A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Association of Fish Processors were <strong>report</strong>edas confirming large scale catching and trading inillegal cod.The article <strong>report</strong>s that the lack of inspection,the large number of licensed fish buyers and thenumerous places where the first sale of fish ispossible make it easy for fishermen to land un<strong>report</strong>edcod and for illegal fish to enter the supplychain – as much as 80% of the cod that goes toprocessors is claimed to be illegal.Comparisons of the 2004 Polish cod quota andthe export of Polish cod products were used toshow apparent discrepancies: 16,000 tonnes codquota v 52,000 tonnes of exported cod products,which could equate to as much as 70,000–100,000 tonnes of whole cod.Apparently, attempts to establish larger stateowned auctions have had limited success andare not profitable as the supply of legal fish islimited. The Chairman of one of these auctions is<strong>report</strong>ed as saying that EU money has been madeavailable to support the building these large auctionsbut they are not profitable because of lowquotas and their inability to trade in illegal fish.While Poland and Sweden were given particularmention, according to a representative from theSea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia, all countriesexceed their national cod quotas. He also proposesthat a considerable increase in the quotabut with longer closed seasons is a solution tothe problem.The Chairman of the Fishermen’s Associationis <strong>report</strong>ed as blaming inadequate quotas as thereason for illegal fishing. He says that fishermenknow that there is more fish in the sea. He isalso <strong>report</strong>ed as saying that fishermen only catchmature fish and highlights that small mesh industrialfishing carried out mainly by the Danes andSwedes catches everything.Comment and analysisIf this newspaper article is accurate and theindividuals have not been mis-represented, thenit is a scathing self-analysis and admission of theillegal fishing problem in Poland.Comparing exports with the annual nationalquota to provide an estimate of un<strong>report</strong>edfishing may be misleading. It does not take intoaccount the significant quantities of cod that areimported into Poland (see table 3 above).The article seems to suggest that the state-ownedauctions restrict the sale of illegal fish. Whilethe consequence of this may be to compromisetheir ability to compete with other auctions, itdoes raise the question as to how they are able toachieve this.Personal perspectives and opinions on IUUfishing for cod in the Baltic SeaA series of informal meetings with individualswith an active interest in Baltic Sea fisheriestook place throughout the course of the project.Fishermen/fishermen’s representatives, fish processors,fisheries inspectors and fisheries scientistswere targeted as they were considered likely toknow most about the IUU fishing problem. Anumber of individuals within environmental nongovernmentalorganisations (ENGOs) with eitherexperience of working with IUU and/or BalticSea fisheries issues were also contacted, as were anumber of academics that had previously conductedresearch on Baltic Sea fisheries. Latterly, ameeting was held with investigative TV journalistswho had undertaken work on IUU fishing inthe Baltic Sea and, more recently, the Barents Sea.MethodologyIn preparation for these interviews, the literatureand Internet search described above enabled aprofile of each of the EU Member States’ andthe Russian Federation’s fishing industries tobe drafted and provided an important sourceof background information. These profiles arepresented in Annex I.A list of general and more specific questions, thelatter being tailored to particular target groups,was prepared and formed the basis of an informalinterview. Depending on the answers to thesequestions, supplementary questions were asked.It should noted that the questions were not partof any analytical framework that allowed forobjective analysis and conclusions to be drawn;rather, it was purely a subjective process but onethat was considered to provide better understandingof the IUU fishing problem.Face-to-face interviews, phone interviews andwritten responses through email correspondence– 14 –
were all used. Face-to-face interviews were thepreferred and most common option. The interviewslasted anywhere from 1–4½ hours, thelength of time largely determined by the participants’time constraints. The majority of meetingswere one-to-one, but as many as six people wereinvolved in any one interview.In total, 80 people were contacted, includingrepresentatives from all the Baltic Member Statesand the Russian Federation. Of these, 52 wereable or willing to provide a response to some orall of the questions. All participants were assuredthat any information or views that theyexpressed would be non-attributable.It should be noted that of the three key groupsthat were initially identified, fishermen and/orfishermen’s representatives were comparativelyunder-represented. This was mainly a result oflanguage barriers.Describing the IUU fishing problemFrom the responses received it was possible todraw up a list of IUU fishing