Downloads

Last updated 20/09/10

 

Results

Last updated 07/09/10

To evaluate the effectiveness of port State measures in combating IUU fishing, this research relied on gaining accurate data on the identity and movements of IUU-listed vessels. The process of gathering this preliminary information in itself revealed significant limitations in the quality and quantity of records provided by the shipping databases, actual port records and fisheries authorities.

The first major finding of our study was the low visibility of the IUU-listed vessels: Their identification and tracking was hindered by insufficient or inaccurate vessel information. The first two sections present the findings for the first stages of the research—creation of the combined IUU-vessel list and the compilation of movement data.

The third section details the analysis of listed vessels’ port State movements around the globe to identify patterns and motives. The last sections present our findings on compliance by port States with existing measures on IUU fishing and analyze the impact on vessel movements when control measures are enforced only regionally. 

1. The Combined IUU-Vessel List: A Case of Incomplete Identities

IUU operators tend to disguise their vessels by renaming them and changing their flags and IRCS. The only globally available unique vessel identifier presently available is a vessel’s IMO number. Because fishing vessels, unlike merchant vessels, are not obliged to have an IMO number, vessels on IUU lists do not always have IMO numbers. Between January 2004 and December 2009, this research identified 178 vessels that appeared on at least one of the IUU lists of the eight RFMOs included in this study. Of these 178 vessels, only 71 (40 percent) were listed with an IMO number. Two of those IMO numbers belonged to other vessels. RFMOs, national fisheries authorities and enforcement authorities on the ground had no IMO numbers for the remaining 107 vessels.

However, our research enabled us to track down and assign an IMO number to 32 of the vessels that did not have an IMO number recorded on RFMO IUU-vessel lists. All except one of these 32 vessels were on the ICCAT or IATTC IUU-vessel lists.

Of the 178 vessels on the combined IUU vessel list, 151 were listed as fishing vessels, 10 were refrigerated transport vessels (“reefers”) and 17 were ‘other vessels’, i.e. either unknown or originally fishing vessels, IUU-listed but then rebuilt to other functions (e.g., military, tugboats, and petroleum supply vessels).

Back to top

2. Movement Data of IUU-Listed Vessels: Low or No Visibility

Recordings of port visits by IUU-listed vessels in publicly available databases were limited. In the period covered by this research, we documented 509 separate vessel movements. Of these, 425 were port visits. Only movements made while the vessels were on the IUU vessel lists were included. Most of the movements (340) were documented by the Lloyd’s MIU database, followed by Sea-web (99), our communications with countries (66), shipspotting.com (20) and in two online port logs (4). 92 movements were documented by more than one source.

The 509 movements were made by just 58 of the 178 vessels on the combined IUU vessel list. Thus, 120 vessels (67 percent) show no publicly available movement record. We consider it unlikely that all 120 vessels ceased operations while they were IUU-listed; it is more likely that most of them have continued to operate without being noticed, not only by the commercial databases used in this study but also by most fisheries and enforcement authorities.

Of the 58 vessels that showed movement during their IUU-listing period, 48 (83 percent) were fishing vessels, eight (14 percent) were reefers and two (3 percent) were other types of vessels. However, reefers made 241 of the 425 total recorded port visits (57 percent).

The higher proportion of port visits by reefers compared with fishing vessels can be explained at least partially by two causes.

  1. Transport vessels move among ports to load and unload goods, whereas fishing vessels can stay at sea, unloading their fish onto reefers and receiving supplies, such as fuel and crew.
  2. In contrast to cargo vessels including reefers, fishing vessels are not required to have an IMO number. IMO numbers are linked to records in ship registers (Lloyd’s MIU and Sea-web), where additional vessel information is recorded. Thus, enforcement authorities have better access to information on reefers than on fishing vessels. This explains the higher likelihood that port visits of reefers will be recorded both by enforcement authorities and the commercial databases.

Back to top

3. Global Reach of IUU-Listed Vessels

Figure 1:  Port Visits by IUU-Listed Vessels. Of the 509 different vessel movements, 425 were to 140 ports of 71 countries.

IUU fishing is a worldwide phenomenon, and port visits by IUU-listed vessels by the eight RFMOs were recorded in every region of the world. The 425 port visits were to 140 ports in 71 countries across the five major continents (Figure 1). The remaining 84 movements (of a total of 509) were passages throught the Suez Canal (4) and Panama Canal (45); the strits of Bosporus (8), Malacca (2) and Dardanelles (1); Mexico’s Yucatan Channel (1); and vessels passing surveillance points at Cape Finisterre (10) and Tarifa (5) in Spain; at Port Said (3) in Egypt; and Torbay(1) in the United Kingdom.

