By pierre Delval
Fishing remains for billions of people around the world a major resource in terms of food, nutrition and livelihoods. Nearly 170 million tonnes of aquatic products have been harvested each year since 2015. In other words, every second 5400 kg of seafood is extracted from the oceans or in wild fisheries by 4.6 million vessels, or in aquaculture. The annual turnover of the sector represents about 218 billion dollars and confirms, despite the overexploitation of species, an upward trend. Experts, international organizations, companies in the sector, civil society, all underline the essential contribution that the oceans make. All ensure that they will provide one of the major sources of food security and nutrition for the world’s ever-growing population. Yet, according to data from the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 70% of marine biomass is overexploited, to the point of not being able to regenerate in time. 30% of the fish populations are only 10% of their reproductive capacity. Of the 9,000 to 10,000 tons of fish we catch per hour, almost half is wasted! However, nearly ten billion people will have to be fed in 2050. Yes, but here is the code of conduct for responsible fishing adopted in 1995 at the FAO conference is not respected. And despite the 2001 Action Plan against Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Illegal Fishing, which came into effect on June 5, 2016, the seas continue to be stolen in proportions that defy any logic of safeguarding humanity. 26 million tonnes of fish are illegally caught each year, more than 15% of the world’s total capture fisheries. In addition to economic damage, these practices lead biodiversity and food security to loss.
As you can see, IUU fishing is a global phenomenon for all types of fisheries, both in coastal waters and on the high seas. Thousands of trawlers carrying flags of convenience or without flags are constantly traveling the oceans. Many come from the dismantled fleet of the former USSR, but also from Asia, and sometimes from Europe. Often hidden in authorized and sold fishing stocks mixed with legally distributed seafood, IUU fishing is particularly difficult to trace, becoming by nature a target of choice for mafia organizations. And for good reason, the profits of the INDNR fishing would bring back them between 10 and 20 billion dollars a year.
Among the offenses identified, the fishing crime (fish) is undoubtedly one of the most significant environmental crimes in recent years. We would thus be faced with a practice in which the risk-benefit ratio is particularly profitable as a result of the virtual absence of dissuasive repression in the countries that suffer from it, since they do not have, or do not give themselves real means of reacting and sanctioning this “piracy” of a new kind that we will call “INDNR” piracy.
To better understand the phenomenon, the contours of this illegal traffic should first be defined. Broadly speaking, fishing crime is an activity that violates fisheries laws or that is outside the scope of the laws and regulations in this area. On a smaller scale, illegal fishing is practiced by national or foreign vessels in the territorial waters of a State, without the latter’s authorization or contrary to the laws and regulations of that State. This is how we see illegal fishing in many forms: unlicensed fishing, that practiced in restricted areas or marine protected areas (MPAs), that practiced with gear or equipment banned as most recently in the EU with electrified nets (being negotiated between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission for a total and irreversible ban on the practice), that exceeding quotas or that of prohibited species.
And the examples of recent months, particularly in Africa, are not lacking. In June 2017, seven Chinese trawlers 30 to 40 meters were boarded by the Senegalese navy while fishing, without authorization, off Casamance. Also during this same period, the action of Greenpeace, in coordination with the fisheries services of Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, allows the seizure of 11 vessels practicing illegal fishing on 37 inspected. Offenses were numerous: shark finning, incorrect mesh sizes, transshipment at sea, lack of documentation and fishing practices outside the authorized area. The current situation in West Africa is the result not only of decades of overfishing, but also of inaction and failure to fulfill the commitments made by the governments of the West African states concerned. This observation, confirmed by all, draws its sources from the latest combined reports of 2017 from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) – a British think tank specializing in development – and por-Causa – a Spanish journalism organization. investigation. For the latter, countries such as Senegal, Sierra Leone and Mauritania are experiencing a dramatic situation with the raking of their coast by trawlers from afar, including South Korea. This perfectly illegal fishery already represented a shortfall for Senegal of $ 300 million in 2012, or 2% at the time of its GDP. That same year, Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries on the planet, lost $ 29 million. The opacity of fisheries agreements between West African governments and their trading partners, the limited capacity of the patrols and legal loopholes to the arrival of these fish in Europe contributed to this situation. Today, nothing has changed significantly and the situation is worsening on the west coast of the continent. Illegal shipments, representing up to 44% of West African exports, are thus transported in giant refrigerated containers and mixed with other goods of the same category to escape European controls.