activities for cod(see Table 4). Participants that were able to providemore detailed information on these activitiessuggested that they were likely to be moreprevalent at different times of the year, from yearto year and within certain fleet sectors, such astrawl and gillnet fisheries. For example, withthe uptake of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC),tighter quota restrictions would likely lead toincreases in unrecorded landings; area closureswould coincide with apparent failures in VMS;and, a strong year class entering the fishery couldresult in increased landings of undersized cod,particularly in trawl fisheries owing to the less effectivesize selectivity of this gear and/or deliberaterigging to reduce mesh size.Table 4. A list of the IUU fishing activities associated with the BalticSea cod fishery described in interviewsIUU fishing activity1. Un<strong>report</strong>ed landing2. Mis-recorded landing3. Tampering with Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)4. Trans-shipment5. Late return of logsheet and landing declaration6. Fishing in closed areas7. Landing undersized cod8. Small mesh size or illegal rigging of gear9. “Targeted” bycatch10. Exceeding 48 hour soak time for gillnets11. Fishing without a special permitThe following section provides information oneach IUU activity and is based upon views andinformation that was provided by participants.Un<strong>report</strong>ed landingsWithout exception, un<strong>report</strong>ed landings wereconsidered to be the most serious IUU fishing activityowing to the scale and likely consequencesfor the long-term sustainability of the EasternBaltic cod stock. All Member States were implicatedbut responses suggest that the top threeoffenders are those with the “lion-share” of theTAC: Denmark, Sweden and Poland.In the course of interviews, the majority of participantswho were willing to estimate the likelyquantities of un<strong>report</strong>ed landings suggested that45–60% more cod was landed than <strong>report</strong>ed.Those that expressed a view said that the onlysure way of reducing this problem is to inspect asignificant proportion of all the cod landings.Measures designed to reduce the likelihood ofun<strong>report</strong>ed landings, such as designated ports,were considered to be limited - large ports canprovide for many landing sites and so make itdifficult for inspectors to cover all possible options.Specific points and times for landing wererecommended as possible improvements.In Denmark and Sweden (and quite likely inother countries too), avoiding inspection resultsin a “cat and mouse” game between skippers andinspectors. Some fishermen have their own countermeasures and tactics to ensure their landingsare less likely to be inspected. It is relatively easyto have “look-outs” in ports and harbours, outsideoffices and even the homes of inspectors toforewarn of any likely inspection activity. Mobilephone scanners may also be used to monitor conversationsbetween inspectors.In Poland, the likelihood of inspection has beenlow. As a result, fishermen have not needed tobe as organised or sophisticated in their avoidancetactics. The lack of manpower in the threeregional fisheries inspectorates, combined withlimited resources (e.g., mobile phones have onlybeen made available to them in the last year orso), has meant that effective and coordinatedinspection has been difficult.The reality of fisheries inspectors living within– 15 –
Page 1 and 2: A report on IUUfis
Page 3 and 4: A report on IUUfis
Page 5 and 6: Part II 21Policy and regulatory fra
Page 7: Executive summaryThe cod fisheries
Page 10 and 11: Part IDescribing and quantifying IU
Page 12 and 13: which it has undermined their abili
Page 16 and 17: or close to fishing communities was
Page 18 and 19: Fishing in closed areasEU fisheries
Page 20 and 21: the fishing industry and, therefore
Page 22 and 23: very active on the issue and, at th
Page 24 and 25: that were adopted within the IBSFC
Page 26 and 27: Table 5. An analysis of the 11 Poin
Page 28 and 29: Action Point and its Aim6. Working
Page 30 and 31: failings in the process (see page 3
Page 32 and 33: of cod and hake. The Commission wil
Page 34 and 35: adopted in the North Sea, the Balti
Page 36 and 37: Table 6 Showing the indicators used
Page 38 and 39: Policy areas Policy theme Indicator
Page 40 and 41: Table 7. The list of types of behav
Page 42 and 43: of this Regulation is to streamline
Page 44 and 45: appeared to bear out that significa
Page 46 and 47: General headings/Sub-headingsDetail
Page 48 and 49: Notes1ICES. 2005. Report of the Bal
Page 50 and 51: ReferencesAnderson, J.L., 2002. Rea
Page 52 and 53: DENMARKThe Baltic is the third most
Page 54 and 55: highest allowable level of dioxin i
Page 56 and 57: duction are Iceland, Norway, Japan
Page 58 and 59: The processing sectorAt the beginni
Page 60 and 61: Annex IIMembers of the Administrati
Page 62 and 63: Annex IVSummary of the European Com
Page 64 and 65:
Department of Fisheries and Game (k
Page 66 and 67:
InspectionsThe Fisheries Control De
Page 68 and 69:
this was to exceed the maximum, the
Page 70 and 71:
Theme/ PolicyareaInspection andcont
show all

A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?