The research results show that 55 percent of the documented port visits were to countries that were not Party to the RFMOs that had put these vessels on their IUU lists. This demonstrates the mobility of IUU-listed vessels and underlines the limited effect of port State measures if implemented only regionally. The inclination to stay within or leave the convention area varies for vessels listed on different IUU-vessel lists.

While the distribution of port visits shows the global reach of IUU activities, information from commercial databases alone is not enough to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of port State measures. First, if a country has no recorded port visits, it does not mean that there were none. Figure 2 shows that many port visits are not detected by the commercial databases. Second, not every port visit recorded in this research is in violation of port State measures. Countries have varying obligations depending on the RFMO to which they are a Party. Some prohibit port visits altogether, while others prohibit the landing of fish or other commercial transactions. Such information is not typically provided by commercial databases, so information from RFMOs and port States on the purpose and details of the visit has been included in order to determine port State compliance with port State measures. Finally, port visits can trigger port State actions against the vessels and their operators.

Therefore, we integrated information gathered directly from port States and RFMOs, especially on the purposes and details of these visits. We based our assessment of port State compliance on (a) this information and (b) the prevailing obligations of the port State at the time of the visit.

Figure 2: Composition and Visibility of IUU-Listed Vessels. Vessels showing movements are marked in red

Back to top

4. Port State Performance: Poor Compliance With Port State Measures Against IUU-Listed Vessels

The majority of RFMOs do not share their IUU vessel lists. As a result, port States are generally obliged to take enforcement action only against vessels listed by their own RFMOs (see Section 3.6). Countries have different levels of obligations depending on the RFMO(s) to which they are a Party. RFMOs differ in the strength of their port State measures: some require denial of port entry, while others only deny port services and/or landing of fish. Therefore, even if a port entry is not prohibited as such, the port State can still fail to fulfil its obligations. If a port State has failed to declare explicitly in communications with us that it has denied landing of fish products, or whatever the relevant obligations require, for the purposes of this research we have categorised this as a potential violation.

During the research period, 219 of the total port visits by IUU-listed vessels were to States that were CPs of the RFMO that listed the visiting vessel. These visits were made by vessels that carried IMO numbers and could have been identified as IUU-listed by enforcement authorities. Nevertheless, 74 percent of these port visits constituted violations or potential violations of the port State’s obligations under the relevant RFMO’s CMMs. For the assessment of port State compliance, the obligations as stipulated by different RFMOs have to be taken into account.

Of the remaining visits to ports in States that were CPs of RFMOs, 10 percent were subject to confirmed port State actions: some were inspected and fined; others were detained for IUU fishing or sent away from the port or, where appropriate, were refused port services. Another 16 percent of these port visits can be regarded as non-violations for a variety of reasons (e.g., the RFMO CMM does not require that a CP refuse port entry, just the landing or transhipment of fish or provision of other port services; the vessel is in trouble (force majeure); or the visit was related to a port State action taken somewhere else to break or scrap the vessel. Other examples are that the visit occurred before the port State became a CP of the listing RFMO or the port visit was made to a port where the port State measures do not apply, as is the case for Chinese Hong Kong.

From the 22 country responses received, we identified five major reasons for non-compliance.

