Implementation of IPOA/IUU - International MCS Network

22The IPOA-IUU and the previous international instruments on which itbuilds reflect the intention of the international community to persuade such flagStates to develop the political will necessary to control the fishing activities oftheir vessels. The adverse economic, social and environmental consequences ofIUU fishing have become too great to allow the status quo to continue. Thoseflag States that, to date, have been unwilling or unable to control their fishingvessels must make special efforts to implement the IPOA-IUU or, at a minimum,to remove the fishing vessels from their registries. 40As noted above, a first step for flag States is to ratify and/or implementthe relevant international instruments that embody the modern norms relating toflag State responsibility, including the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, the1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the Code of Conduct.To assist flag States in the implementation of these norms, the IPOA-IUU sets forth a series of tools under three sub-headings: (1) Fishing VesselRegistration; (2) Record of Fishing Vessels; and (3) Authorization to Fish. Thefollowing sections discuss each in turn.4.1 Fishing Vessel RegistrationIn most situations, the act of registration is the means by which a Stategrants its nationality to a vessel. Once registered, a vessel usually becomesentitled to fly the flag of that State. In other words, the State in whose territorythe vessel is registered becomes the flag State and assumes primaryresponsibility for the vessel vis-à-vis other States.The IPOA-IUU provides that a flag State should ensure, before itregisters a fishing vessel, that it can exercise its responsibility to ensure that thevessel does not engage in IUU fishing.Although a State cannot necessarily predict that a vessel will engage inIUU fishing, the chance that it might do so is probably greater if the vessel hasdone so before. For this reason, the IPOA-IUU strongly discourages States from40 Some positive developments can be reported in this regard. Panama, for example,recently reduced the number of fishing vessels on its register from more than 1,500 toapproximately 100 and has subjected the remaining vessels to monitoring and datareporting requirements. Panama also joined ICCAT in 2000. ICCAT responded by liftingprohibitions on the importation of bluefin tuna and swordfish from Panama that it hadadopted in the mid-to-late 1990s. Honduras, which has also been the subject of ICCATtrade restrictions, joined that RFMO in 2001 and offered evidence that it was takingmeasures to reduce IUU fishing by vessels flying its flag. In 1996, Belize amendedSection 25 of its Registration of Merchant Ships Act to authorize revocation of a vessel’sregistration for certain serious offenses, which could include fisheries offenses.