| Norway. Dr. Joe Borg addresses 11th North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, 13 June 2006 | |
|
Environmental news: I am very pleased to be with you on the occasion of the 11th North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference. I would like to thank our hosts, the Norwegian Government for all the hard work undertaken towards ensuring the success of this meeting. I am told by my colleagues that you had an interesting discussion yesterday on the strengthening of regional fisheries management organisations including a discussion on the High Seas Task Force findings. Today I would like to concentrate upon a particular issue related to these organisations which underlines the whole co operation rationale behind their existence. This is an issue which occurs all over the world but which presents a particular problem for us here in the North Atlantic, namely the practice of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities or IUU fishing. Ensuring sustainable fisheries is challenging enough as it is, but on factoring in these clandestine activities which compete with legitimate ones, we realise what an enormous scourge of high seas fisheries they are. These activities have very serious economic consequences for all our fleets but even more importantly, they jeopardise international efforts made by us all to manage fish stocks in a responsible and sustainable manner. Let us quickly remind ourselves how far we have progressed in our approach over the last few years. In 2001, in the FAO, we adopted as a voluntary instrument the International Plan of Action. Its main objective is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by providing all States with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures by which to act. One way of achieving this objective is to work through appropriate regional fisheries management organisations. In 2002, the European Community adopted its own action plan derived from this FAO International Plan of Action. I know that others around this room have also made progress in adopting their own national action plans. Briefly, the basis of the Community action plan is as follows: Firstly, we recognise the need to reinforce existing Community legislation in order to establish who is actually benefiting from the IUU activities and who therefore shoulders the responsibilities. Secondly, we recognise the need to strengthen action taken collectively in the context of Regional Fisheries Organisations. Finally, we see the need for a stronger international framework where we can all work together. To support this three-pillared approach, the Community has established 15 different actions. I will not go into the details of these actions as I am sure they are already familiar to you. However, whilst the International Plan of Action and the Community’s own actions represent progress, they have not gone far enough and been effective enough to sufficiently tackle the problem. There is now, however, new momentum to agree on innovative approaches to fight IUU fisheries that we need to build upon. You will recall that the High Seas Task Force resulted from the Round Table on Sustainable Development at the OECD held in June 2003 which focused on how to minimise IUU fishing on the high seas and provide for the orderly management of high seas fisheries. The High Seas Task Force on IUU Fishing on the High Seas comprised representatives of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, IUCN – the World Conservation Union – and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. The European Union, amongst others, provided financial support and the much esteemed participants were led most ably by my colleague, the United Kingdom Fisheries Minister, Ben Bradshaw. Two years’ work was carried out involving a wide ranging group of international legal, scientific, economic and enforcement experts from all over the world. As a result the Task Force was able to identify a number of specific initiatives which are designed to expose IUU fishing activities, deter them and improve enforcement against those responsible. The Task Force considered that these specific initiatives can be easily implemented both by members of the Task Force as well as by like-minded States. These initiatives are designed to support existing processes, albeit in themselves they should have a significant impact on IUU fishing. Let us now look, in more detail, at some of the causes of IUU fishing activities identified by the Task Force. These result for the most part from two causes: economic incentives and ineffective enforcement. First of all, IUU fishermen are able to get a high value for their catches relative to the amount of investment they have to put in, including the funds needed to run the vessels. It is a well known fact that it costs much more to run a business legitimately than to do it illegally. IUU fishing is furthermore often heavily associated with other illegal activities including smuggling and money laundering. It is only possible to have limited access legitimately to what are often very overcrowded and therefore oversubscribed waters. It is also very difficult to police resources in what are often remote locations of the high seas. Besides, unfortunately, there are many flag States around the world which are not party to the various international agreements governing fisheries. A number of flag States are also unwilling to control their own vessels. There is often ineffective policing and ineffective management. Inspection of fish landings is also quite frequently