  1. Enforcement authorities were not aware of the port visits of the IUU-listed vessel or wrongly identified it. IUU operators can benefit from the neglectful practices of some RFMOs if their vessel’s IMO numbers are not recorded on the RFMO’s IUU vessel list. Japan offers one example of how gaps in documentation and communication were a major reason for the low visibility of IUU-listed vessels, making it difficult for the port State to identify them and take action. The ICCAT IUU-listed fishing vessel Melilla No. 101 was listed without an IMO number. The vessel has an IMO number (added to the combined IUU-vessel list) but later changed its name to Dong Won No. 630. When the vessel visited Shimizu, Japan, in 2006, Japanese authorities had no way of knowing that the vessel was IUU-listed, which was also confirmed by our correspondence with Japan.
  2. Our correspondence with 22 countries revealed a lack of cooperation between national fisheries authorities and enforcement authorities. These domestic authorities do not consistently share the responsibility and a common understanding of the importance of port State measures against IUU fishing activities to achieve their effective implementation. Only on a few occasions could the fisheries authorities provide all requested information on national policies and on visits made by IUU-listed vessels to their ports. In nearly all cases, regular information exchange processes between relevant bodies were not demonstrated and our requests prompted fisheries authorities to seek information from enforcement authorities. In one case, it was explicitly stated that no notice was received from any national body with regard to IUU-listed vessels or vessels believed to be engaged in IUU activities. This implied that the fisheries authority did not consider itself responsible for failing to have such knowledge and ensuring enforcement of port measures. Yet, their correspondence provided no information on notification procedures from enforcement authorities.
  3. In a number of examples, the measures adopted by RFMOs have not been fully translated into national law. In some cases, this transitional situation took a long time to resolve, even through the end of the research period, leaving the port State unable to take action against IUU-listed vessels.
  4. The denial of port access and port services to vessels on an IUU vessel list is subject to broad interpretation by port States. Some countries feel obliged to deny access to any vessel on an IUU vessel list, while others indicate such denial is only required if the vessel, when requesting port access, is carrying fish or fisheries products that have been caught in contravention of CMMs. Japan offers an example of the latter: the NEAFC IUU-listed reefer Polestar was permitted to enter the port of Kobe and landed pumpkins imported from Tonga.
  5. RFMOs have not been active enough in supporting their CPs in effectively implementing port State measures. They did not generally request information on visits by IUU-listed vessels to the ports of their CPs, nor did they consistently assess the compliance of their Parties with port State measures. Non-compliance was not generally followed by sanctions. In some cases, there were ambiguities over the date that relevant CMMs entered into force, so port States were unclear about their obligations. As it stands, not all RFMOs played an active role in ensuring that port States were held accountable for the effective implementation of port State measures (see RFMO profiles).

On the other hand, there are examples on the effectiveness of port State measures in combating IUU fishing when correctly implemented. Disguising vessels by changing names or hiding IMO numbers does not always dupe authorities. In a case where an IUU operator gave the wrong IMO number to conceal the identity of a vessel, the country (Norway) uncovered the vessel’s true identity and took action: the vessel was made to leave the port.

Back to top

5. Regional Focus of Port State Measures: Shifting the Problem

Ambiguities and misinterpretations of port State measures can be eliminated by denying port access instead of merely denying the landing of fish and port services. Further, denying IUU-listed vessels entry to port targets the economic basis of the illegal operations by rendering IUU activities more costly and less attractive.

To assess what effect denial of port entry to IUU-listed vessels may have on the movements of these vessels, the port visits of IUU vessels listed by NEAFC to CPs and NCPs were further analysed (Table 2). This RFMO had already established IUU vessel list at the beginning of the research period (2004-2009), and introduced CMMs requiring the denial of port access i 2007.

NEAFC places great emphasis on reducing IUU fishing: It maintains a comprehensive IUU-vessel list (including good record keeping of IMO numbers); has strengthened port State measures that extend to transport vessels in addition to fishing vessels; and has actively assisted port State actions against IUU-listed vessels. In May 2007, NEAFC adopted a new port State control system, which included a provision that denied NEAFC IUU-listed vessels entry to the ports of its CPs. After its adoption, the proportion of NEAFC IUU-listed vessels visiting ports of States that were not Parties to NEAFC doubled from 42 to 80 percent.

The significant increase in visits by NEAFC IUU-listed vessels to port States that were not bound by the RFMO’s strict port State measures indicated the desired impact of the strengthened port State measures. However, it also illustrated that as long as port State measures remain regional, the problem will simply be shifted elsewhere.

The stories of two prolifically active refrigerated transport vessels, Polestar and Sunny Jane, offer prime examples of this problem. After their inclusion on NEAFC’s IUU-vessel list and subsequently two other RFMO lists, each vessel was subject to a series of port State actions by a number of States, including refusal of entry to several ports, prohibition of landings and detention. Morocco, which was not a NEAFC CP but recognised NEAFC’s IUU-vessel list, was among those States that took action against Polestar. In many instances, however, Polestar and Sunny Jane were able to operate with impunity in regions outside and at times inside the convention areas where they were IUU-listed.

