IndexProve it with numbersProblem diagramWhy does IUU fishing happen?Where does IUU fishing happen?International frameworkUnited Nations toolsFAO toolsEuropean Union toolsRegional agreementsOther The United Nations Food and Agriculture (FAO) defines three categories of IUU fishing: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay First, there is illegal fishing, which consists of fishing activities conducted by foreign vessels without permission in waters under the jurisdiction of another state, or that otherwise contravene fishing laws and regulations . For example, some IUU vessels operate in waters under the jurisdiction of West African states, but because these countries generally cannot afford to establish effective fisheries control structures, IUU vessels are able, in many cases, to operate with impunity . unreported fishing, i.e. fishing activities that have not been reported or have been incorrectly reported, by vessels to the competent national authority. As illustrated by a 2006 case in which several Spanish trawlers were inspected by the Norwegian Coast Guard and found to contain not only their reported catches of headless and gutted cod, but also a total of 600 tonnes of cod fillets which the Norwegian authorities had been reported. Finally, FAO has also defined unregulated fishing, i.e. fishing activities in areas where there are no applicable management measures to regulate catches. The term also applies to fisheries of highly migratory species and some shark species, which are not regulated by a Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO)[2]. Finally, the term also applies to fishing activities in international waters in violation of the rules established by the relevant RFMO. For example, 300 tons of fish, mostly sharks, including protected species such as the hammerhead shark, were found on board when the Navy gained access to the Galapagos Reserve in August last year. The numbers prove it. From this perspective, it is clearly difficult to accurately estimate the total catches resulting from these three types of pirate fishing. However, researchers are engaged in the painstaking process of collating data from various countries' fisheries control agencies, expert estimates, commercial data and the results of independent research expeditions, in order to arrive at a rough figure for total IUU catches, since this is a black market, estimates are bound to be unreliable. Some experts estimate the annual figure at around 11 million tons; others suggest it could reach 26 million tonnes, or 14 or 33% respectively of the total global legal catch of fish and other marine life in 2011. However, it is important to highlight that these previously reported catches are in addition to the global annual catch of fish and other marine fauna, which currently amounts to approximately 78.9 million tonnes. Rough calculations, however, indicate that IUU fishing in the world's oceans amounts to approximately 11-26 million tons of fish each year, or at a price of 10-23 billion dollars[3]. Based on the assumption that fewer fish are caught Indeed, experts overestimate the size of the stock and set catch quotas for the following year too high, potentially consolidating and accelerating overexploitation of the stock. Therefore, one of the main reasons why IUU fishing constitutes a particularly critical problem today is that manyFish stocks have already been overexploited by legal fishing activities, which consequently places further pressure on fish stocks. General description of the problem Why does IUU fishing occur? In a perfect world where there was complete and effective control by the flag State, the incidence of IUU fishing would be significantly reduced. However, reality shows that they can often be practiced with impunity. This is especially the case in the territorial waters or exclusive economic zones of countries that cannot afford to set up expensive and complex fisheries control structures like those existing in Europe. The main cause of this is the lack of effective control by the flag State. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states are responsible for ships that fly their flag. However, in order to benefit from it, fishermen implement a practice called Flag of Convenience (FOC). It involves IUU fishermen operating their vessels under the flag of another state, such as Liberia or Panama, with less stringent regulations or ineffective control over the operations of flagged vessels, instead of registering the vessels in the country's home state. shipping company. In this context, in 2013 the issue of flag State responsibility for the IUU fishing problem was brought before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission[ 4]. They asked the Tribunal to provide advice on four questions: “What are the obligations of the flag State in cases where IUU fishing activities are conducted within the Exclusive Economic Zone of third States?”, “To what extent does the State of the flag State is held responsible for IUU fishing activities carried out by vessels flying its flag?", "When a fishing license is issued to a vessel under an international agreement with the flag State or with an international agency, the Is the State or international agency held liable for violation of the fisheries legislation of the coastal State by the vessel in question?”, and “What are the rights and obligations of the coastal State in ensuring the sustainable management of shared stocks and of common interest, in particular small pelagic species and tuna?”