SPEECH/07/673
Joe Borg
Member of the European Commission
Responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs
"A new approach by the EU against IUU fishing"
Ministerial Conference on IUU fishing
Lisbon, 29 October 2007
Minister Silva,
Colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am delighted to see so many delegations from around the world here in Lisbon to discuss the issue of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fisheries. We have before us, an opportunity to address IUU fishing, one of the most critical forms of environmental and economic crime faced by the international community today. I am most grateful to my colleague Jaime Silva, for making this possible.
IUU fishing essentially refers to fishing activities carried out in contravention of the rules on the conservation and management of fish resources. It ranges from fishing without the required licences or quotas, to misreporting catches or not reporting them at all, through to using prohibited gear or techniques. It also includes irresponsible fishing activities by operators who are registered in States which do not regulate or control the practices of their fishing fleet. This is why IUU fishing is also often commonly referred to as pirate fishing.
You are all aware of the tremendous damage inflicted by IUU fishing on fish stocks, marine biodiversity and fragile ecosystems. Beyond environmental damages, IUU fishing also brings about particular economic hardship to those fishermen who abide by the rules. As a result of IUU fishing, honest fishermen - the world over - face unfair practices from unscrupulous operators who target the same species and markets without a care for the restrictions faced by others. In some coastal regions, in particular in the developing world, IUU fishing can result in such dramatic economic losses that it threatens the very subsistence of the most affected local communities.
The value of IUU fishing worldwide has been estimated to amount to 10 billion EUR a year. This is far more than the value of all landings of fisheries products in the European Union. In some cases, IUU fishing is thought to represent 30% of the value of legal catches around the world and in some developing countries, this is thought to be even higher. Losses resulting from IUU fishing in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, have been estimated at some 800 million EUR each year.
In the current context, where 75% of the world's fish stocks are fully- or over- exploited, the situation is further exacerbated by the fact that stocks which are already subject to overexploitation, like cod or tuna, are often the first to be targeted by IUU operators. They are often the preferred species for pirate fishing as their short supply often means that they can fetch extraordinarily high prices on the open market. This becomes all the more serious, as the continuation of such practices may well bring these over-exploited species to the brink of extinction.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I do not underestimate the significant progress that has been made during the course of the last decade in the fight against IUU fishing. The most noticeable achievements are to be found within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, or RFMOs. While many of those organisations were primarily set up to share information on fishing stocks and to allocate fishing possibilities between their members, their tasks have evolved considerably. The fight against IUU fishing is now at the heart of their activity. Thus, RFMOs have established ambitious measures, comprising: control and inspection schemes, catch reporting systems, trade measures and black lists of IUU fishing vessels. The recent adoption of a port state control scheme by NEAFC, the organisation in charge of the North East Atlantic, has taken this one step further by deterring operators from engaging in IUU fishing via an effective closure of ports of the region to those vessels which can not demonstrate the legality of their catches.
Efforts by RFMOs have been supported, and driven in many cases, by international bodies, like the FAO or the United Nations General Assembly. The EU, too, has played a pivotal role in the adoption and implementation of international standards and it will continue to advocate strong co-operation at an international level to eradicate IUU fishing. Yet, we know that action at an international level is not the only thing that can be done. Within the European Commission, for instance, we have identified important loopholes in our legal and control systems facilitating the continuation of IUU practices. And it is exactly these that we hope to address with the Communication and proposed Regulation on IUU fishing adopted by the Commission earlier this month.
We are fully aware of the fact that IUU fishing will continue to thrive as long as it remains a lucrative business. The EU control system in place nowadays, although much improved, does not still prevent IUU operators from gaining substantial profits from their activities.