                   
BEFORE the strengthened measure (denial of port access) entered into force
No. of port visits to CPs     99  
No. of port visits to NCPs 72
  Total number of port visits     171  
Percent of port visits to NCPs 42%
  AFTER the strengthened measure (denial of port access) entered into force
No. of port visits to CPs     18  
No. of port visits to NCPs 84
  Total number of port visits     102  
Percent of port visits to NCPs 82%

Table 2:  Port Visits of NEAFC IUU-listed vessels to NEAAFC CPs and NCPs before and after Strengthened Measures Entered Into Force in May 2007

Back to top

Scope of the Study

Last updated 06/09/10

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: A Threat to Sustainable Fisheries and the Marine Environment

The issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing has been of increasing concern to the international community, particularly over the past decade. By disregarding laws and regulations, IUU fishing undermines sustainable fisheries management (Watson and Pauly 2001; Pauly et al. 2003; Agnew et al. 2009; Worm et al. 2009) and threatens both targeted and non-targeted fish species, and their associated and dependent ecosystems across the world’s oceans (Pauly et al. 2003; Pauly et al. 2005; Worm et al. 2006). Just the unlawful aspects, namely illegal and unreported fishing, account for catches with an annual value of as much as US$23.5 billion worldwide, which represents an estimated 11 to 26 million tonnes of fish, equivalent to approximately one-fifth of the global reported fish catch (Agnew et al. 2009). However, as global fisheries catch decreases (Watson and Pauly 2001; Hilborn et al. 2003; Pauly et al. 2003; Zeller and Pauly 2005) and the demand for fish rises (Delgado et al. 2003), IUU fishing becomes increasingly profitable for those directly involved ( High Seas Task Force 2006; Sumaila et al. 2006). The practice is further driven by overcapacity in the fishing industry (Hilborn et al. 2003; Zeller and Pauly 2005; Worm et al. 2009), which reduces opportunities for legitimate fishing. Poor management, together with ineffective enforcement measures and sanctions, has enabled IUU fishing to continue virtually unabated in all regions of the world (Agnew et al. 2009).

1. Port State Control: A Tool to Combat IUU Fishing

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the activities of a vessel are the responsibility of the State to which that vessel is registered, commonly referred to as the flag State (UNCLOS 1982). When flag States are unable or unwilling to exert such control, their flags are sought out by those whose intention is to evade fisheries law, thus facilitating IUU fishing (Gianni and Simpson 2005). Although the main responsibility for enforcement is still with the flag State, international governance bodies are turning increasingly to States where IUU catch is landed to help prevent IUU-caught fish from entering international trade and key markets. By enforcing measures against vessels that have been found to engage in or support IUU fishing, these nations, referred to as ‘port States’, have the opportunity to significantly reduce the profitability of IUU fishing operations by denying IUU-listed vessels landing of fish, access to services and even port entry.

Port State measures are increasingly recognized as an efficient and cost-effective instrument, along with a range of other instruments, in the fight against IUU fishing. They can enhance the effectiveness of other useful monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools, such as vessel-monitoring systems (VMS) and regional licensing, and can provide an effective deterrent to the transshipment of IUU-caught fish on the high seas (international waters beyond the jurisdiction of coastal states). In recent years, regional, national and international initiatives have focused on increasingly stringent port State measures to curb IUU fishing. After agreeing to a voluntary Model Scheme on Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in 2004 (FAO 2007), the FAO adopted the legally binding Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Port State Measures Agreement, or PSMA) in November 2009 (FAO 2009). Once this agreement is ratified by 25 signatories and enters into force, these States will be required to close their ports, prohibit the landing of IUU fish and deny port services to illegally operated or unregulated fishing and fishing-support vessels.

On the high seas, RFMOs provide frameworks for managing fish stocks and, accordingly, play a central role in combating IUU fishing. Made up of coastal States and fishing nations, RFMOs obtain regulatory power through the conclusion of international agreements to manage specific high seas fisheries or fisheries within a specific area of the high seas. In an effort to ensure sustainable management of fish stocks, RFMOs have developed conservation and management measures (CMMs) such as total allowable catch (TAC) and the allocation of fishing rights to CPs or individual vessels. Other measures to curb IUU fishing include certification schemes, international observer requirements and strengthened monitoring and surveillance. In general, however, these initiatives alone have not been successful in preventing IUU fishing (Erceg 2006).