. In its advisory opinion, the Court adopted the “due diligence” approach. The Tribunal held that flag States have only a general obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure that their citizens and vessels flying their flag are not involved in IUU fishing activities. This obligation can be met by adhering to generally accepted international standards on the regulation of fishing vessels and respecting international treaties indicating best practices. At the same time, the Tribunal held that in coastal waters the primary responsibility for preventing IUU fishing lies with the coastal State and not with the flag State. Inevitably, it is important to note that switching to a foreign shipping registry, restrictive labor legislation and a minimum wage can also circumvent home country provisions, thus allowing shipping companies to pay lower wages and social security contributions for their crews than they would have if the vessel were registered, for example, in any European country. Furthermore, fishing legislation in FOC states is often extremely lax and they rarely, if ever, inspect their vessels for illegal catches. It also leads to inadequate working conditions on board, and therefore to fishermen working for low wages on vessels whosestandard of accommodation is belligerent, and they rarely meet the current safety standards applicable to merchant shipping under the International Convention for the Safety of Life on Board. Sea, which contains the exact details of the equipment that must be available to ensure safety on board. However, there are other reasons why this happens on such a large scale, as evidenced by the fact that, from the fishermen's point of view, IUU fishing is very attractive as they do not pay taxes or duties on these catches. Where does IUU fishing take place? The situation is particularly difficult in developing countries. In an in-depth analysis of IUU fishing globally, researchers conclude that IUU fishing is practiced primarily in countries that exhibit typical symptoms of weak governance: large-scale corruption, legislation and a lack of will or capacity to enforce existing national legislation. The West African coast is particularly critical. Here, IUU fishing is estimated to account for 40% of fish caught, the highest level globally. This is a catastrophe for the region's fish stocks, which are already severely overexploited. Confident that, as a rule, they have no reason to fear any checks by fisheries control agencies or legal action, some IUU vessels even fish directly off the coast and in some cases even at a distance of only one kilometer from the shore. A similar situation exists in parts of the Pacific. Indonesian experts report that it is extremely difficult to track the movements of IUU vessels in the country's islands and archipelagos. As a result, the volume of illegal catches here is high and amounts to 1.5 million tons per year. The Arafura Sea, which lies between Australia and Indonesia, is also severely affected. After West Africa, the west-central Pacific Ocean is the region with the highest IUU fishing rate in the world. In the Western Pacific, IUU fishing represents 34% of the total catch. A similar situation exists in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, particularly the western Bering Sea. Here IUU fishing is practiced mainly by China and Russia and represents 33% of the catch. Data for the southwest Atlantic is unreliable, but experts estimate that IUU fishing here amounts to 32% [5]. International Framework Over the past decades, a framework of international instruments has been developed which, together, comprise a powerful set of tools that can be used to combat IUU fishing. In particular, the range of possibilities is a mixture of soft law, as exemplified by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and hard law, as illustrated by the United Nations Agreement on Fisheries Stocks. United Nations Instruments The UN, over time, has developed two different documents that address the topic covered in these documents. On the one hand, there is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[6], agreed in 1982 and entered into force in 1992, which defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources. In particular, there are some provisions that are relevant to the current case. Firstly, regarding their concerns about fishing and conservation, Articles 55 and 56, which talk about the exclusive economic zone, its scope is “beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea” and this gives them the right to “exploit , conserve and manage natural resources, living or non-living”. Then, Article 61 which provides that, with regards to the previously mentioned exclusive economic zone and in terms of conservation, "taking into account the bestscientific evidence available to it, the coastal State shall determine the allowable take of living resource species." However, in light of the subsequent provision of Article 62, “the coastal State shall promote the objective of optimal utilization of biological resources in the exclusive economic zone, without prejudice to Article 61” and “where the coastal State does not have the capacity to collect the entire eligible catch, it shall, through agreements or other arrangements and in accordance with the terms, conditions, laws and regulations referred to in paragraph 4, give other States access to the excess eligible catch”. In this regard, the UNCLOS does not make any kind of reference to several important issues such as the ecosystem approach, environmental impact or sustainable use and conservation of marine biological resources under national jurisdiction, among others. Therefore, although most legal instruments build on the foundations they establish, more documents have been developed over time. On the other hand, there is the United Nations Agreement on Fish Stocks[7], approved in 1995, which aims to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks within the framework of UNCLOS. The agreement also