On 15 November 2017, the African Charter on Maritime Safety and Security and Development in Africa was adopted in Lomé. This charter had raised serious hopes for a more effective fight against IUU fishing. 18 months later, it is clear that priority was given to safety, relegating IUGR to the background. The declarations before Lomé announced an innovative text taking equitably into account all the questions related to the maritime domain. In the analysis of this text, it is well realized that the issues related to maritime safety prevailed over the fight against IUU fishing and that articles related to the latter subject are only a pale copy of the action plan of the IUU fishing. FAO 2001, the vagueness moreover. According to the provisions of the Charter, “each State shall take appropriate measures to effectively combat IUU fishing activities within its national jurisdiction and to take appropriate legal measures to prosecute IUU fishing authors”. The action plan, developed 17 years earlier, goes much further than the charter by listing the appropriate measures that each state must put in place. This charter also seems to be inspired by the Montego Bay Convention adopted in 1982, even though the latter was part of a much more general framework. The 1982 text left each coastal State with the choice of defining laws and regulations (compatible with the Convention) setting out the different modalities to be respected within the framework of its national jurisdiction. Thus, article 26 of the charter of Lome certainly fits into the dynamics of the founding texts of 1982 and 2001, but remains much less precise.
Nevertheless, and in good faith, it would be appropriate to recognize the difficulties that the question of State sovereignty in environmental law and, more generally, in international law may pose. Indeed, very attached to their legitimate independence, the States often have difficulty to accept the collective solutions, effectively putting their territorial competences out of the transnational, yet benevolent dimension. Hence the tendency for individual solutions that are more respectful of sovereignty, but so ineffective when it comes to maritime areas without borders. The decision to leave poorly equipped states the option of adopting their often-too-limited measures only reinforces inefficient “maritime sovereignty”, further impeding collective action. It would seem more judicious to frame this freedom of choice by an obligation of harmonization and coordination at the regional level. For example, the African Union (AU) could, for example, define common standards to which national measures would conform. Thus, the “unfinished” aspect of this charter of Lome can not be the expected political tool. IUU fishing being a real threat, it is through two parallel actions that the national leaders should rather apprehend the fight against this scourge: the strengthening of existing means and the development of a legal framework of better adapted regulation. Here is our decryption.
At first, it seems desirable to improve the cooperation already existing between African States first, and between African States and the rest of the world afterwards. Take inspiration from the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) to develop a control approach based on the establishment of a legal framework that meets the requirements of international law and the development of an integrated approach based on collaboration, coordination of actions and the pooling of resources, would avoid unnecessary waste of time. In a second step, the financial aspect being the reason generally invoked by African countries to justify the limited implementation of the conventions, it would be wise to think about the creation of a special fund managed by the AU dedicated exclusively to the fight against IUU fishing.
Beyond these suggestions aimed at achieving implementation of the various existing texts, other avenues can also be explored with a view to achieving a more effective fight against this alarming situation in Africa. The tone seems to be given with the entry into force on 5 June 2016 of the Port State Measures Agreement. This agreement mentioned in the introduction to our column is the first global legal instrument directly dedicated to the fight against IUU fishing. What are African states waiting for to implement it? Implementing already existing conventions in this area is clearly the top priority, pending more specific and better adapted texts in the very near future. Perhaps we will thus believe in a collegiate approach that would finally protect the African maritime space acts of piracy “INDNR”! Nicolas Hulot said “ecology is not an option”, the fight against illegal fishing no more.