Prior to the adoption of the PSMA, a number of RFMOs have already adopted port State measures for the fisheries under their jurisdiction. These were foreshadowed in a number of international instruments, such as the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement (FAO 1993), the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement (U.N. General Assembly 1995) and the International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing (FAO 2001), and they were recommended as an effective tool by the General Assembly’s Resolutions on Sustainable Fisheries. Eight RFMOs established lists of vessels that have been found to carry out or support IUU fishing within the RFMO convention area, with the aim of exposing offenders and applying restrictions. The CMMs related to port State control established the duties that RFMO CPs have as port States, regarding, inter alia, the denial of port entry, denial of landing of fish products, denial of access to port services, and port inspections of IUU fishing and support vessels.

2. Port State Performance: Do Port State Measures Effectively Curb IUU Fishing?

Pew’s Port State Performance research focused on the implementation and effectiveness of port State measures adopted by RFMOs. To achieve this, data were collected on the port visits of vessels on the IUU-vessel lists of eight RFMOs covering six years (2004–09).

Although IUU-listed vessels represent only a small fraction of those operating illegally, they are the only officially recognised IUU vessels and therefore provide a basis for evaluating the willingness or capacity of States to implement port State measures and the effectiveness of the current regulations. The research aims to identify the reasons for failures of compliance or lack of cooperation by port States and to evaluate the current implementation challenges they face. This is necessary in order to gauge whether the PSMA can be expected, once in force, to lead to a substantial reduction in IUU fishing.

An assessment of the eight RFMOs aims to evaluate the roles each plays in combating IUU fishing. Examination of the duties and the various port State measures adopted by these RFMOs allows for identification of their strengths, as well as any weaknesses that need to be addressed. Accordingly, clear and specific recommendations are provided to address the issues identified by our research and to encourage RFMO CPs to comply with port State measures.

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Last updated 07/09/10

Conclusions

1. Poor Vessel Identification, Data Recording and Information Sharing

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

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

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.  

  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.

 

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.

 

Scope of the Study

Last updated 08/12/09

Port State measures have been identified as a desirable and cost-effective tool in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. In the past decade, national, regional and international initiatives have focused on increasingly stringent port and market State measures to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU fishing. This culminated in the negotiation of a Port State Measures Agreement, hosted by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) during 2008 and 2009. Once it enters into force, it will be legally binding.

A conservation management measure (CMM) adopted by most of the high seas Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) is the maintenance of a list of vessels that have been found to be participating in or supporting IUU fishing. This measure aims to increase the costs and reduce the value of the vessels involved in such activities as contracting parties to the RFMO are asked to deny these vessels landing, transshipment of fish and provision of port services. Some RFMOs go further. In the case of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), this extends to denying them access to port.

Paragraph 56 of the FAO International Plan of Action on IUU fishing, adopted in 2001, and Paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of the FAO Model Scheme on Port State Measures, adopted in 2005, encourage States to limit access to their ports when they have clear grounds to believe that a vessel has engaged in or supported IUU fishing activity, and to assist other countries in their efforts to combat illegal fishing.
This study aims to investigate the port visits of vessels on the IUU vessel lists of four high seas RFMOs (CCAMLR, NAFO, NEAFC and the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization) and four tuna RFMOs (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) over the past five years.

While vessels on the IUU vessel list represent only a small fraction of those operating illegally, they are a good indicator of the willingness or capacity of port States to implement the most basic port State measures.

This research also strives to use the data collected to identify the reasons for failures of compliance or lack of cooperation, as well as developing recommendations and tools to assist in the effort to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU fishing.

PEW’s position paper on IUU

Last updated 08/12/09

Pew Position Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Pellentesque convallis orci quis enim. Cras condimentum. Sed adipiscing placerat magna. Phasellus eleifend commodo diam. Nullam hendrerit nibh sit amet odio. Quisque dapibus varius odio. Sed posuere volutpat arcu. Nulla convallis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Integer accumsan dictum odio. Donec sit amet augue. Cras sollicitudin orci eu lectus. Ut magna sapien, rutrum quis, ultricies in, elementum eget, mi. Nulla posuere quam nec nibh. Fusce semper lectus sed odio. Morbi id nunc. Pellentesque varius mollis enim. Nam quis dolor a tellus elementum tempor.

Executive Summary

Last updated 06/09/10

Effective Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is notorious for undermining efforts to manage fisheries sustainably and has detrimental environmental, social and economic consequences. The Pew Environment Group’s Port State Performance research focuses on the role that port States play in abating IUU fishing by assessing how effectively they are implementing port State measures. As the situation stands, the system of port State measures lacks transparency, accountability and global reach, and is thus failing to close loopholes exploited by IUU operators and to keep IUU fish out of ports.