In a context where the global demand for fisheries products is ever-increasing, IUU operators have adapted their activities to make full use of the global nature of the industry. They exploit any and every weakness within the current international legal order to facilitate their trade and maximise their ill-gotten gains. Among other things, they register their vessels in states providing flags of non-compliance, which have either no desire or no sufficient means to control the activities of the vessels concerned. They use the cover of offshore companies to escape social and fiscal laws. They trade their products through complex marketing channels, transhipping their catches on the high seas, landing in them so-called ports of convenience and processing them in yet another location before finally exporting them, more often than not, to the attractive markets, not the least in the European Union.
These are skilled operators, knowledgeable in the workings of international trade and on the way to evade surveillance and detection. On the other hand, we are rendered somewhat powerless as international co-operation remains insufficient and control measures weak. It must also be said that the degree of international cooperation is still not commensurate to the damage caused by such practices.
As a result, the need to move towards an integrated approach that addresses the entire supply chain of IUU businesses is widely acknowledged.
This is why the Commission recently proposed a comprehensive approach to IUU fishing, which not only encompasses all fishing and related activities linked to IUU practices but which also addresses the problem at an EU, regional and international level. Our approach builds upon, and to some extent further develops, the most advanced measures already enacted at international and regional levels. It also calls for unilateral action by the EU wherever multilateral initiatives are not yet able to offer an effective remedy.
This approach is structured around four pillars.
The first, and possibly most important, deals with the end destination of IUU fisheries products, namely: the markets. The EU needs to have appropriate mechanisms to close the doors of its markets to products from IUU fishing. This is the cornerstone of our proposal.
The European Union has the largest market and importer of fisheries products in the world. We rely on imports for 60% of our total consumption. This fact alone makes us extremely conscious of our specific responsibility in the fight against IUU fishing and the fact that we cannot allow European territory to be used to 'launder' illegal catches.
Today, I cannot offer sufficient guarantees that this is not happening on European soil. Indeed, some estimates put the volume of illegal fisheries products imported into the European Union each and every year, at approximately 500,000 tons worth of fish or 1.1 billion EUR. While numerous rules are in place to regulate the landings of fisheries products by European vessels, our legal framework is particularly weak when it comes to making sure that imported fisheries products have been caught legally.
Clearly, something needs to be done and must be done urgently. I have every confidence that, if implemented, the measures that we have proposed will go a long way to tackling the scourge of IUU fishing head on.
Thus, all fisheries products imported into the EU - whether fresh, frozen, or processed - would have to receive prior certification, from the flag state of the fishing vessel that did the catch, that the fish have been legally harvested. These catch certificates will have to accompany the fisheries products all along the market chain. This will apply to all fish imports regardless of the way they enter the Community market whether it be from landings in ports, air cargo or trucks or any other means.
The certification system should be accompanied by a stricter 'port state control' regime. Port state inspections must be strengthened within the EU by requiring that a minimum of 15% of all landings, transhipments and onboard processing operations by third-country vessels be inspected. There is no doubt that these two measures would enable Member States to prevent the importation of illegal fisheries products into the EU.
This would represent an important improvement from the current situation. And for those of you who fear that this system could create a disproportionate administrative burden and impede the trade of perfectly legal fisheries products into the Community, allow me to point out that the system we are proposing is largely based on schemes that are already in place in certain RFMOs, particularly those in charge of tuna fisheries. A number of our trade partners are also already familiar with these regimes. Furthermore, what the EU is seeking would be no more than a guarantee by the flag states concerned that the products exported to the EU have been caught in conformity with domestic and international law.
In order to facilitate the implementation of these new checks and balances, we are prepared to launch specific training programmes with our main trading partners, especially those in developing countries, in order to make sure that the proposed system is implemented without undue difficulty. It must be noted, too, that any effort that we require of our trading partners in this field will thankfully also be beneficial for them through a reduction of IUU fishing in their waters.
However, we need to go further. Given that illegal fishing is essentially an international phenomenon, we need to make sure that the trade in IUU products is tackled across the board by encouraging other major markets for fisheries products to adopt a similar approach. The risk that the closure of the EU market would simply result in a diversion of trade flows of IUU products towards other destinations is too real to be ignored.
