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

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 –