Without effective management of fish stocks, the outlook for global fisheries is bleak. Unscrupulous owners and operators of fishing vessels around the world continue to undermine fisheries management by disregarding regulations designed to conserve the marine environment. Just the unlawful aspects, namely illegal and unreported fishing, account for catches equivalent to approximately one-fifth of the global reported fish catch. In response to the consistent failure of many flag States to control IUU vessels on the high seas, the international community initiated an additional approach to tackling IUU fishing: port State measures. By adopting restrictive measures in ports where IUU catch is landed, port States can prevent IUU fish from entering international trade and finding their way into key markets. Accordingly, national, regional and global initiatives have been focusing over the past decade on the adoption and implementation of increasingly stringent port State measures to combat IUU fishing. This has culminated in the negotiation of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA), which was approved by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in November 2009. Once the PSMA enters into force, it will be the first legally binding international treaty designed solely to combat IUU fishing.

The Pew Environment Group has undertaken the first comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of current port State measures and the implementation challenges that port States face. The study also assesses the central role that Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) play in the process. The research focuses on port State measures directed specifically at vessels on the IUU-vessel lists adopted by RFMOs - vessels that have been found to engage in or support IUU fishing. Imposing sanctions on these vessels at port aims at rendering their operations less profitable and lucrative.

This study reviews the IUU-vessel lists of the following eight RFMOs: (1) Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), (2) Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), (3) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), (4) Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), (5) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), (6) North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), (7) South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), and (8) Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The research consolidates six years of data on the movement of 178 IUU-listed vessels, tracking their port visits globally from January 2004 to December 2009. A single list of IUU vessels was compiled by combining the eight RFMOs’ IUU-vessel lists and supplemented with additional vessel identification information. Movement data on these IUU-listed vessels was obtained from commercial databases maintained by Lloyd’s Register—Fairplay (Sea-web), Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit (MIU) and shipspotting.com. This data set was supplemented with information from port logs, national fisheries authorities and RFMO secretariats.

The key findings and recommendations of the Pew Environment Group’s Port State Performance research are, in summary, as follows.

  1. Port States and RFMOs have insufficient information to identify and track IUU-listed vessels. Port States were often unable to identify and take measures against IUU-listed vessels because vessel data in the RFMO IUU vessel lists were incomplete or out of date. Our research also revealed that the quality of information on the IUU vessel lists varied considerably among the eight RFMOs; 60 percent of IUU-listed vessels were not recorded with an International Maritime Organization (IMO) number by RFMOs, but rather with data that can be changed over time such as vessel name, international radio call sign (IRCS) or flag. Port States did not consistently record IMO numbers when granting permission for port entry. Fishing vessels without an IMO number were impossible to track. To improve vessel identification and tracking procedures:
    1. RFMOs need to improve the quality of information on IUU vessel lists to make these vessels identifiable and traceable, and domestic authorities must build their vessel identification on IMO numbers and agree on a range of additional standardized information requirements in the absence of an IMO number (Annex A of the PSMA offers a useful basis for such standardization).
    2. RFMOs should mutually recognize each other’s lists - a combined IUU-vessel list (from all RFMOs) should be established and a routine for maintaining and updating the list be put in place; such a system could be supplemented by RSS feeds (automatic Web updates) from online databases.
    3. Mandatory unique vessel identification for fishing vessels and fishery support vessels is urgently needed.
    4. 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 reports of inspection

  2. Port States across the globe do not adequately comply with their port State obligations. Even when IUU vessels requesting port entry could have been identified, only in one in four cases did port States fulfill their obligations as RFMO Contracting Parties (CPs). On some occasions, ambiguous wording of RFMO port State measures and their subsequent misinterpretation by domestic authorities when incorporating them into national law led to problems with compliance. Information-sharing between the relevant authorities at ports and fisheries authorities was lacking. Moreover, RFMOs failed to assess compliance of their CPs with port State measures; research indicates that poor compliance occurs in the framework of nearly all RFMOs and in all regions of the world.

    For effective and timely implementation of port State measures by port States:

    1. RFMOs should review the effectiveness of their port State measures by asking their CPs to report on visits to their ports by IUU-listed vessels and on any measures taken by the port State (including the results of any inspections).
    2. RFMOs should eliminate any ambiguity in the wording of port State measures to prevent their misinterpretation by CPs.
    3. All port States should intensify inspection and enforcement measures as a matter of priority.