deficient and there is poor traceability. Finally, the penalties imposed on illegal activities are largely insufficient and therefore more often than not fail to deter and prevent a recurrence of these activities. To address these causes, the Task Force presented nine main proposals. I would like to look at each of these in turn very briefly. The Task Force proposed the strengthening of the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network. The establishment of a global information system on high seas fishing vessels and the promotion of a broader participation in the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement as well as the FAO Compliance Agreement. The Task Force also suggested promoting better high seas governance and the adoption and promotion of guidelines on flag State performance in order to tackle the problem of flag States that fail to live up to their international obligations. It also proposed setting out a range of measures aimed at improving port State controls over IUU activities with the greater use of port and trade measures. In so doing, it advanced the concept of responsible port States including the promotion of the FAO Model Port State Scheme as an international minimum standard for port State controls. Two further proposals made by the Task Force address two further areas of major importance, namely securing good information on IUU activity by filling critical gaps in scientific knowledge and assessment and addressing the specific needs of developing countries in overcoming IUU fishing activities. The last proposal recognises the significant advances in information technology, and consequently urges the improvement of existing systems, by making good use of such advances. Let us now look briefly at the situation in the North Atlantic, which is our particular area of concern today. As you know, in the North Atlantic, there are four regional fisheries management organisations. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission or NEAFC operating in the North-East Atlantic. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation or NAFO, NEAFC’s sister organisation operating in the North-West Atlantic. Then we have the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation or NASCO, specifically there to manage wild salmon in the North Atlantic. And finally, there is the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which covers tuna fisheries in the whole of the Atlantic. The two organisations considered to be of primary importance in the context of IUU are NEAFC and NAFO. NEAFC addressed the issue of IUU fishing in 2003 with the adoption of its non-Contracting Party Scheme. This Scheme entered into force in 2004. NAFO followed suit and adopted a similar scheme in September 2005 which became effective at the beginning of this year. Both schemes have introduced the concept of vessel blacklists. Using these lists, the Contracting Parties are able to take specific action against black listed vessels. I would like to now look more specifically at the NEAFC non-Contracting Party Scheme of which we have gained some practical experience given that it has been operational for two years. Without going into the full details of the NEAFC Scheme, suffice it to say that there is a system of checks and balances which starts with a provisional ‘A’ list in those cases where doubts exist. Then after verification, and upon confirmation of the illegal nature of the activities, the vessel is placed on the definitive ‘B’ list. It is of relevance to underline that a number of follow-up measures by Contracting Parties are provided for in the Scheme including the encouragement to importers, transporters and other sectors concerned, to refrain from negotiating for, and transhipping, fish caught by such vessels. However, the most important and immediate action that can be taken is to prohibit the supply of fuel, provisions and other services to the vessel concerned as well as preventing the importation of any fish aboard the vessel. Although, as I have just said, during the last two years we have gained some practical experience of operating the Scheme, events have demonstrated that the provisions in the Scheme are not tight enough and that we all need to improve our vigilance. The following are just some examples to demonstrate problem that have already been encountered. The Belize registered reefer ‘Sunny Jane’ entered Eemshaven in the Netherlands last summer with redfish on board, transhipped from identified IUU fishing vessels. The Dutch authorities prohibited it to land the fish. The Belize authorities placed a prohibition to sail on the vessel, which was later rescinded, allowing the vessel to sail to Agadir where it discharged its catch. It is believed that the fish was transferred to a transport vessel and found its way back into the Community market as an import. Incidentally, the Sunny Jane now finds itself blocked in Las Palmas, unable to leave due to lack of fuel. Experience has shown that the rules are not clear enough for the inspectors and the enforcement authorities who have to apply them. The fact that a vessel cannot be prohibited from entering port but that it can be denied fuel, provisions and other services is ambiguous. In the case of the Rostock 5, the vessels arrived in port with fuel on board. The German authorities took the view that they could not prevent them from leaving except perhaps through the denial of pilot services, however, according to port regulations this would be illegal. This is not a problem that is isolated or limited