Parliament adopted a non-binding report on the proposal for a regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. MEPs adopted several amendments concerning the Community list of IUU fishing vessels, the inspections to be carried out and the sanctions and other measures to be imposed by Member States. The report was adopted with 624 votes in favour, 12 against and 8 abstentions.
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a serious and growing problem worldwide. In certain fisheries, such as bluefin tuna and cod, the percentage of IUU fish is very high, sometimes as much as half of the total catch or even more. Among the most important IUU fishery scandals in recent years are bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, cod in the Barents and Baltic Seas and Patagonian toothfish.
According to the rapporteur, Marie-Hélène AUBERT (Greens/EFA, FR), the proposal establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing “deserves the full support of Parliament, for it is to a significant extent based upon the demands that Parliament itself has made” on its report on the implementation of the EU action plan against IUU fishing, from 15 February 2007.
“If the proposal is adopted in its present form, it would put the Community at the forefront of international efforts to eliminate IUU fishing and in a position to put pressure on States which continue to allow IUU fishing by their vessels. Considering the Community’s prominence as one of the largest fishing powers and the largest market in the world, the EU has a clear responsibility to be at the forefront”, she says.
The essential elements of the proposal consist of:
• the creation of a list of vessels (both EU-flagged and non-EU) that are involved in IUU fishing;
• a scheme of port state control that would prohibit access by third country IUU vessels;
• a ban on the importation of IUU fish, by requiring certification by the flag state that the fish is legal;
• the development of a Community Alert System when there is a suspicion that IUU fish has been detected;
• prohibition of importing fish from countries that have been identified as not cooperating with the EU scheme;
• provisions detailing what actions are to be taken in each of the above situations.
There is also a need to ensure full compatibility between this proposal and the “Control Regulation”, which is to be the subject of a new proposal for regulation in October.
The scope of the regulation and the IUU list
As far as the scope of the regulation goes, the question is whether the regulation should also apply to EU-flagged vessels or only to the vessels of third countries.
Marie-Hélène AUBERT believes that “if the provisions of the IUU regulation are not applicable to EU vessels, then it will be claimed, with justification, that the EU allows itself the privilege of conducting IUU fishing while it criticises others”.
“The Community must apply the same rules to its own vessels and operators that it applies to others. Member States and parts of the industry argue that EU vessels are already regulated under the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), so they are fundamentally different from vessels from other countries. This is equivalent to saying we are better than everybody else. This position is not valid”, she argues.
According to the European Parliament, in addition to the owner and operator, the flag state must also be informed that one of its vessels is to be included in the European Community IUU vessel list, especially since it will then be required to take measures in this regard.
The IUU vessels list and the list of non-cooperating states should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, says the Hosue. This will ensure that the list can be found in a specific official publication.
Furthermore, where one of an owner’s vessels has been included in an IUU list, a detailed inspection shall be carried out on all that owner’s vessels.
Member States shall refuse to allow the export of a vessel flying their flag that is on the IUU list and may not under any circumstances grant support or subsidies to IUU vessels, MEPs propose to add.
Access to ports of Member States, the provision of port services, and the conduct of landing, transhipment or on-board processing operations in such ports shall be prohibited for third country fishing vessels that are included on the Community list of IUU fishing vessels. The report also states that Member States shall carry out inspections in their ports “of at least 50% of landings, transhipments and on-board processing operations by third country fishing vessels each year”, while the Commission proposes of at least 15% of landings.
The catch certificate
The catch certificate, which would allow for a better traceability of the fish product, must continue to be a pillar of the regulation, “otherwise the entire scheme will be merely cosmetic and have no serious impact on IUU fishing”, says the rapporteur.
“It has been described as too complex, but fishing in today’s globalised world is a very complex business, with fish travelling all around the world between the time it is caught and the final sale to the consumer. Passing through multiple borders, ports and airports offers many opportunities to mix legal and illegal fish, in effect laundering the IUU fish. An effective and comprehensive system of traceability is essential to minimise amount of fish laundering that occurs”, she adds.
Penalties must be dissuasive enough
At present, sanctions applied by the various Member States differ widely and both the Commission and the Court of Auditors have noted that the fines are not dissuasive. The European Parliament has also long called for harmonized penalties, sufficient to be dissuasive, instead of a simple “cost of doing business”.
Since IUU vessels tend to concentrate on the most lucrative fisheries (bluefin tuna, cod) it is necessary that sanctions can be imposed that are high enough to be dissuasive.
The European Parliament agrees that the “administrative sanctions” should include fines of a maximum of at least €300,000 for natural persons and of at least €500,000 for legal persons, adding that “Member States may also opt for penal sanctions provided that the amount of such sanctions is at least equivalent to that of the administrative sanctions”.
The sanctions shall be accompanied by other sanctions or measures, in particular “a temporary ban for at least the duration of the programming period, or a permanent ban on access to public aid or subsidies”, or “the repayment of public aid or subsidies received by IUU vessels during the relevant financial period”.
During the first year following the entry into force of this regulation, six-monthly checks shall be carried out to determine Member States’ preparedness fully to comply with its provisions. Should any instances of non-compliance be identified, the Member State(s) concerned shall be required to make the necessary adjustments, says the European Parliament.
Impact on developing countries
MEPs also add that the Commission shall, within three months of the entry into force of this regulation, publish an analysis of its probable impact on developing countries and a proposal for the funding of specific programmes to support its implementation and eliminate possible negative impacts.