    3.  

  3. The regional focus of port State measures allows IUU-listed vessels to move to other regions to avoid sanctions. Several RFMOs are taking steps to improve their port State measures schemes to meet the minimum standards of the PSMA, while others lag behind. Unless stringent port State measures are enforced globally and effectively, IUU operators can move out of the area where their vessels are listed and where they face port State control.

    To abate regional shifts in IUU fishing activities:

    1. All RFMOs should mutually accept a combined IUU vessel list, which would limit opportunities for IUU-listed vessels to enter unnoticed into ports away from the listing area.
    2. All port States must make use of a global information-sharing system.
    3. All port States should sign and ratify the PSMA and take measures to provisionally implement the PSMA before it enters into force.
    4. All RFMOs should actively cooperate to ensure the effective implementation of port State measures in line with the PSMA.

    IUU fishing continues to be a major obstacle to the achievement of sustainable global fisheries. Current international initiatives designed to combat IUU fishing are insufficient, failing and are clearly no match for highly adaptable IUU operators. Only the swift adoption of new measures by RFMO CPs and Non-Contracting Parties (NCPs), effective global cooperation and a vast improvement in information-sharing will empower authorities around the world to meet this challenge.

Reference Flothmann, S., Kistowski K.v., Dolan, E., Lee, E., Meere, F., and Album, G. (2010) Closing Loopholes: Getting Illegal Fishing under Control, Science 328:1235-1236

PSA

Last updated 08/12/09

Background Document on The Negotiation of an International Instrument on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing

The Need for an International Agreement on Port State Measures

Given the difficulties inherent in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, particularly as a result of flag States not exercising their responsibilities in respect of illegal operators, in recent years there has been an increasing global focus on the role of port State measures to deter IUU fishing. Such measures are perceived as an efficient and cost-effective instrument, along with a range of other instruments, in the fight against IUU fishing. They can enhance the effectiveness of other useful monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools, such as vessel monitoring systems (VMS), regional licensing and trade-related means, and can provide an effective deterrent to the transshipping of IUU fish on the high seas.

There are a range of port State measures, including the designation of ports of landing; prohibition of entry into port; prohibition of landing, transshipping or accessing services in port; carrying out inspections in port; and the adoption of enforcement measures, such as vessel detention or seizure of catch and gear. Over the years, a range of port State measures have been adopted by a number of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). These were foreshadowed in a number of international instruments, such as the 1993 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Compliance Agreement, the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and the International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing (IPOA-IUU), and they were recommended as an effective tool by the United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) Resolutions on Sustainable Fisheries.

Given the current challenges posed by IUU fishing, the worldwide expansion and harmonisation of port State measures was considered a necessary step. Acknowledging this, in 2007 the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) asked members to develop a new legally binding instrument on port State measures. This initiative, which is nearly complete as a final text of the agreement, is likely to be adopted at the end of August 2009.  It will not only provide binding rules but also will help improve coordination among domestic and regional authorities, simplify enforcement, and facilitate a legal framework for those States that are not parties to certain RFMOs but do not want to allow IUU fish into their ports. The effectiveness of the agreement will strongly depend on its broad ratification and effective implementation, as well as the willingness of port States to share enforcement information.

The FAO Process Towards a Port State Agreement

Key Elements of the Draft Agreement on Port State Measures

Scope
The Draft Agreement applies to any foreign vessel that can be used for fishing or fishing-related activities; this includes reefers and cargo and container vessels carrying fish that have not been previously landed. The agreement also covers supply vessels that support vessels engaged in IUU fishing.

Obligations

Port State Measures of RMFOs

Last updated 08/12/09

Port State Heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Pellentesque convallis orci quis enim. Cras condimentum. Sed adipiscing placerat magna. Phasellus eleifend commodo diam. Nullam hendrerit nibh sit amet odio. Quisque dapibus varius odio. Sed posuere volutpat arcu. Nulla convallis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Integer accumsan dictum odio. Donec sit amet augue. Cras sollicitudin orci eu lectus. Ut magna sapien, rutrum quis, ultricies in, elementum eget, mi. Nulla posuere quam nec nibh. Fusce semper lectus sed odio. Morbi id nunc. Pellentesque varius mollis enim. Nam quis dolor a tellus elementum tempor.