to a particular State. There is insufficient co-ordination between the various authorities that are responsible for handling port traffic and those processing landings or imports, and in some cases, there are also loopholes in the law that allow such inconsistent positions to be held. Furthermore, we also know that vessels have entered ports and received the services they needed without the knowledge of fisheries control authorities, even though the provision of services is forbidden. To combat this, NEAFC has adopted a recommendation to amend the Scheme in order to prevent entry into ports by such vessels in the future. This recommendation is already being inserted into Community legislation. We also have other examples which have served to make our experience wider and have provided opportunities for us to learn a number of important lessons. The question we need to ask is “How can we improve?” It is necessary to strengthen the detection and the follow-up of IUU activities at all levels, i.e. at flag State, port State and market State level. In this context, it is evident that port State control has to be reinforced and should constitute a priority. PECCOE, the control committee of NEAFC, is presently working on measures to further improve port state control. These include a) the introduction of designated ports, b) prior notification of landing c) and the obligation for port States to give authorisation before a landing can take place. Furthermore, however, it has to be borne in mind that the question of IUU fishing is not confined to non-Contracting Party activity inside the NEAFC Regulatory Area alone. Other players are involved. The Community, for one, is an important market for fish from a number of sources. Consumers, buyers and retail outlets, are also an important group that should be kept abreast of happenings as they are becoming increasingly well-informed and aware of the need to avoid fish coming from illegal or unsustainable sources. Let us take the example of cod, where hundreds of thousands of tonnes are imported into the Community. It is estimated that around 100,000 tonnes are caught illegally each year in the Barents Sea. Despite the considerable amount of illegal cod that might find its way onto the Community market, there is a much greater amount that is caught in accordance with the applicable rules. We have therefore to find a way of providing some assurance to consumers that the fish they are buying does not belong to the illegal portion of catches. The flag State has an important role to play in this respect. It needs to be able to provide assurance to the port State that the fish landed by its vessels has been caught legally and that it is accounted for against the quotas in force. Furthermore, the introduction of some form of certification could provide a means for following the fish through the marketing chain thereby giving some assurance as to the source of the product. We in the Community recognise that there are some gaps in our legislation which we have to fill but I am sure this is true for others too. I have already alluded to the fact that we have been able to identify certain gaps and that we are now doing something about them. It is my intention, Ladies and Gentlemen, to take positive and proactive action for the Community to develop new and more effective policies to further curb IUU fishing activities. To this end, we are endeavouring to carry out a thorough analysis of our approach to IUU fishing activities and we hope to be able to have the results of this analysis during the next few months. We will then try to draw upon many of the lessons highlighted by the High Seas Task Force as well as the experience we have gained in NEAFC during the last two years. With this in mind, we hope to improve upon the existing Community action plan with a view to eliminating its current deficiencies. In other words we will fully support the efforts of the High Seas Task Force. As a final comment, I would like to draw your attention to some of the important conclusions resulting from the Review Conference of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement which took place in New York at the end of last month. First of all, there was recognition of the need for RFMOs to adopt comprehensive schemes to cover monitoring, control and surveillance as well as compliance and enforcement. It is clear to me that both NAFO and NEAFC are in the forefront in this respect, as they already have adopted comprehensive control schemes in their respective areas. Secondly, it was recognised that regional approaches are the effective way to ensure adequate conservation and management rather than adopting a uniform approach to RFMOs. Thirdly, a specific recommendation was made on the development of regional guidelines for sanctions and for the assessment of flag State compliance. Finally, the Review Conference made an explicit call on States to take all necessary measures to ensure that only fish caught in accordance with relevant conservation and management measures can reach the market. This implies the regulation of transhipments at sea as well as the implementation of appropriate port State schemes. Clearly we will need to further digest the outcome of the Review Conference but it is evident that the message we are receiving on all fronts is the same. I augur that by working together, we can say goodbye once and for all to these illegal and destructive practices. |
|
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 13 June 2006 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|