It is for these reasons that I believe that today's Conference provides us with a welcome opportunity to establish, with you, how exactly this can work. However before I conclude and listen to your views, allow me to look briefly at the three remaining pillars of our strategy against IUU fishing.
We believe that the EU must be given the ability to adopt effective measures against those states which do not live up to their basic responsibilities to conserve and manage fisheries resources under the Law of the Sea. Flag states which turn a blind eye to the illegal activities of their vessels and refuse to co-operate with other countries are as much to blame for IUU fishing practices as the operators themselves. For too long, vessel-owners registered in those states have enjoyed the freedom to plunder marine resources without ever having to be accountable.
The Commission is therefore proposing that the EU be able to list those states offering flags of non-compliance. Moreover, in addition to the states, the fishing vessels that blatantly disregard basic fisheries rules would also be black-listed. Such a listing would trigger an array of measures prohibiting those concerned from maintaining economic links with Community operators. The most noticeable of these would be a ban on the imports of fisheries products originating from those states or vessels.
It is, naturally, of the utmost importance for the Commission, that the adoption of such measures be based on objective criteria and according to a fair and transparent procedure. The re is no intention here, to take any kind of arbitrary or unduly protective measure, which could hurt those who have not been involved in IUU activities.
We are equally conscious of the fact that this initiative would be meaningless if it did not contain a clear message that the fight against illegal fishing must start in our waters and therefore apply fully to our own vessels. While EU waters are regulated, this does not mean that illegal practices do not occur therein. I acknowledge that there may be loopholes and weaknesses in our control and compliance system which may require us to update our legislation. However, I believe that it is not a lack of legislation that hampers our efforts but rather a lack of implementation of the existing rules. And it is primarily the EU Member States that must ensure Community law is properly enforced.
This is the main thrust of the third pillar of our proposal. We aim to strengthen the ability of Member States to impose sanctions on their own nationals when caught engaging in, or supporting, IUU fishing. Our new approach lays down measures which will harmonise the maximum sanctions that can be applied by Member States in relation to serious infringements of the rules of the CFP.
Here again, the basic premise of our approach is to deprive illegal operators of the possibility to obtain profits from this illicit activity. As long as sanctions can be regarded as part of normal operating costs, operators will continue to engage in IUU activities. We have therefore proposed a substantial increase in the fines applicable across the board with a view to deterring IUU operators from continuing their illegal activity. The idea is that the sanctions should ensure that any economic advantages to be gained from illegal fishing will be more than offset by the penalties involved.
Finally, I would like to emphasise our belief in enhanced cooperation at international and regional levels. This is, in fact, the fourth pillar of our initiative.
We have often been at the forefront with respect to the establishment and strengthening of RFMOs all over the world. We will continue this work, pressing for the adoption of comprehensive and strong action against IUU operators in those arenas. Moreover, we are involved in the creation and running of networks dedicated to the exchange of information and intelligence on fishing activities with a view to better the enforcement of international rules. This is a further axis which we will continue to pursue.
What is new is our determination to make more of our policies aimed at those coastal countries in the developing world which need support to improve the management and control of their waters. This will not involve a departure from the multilateral approach in any way. What we hope for is to steer and reinforce existing international co-operation via the formulation of ambitious and bold proposals.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is not the first international conference on IUU fishing and I hope that it will not be the last. Whereas discussions in the past have been useful to raise awareness of the burning need to tackle this problem head-on, I hope that today’s Conference will bring us to resolutely focus on the means at our disposal to gradually eliminate the scourge of IUU fishing. I augur that, by focusing on instruments to address the trade dimension, we have now come up with a proposal that will deliver what we need – the eradication of pirate fishing.
The fact that we are gathered here today already shows that there is a strong commitment to address this common challenge. I hope that the months and years ahead will see us translate this willingness into concrete and decisive results. I look forward to working with you on this important task.
Thank you.
1