defines the duties of flag states, including those relating to vessel registration and records, authorisations, MCS, compliance and enforcement. Co-operation in enforcement at international, regional and sub-regional levels is also addressed, along with boarding and inspection procedures and port state measures. There are several important items to highlight in this document. First there are articles 2 and 5, which respectively set out the long-term objective and the principle that governs the text. The first states that it is necessary to “ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks” and the second lists several among which we can find “to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess of fishing capacity” or “effective monitoring, control and surveillance”. Then, another provision worth mentioning is article 6, relating to the mandatory application of the precautionary approach. Continuing, Article 17 should also be mentioned because it provides for the obligation for all States to cooperate in the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, whether or not they are members of an RMFO or any other agreement, by not authorizing their vessels to fish for these stocks. Therefore, it is also important to refer to Article 18 as it concerns the duties of the flag State. Among these, it is important to mention the one according to which "a State authorizes the use of vessels flying its flag for fishing on the high seas only when it is able to effectively exercise its responsibilities towards such vessels under the Convention and present agreement". Finally, Articles 20 and 21 should be made public as they mention international, regional and sub-regional cooperation in the enforcement of the rules. FAO tools FAO, even though it is a specialized agency dependent on the UN, has its own tools. Some of them are binding, some are not. As regards the binding group, they are: Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unreported fishing regulated And what about the non-binding ones we may encounter: Code of conduct for responsible fishing International action plan to prevent, discourage and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishingregulated Voluntary Flag State Performance Guidelines Focusing on the binding aspect, the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas[8], agreed in 1993 but entered into force in 2003, aims to prevent the “flagging” of vessels fishing on the high seas under the flags of states that are unable or unwilling to apply international fishing regulations, conservation and management measures. The keeping of fishing vessel registers is largely governed by the provisions of the Agreement. The important provisions contained in this document are, firstly, Article 3, on the responsibility of the flag State, which establishes “the obligation to take measures to ensure that its ships do not engage in activities which undermine the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures". Then article 4 which declares the need to establish a register of fishing vessels. Then article 6 on the exchange of information between states. Finally, articles 5 and 7 on international cooperation and also on collaboration with developing countries. Compared to the other binding instrument, the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing[9] was approved in 2009. It aims to prevent IUU fishing vessels from use ports and land catches, thereby reducing the incentive for such vessels to continue operating and preventing fisheries products derived from IUU fishing from reaching national and international markets. The agreement also regulates the role of flag States and RFMOs in the implementation of port state measures. In this case it is important to mention only Articles 8 and 9. The first addresses the need to establish a minimum standard of information provided in advance to its ports before granting entry, and the second states that the port State may deny entry to vessels whose information provided indicates that they have been engaged in IUU fishing activities. The non-binding framework, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries[10], created in 1995, includes international principles and standards of behavior for responsible fishing practices and aquaculture development. It serves as a reference for national and international efforts, including policies, frameworks and institutional tools, to ensure the sustainable exploitation of aquatic living resources in harmony with the environment. It also promotes, among other things, the responsible trade of fish and fishery products. It includes provisions on the duties of all States, flag States, port States and market States, as well as on the role of RFMOs. It has been approved by around 170 member states, and although it is voluntary and non-binding, several countries, including Australia, Malaysia, Namibia, Norway and South Africa, have incorporated some of its provisions into national legislation. Predictably, IUU fishing has declined in these regions. In this document, it is worth highlighting Articles 6.10 and 6.11, which emphasize that “States should ensure compliance with and implementation of conservation and management measures” and that they “should ensure that the activities of [their] vessels do not compromise the effectiveness of conservation and management measures adopted at national level". Another non-binding document is the International Action Plan to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing[11], created in 2001, which constitutes a tool to combat IUU fishing, for use by all the States, in general, flag States, coastal States, market States, port States and RFMOs. IPOA-IUU calls on all countries to develop and implement a national action plan, 1992.