-check and compare the data.

3. Verification of Data Quality

The movement data on IUU-listed vessels gathered in this research from across a range of publicly available sources is the most comprehensive compilation of its kind. To assess the effectiveness of port State measures, we needed reliable information on port visits. To further test the reliability of different sources of movements to ports, we compared port visits registered in 12 port logs to which we could get access against our first sources of publicly available information from the commercial databases Lloyd’s MIU and Sea-web (Table 1). The port logs should cover all port visits to the respective ports but are generally not publicly available. Therefore the data have not been fed into the final results but were used as a means of assessing our main sources of publicly available information on movement data from Lloyd’s MIU and Sea-web. In these 12 port logs, we found 25 port visits by 14 IUU-listed vessels.

                       
MovementsVessels
Port log records of visits by IUU-listed vessels2514
Confirmed by Lloyd’s MIU108
Confirmed by Sea-web32
Confirmed by both Lloyd’s MIU and Sea-web 2 2

Table 1: Number of Movements and Vessels Confirmed by Different Data Sources

The quality test showed that the databases provided reliable information but did not cover the full number of port visits; however, more than half of the port visits and vessels were shown by the online databases. In this subsample, fishing vessels were more likely than reefers to enter ports unnoticed by the online commercial databases, even when the fishing vessels were identifiable through IMO numbers. We could confirm Lloyd’s MIU as the best source for tracking vessel movements and Sea-web as a reliable tool for verifying these.

Accordingly, we considered the identification and tracking of IUU-listed vessels recorded by commercial databases representative of IUU vessel movements for the purpose of our research. On this basis, we analysed movement patterns of IUU-listed vessels and investigated the performance of port States in implementing RFMO CMMs targeted at IUU fishing activities.

4. Information-Gathering From Port States and RFMOs

From April to December 2009, letters were sent to relevant authorities of port States where four or more movements of IUU-listed vessels were recorded. The letters requested additional information on the nature of the port visits and measures taken by the port States to restrict port access or services to IUU-listed vessels. We also asked these authorities—ministries and agencies that we understand to have the responsibility for implementing the CMMs of the RFMO(s) in their respective countries, hereafter collectively referred to as “fisheries authorities”—to clarify any possible situation of non-compliance with RFMOs’ CMMs. In total, three rounds of letters were sent to each of the 32 port States that showed more than four IUU-listed vessel movements. In addition, one letter was sent to Latvia, where all port visits were followed by the scrapping of IUU-listed vessels, and one further letter to the European Commission (as a CP to a number of RFMOs), which summarised all port visits to 14 European Union Member States.

Letters were also sent to the eight relevant RFMOs, which requested information on port visits of vessels on their IUU vessel lists, informed them about the preliminary findings and, in some cases, sought clarification of the conditions set by CMMs that determine situations of non-compliance (see definition of violations below).

5. Website With Preliminary Results for Public Review

In August 2009, during the final round of FAO Technical Consultation to negotiate a legally binding instrument on port State measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (PSMA), the preliminary results of the research were presented via a website (http://www.portstateperformance.org) and opened for public review.

The website served as a base on which to display the information we gathered on the port visits of IUU-listed vessels and acted as a tool to engage fisheries officials in discussing and improving the quality of the data in this research. The website was regularly updated with the most current information. The website was updated in May 2010 and was launched in the Resumed Reviewed Conference of the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. In addition to the information contained in the report, the website includes profiles of port States that were recorded with more than four movements by IUU-listed vessels after the first compilation of the data.

6. Analysis of Movement Data and Assessment of Compliance

For the purpose of the research, only port visits during the research period were analysed; movements through canals and straits were excluded, given that it was unclear port States have any obligations under RFMOs’ CMMs in relation to canal and strait passages.

For each port visit made by an IUU-listed vessel, we assessed how far the port State complied with the applicable CMMs of the RFMO(s) to which it was a CP at the time of the visit. One of the following CMM violation categories was then assigned to the port State where the port visit occurred:

  1. Violation: This is when the port entry and/or provision of port services to the IUU-listed vessel in the port is a clear violation of the CMMs of the RFMO to which the port State was a CP at the time of the port visit.
    • For countries that are CPs of CCAMLR, port entry of IUU-listed vessels after 1 July 2007 is considered a violation (CM10-06 [2006], CM10-07 [2006]) unless the vessel is allowed in for the purpose of enforcement action; for port entry before 1 July 2007, the landing or transshipment of fish products is considered a violation (CM10-06 [2002], CM10-07 [2002]).
    • For countries that are CPs of IATTC, the landing or transshipment of fish products is considered a violation after 18 June 2004 for NCP vessels (Res. C-04-04) and after 24 June 2005 for vessels of CPs (Res. C-05-07).
    • For countries that are CPs of ICCAT, port entry of IUU-listed vessels after 13 June 2007 is considered a violation (Rec. 06-12); for port entry between 4 June 2003 and 13 June 2007, the landing and transshipment of fish products is considered a violation for NCP vessels (Rec. 02-23).
    • For countries that are CPs of IOTC, the landing or transshipment of fish products is considered a violation after 6 April 2003 for NCP vessels (Res. 02/04) and the provision of port services is considered a violation after 28 November 2006 for NCP vessels (Res. 06/01)
    • For countries that are CPs of NAFO, port entry of IUU-listed vessels after 4 December 2006 is considered a violation (Conservation and Enforcement Measure [CEM] 2007 Art. 50); for port visits after 12 December 2005, the landing or transshipment of fish products and/or provision of port services is considered a violation (CEM 2006 Art. 48).
    • For countries that are CPs of NEAFC, port entry of IUU-listed vessels after 1 May 2007 is considered a violation (Scheme Art. 45); for port visits between 8 January 2004 and 1 May 2007, landing and transshipment of fish products and/or provision of port services is considered a violation.
    • For countries that are CPs of SEAFO, the landing or transshipment of fish products and/or provision of port services is considered to be a violation after December 2007 (CM08/06).
    • For countries that are CPs of WCPFC, the landing or transshipment of fish products and/or provision of port services is considered to be a violation after February 2007 for NCP vessels (Res. 06/09).
  2. Potential violation: This applies when no further information is available and the port entry is not sufficient to determine whether it constitutes a violation (as defined above); the decision then depends on services that the vessel received in the port.
  3. Non-violation: This applies when the port visits are confirmed not to violate the CMMs of the relevant RFMO to which the port State is a CP or when the port visit was to a NCP of the RFMO.
  4. Port State action: In the context of this study, this refers to actions such as detention or sanctions that are taken by the port State against the vessel on the basis of the IUU listing.

Considering that a country can be a CP of more than one RFMO, a particular port visit by an IUU-listed vessel can be in violation of the port State measures of more than one RFMO. We have assigned one of the above-mentioned violation criteria to each port State’s obligation related to a port visit. The average compliance rate for each RFMO was therefore calculated by looking at the port visits by a vessel that it had IUU listed, to port(s) in its CPs. The number of violations and potential violations were then divided by the total number of port visits.