Slipping through the net

It’s discussed a lot in seafood circles about how illegal, unreported and unregulated – or IUU – fishing ranks amongst the greatest threats to marine ecosystems and the sustainability of fisheries. Incentivised by the unprecedented demand for seafood, the global value of IUU fishing is estimated to be somewhere between US$10 and 23 billion annually, involving some 11 to 26 million tonnes of fish, which in turn equates to up to 19% of the overall reported catch. This comes at a time when 94% of global fish stocks are either fully-exploited or over-exploited.

One of the most lucrative destinations for IUU operators is the biggest seafood market of all, the European Union. Its legal imports of €23 billion worth of non-EU seafood accounts for around 34% of the world’s total trade, with a lot more besides entering via unscrupulous backdoors.

While the bloc and its member states have put measures in place to keep illegal fishing in check, significant differences in the way checks and sanctions are applied across the region mean they are far from as effective as they should be, finds a new special report published by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) at the request of European Parliament.

Delivering the analysis, Eva Lindström, the ECA member who led the sector audit, conceded that despite the EU’s current control systems, including the catch certification scheme that was set up in 2008 to guarantee the legality of imported fishery products, “they keep ending up on EU citizens’ plates”.

Undermined

Covering the period 2014-2020, ECA’s audit focused on the effectiveness of control systems for preventing imports of illegal fishery products and on the effectiveness of member states’ control systems for checking national fleets and waters. Among its findings, ECA determined the catch certification scheme had improved traceability and reinforced import control, but that its effectiveness was being undermined by the differences in the scope and quality of checks conducted on imports, while the lack of digitalisation has also reduced its efficiency and increased the risk of fraud.

“It’s important that checks are robust enough to prevent control shopping, whereby export operators exploit the weakest link and try to slip through the net by importing to the country with the weakest controls,” Lindström said.

While the auditors have not compiled a “name and shame list”, the Commission has generated an action plan that has determined at least 16 member states need to step-up when it comes to fishery controls, she added.

The report is therefore recommending that the European Commission should monitor that member states reinforce their control systems for preventing illegal fishery product imports and ensure that they apply dissuasive sanctions against illegal fishing both in EU waters and beyond.

Digitalisation

A big part of the problem, ECA believes, is that the scheme is paper-based, which brings an increased risk of fraud. Whereas a single electronic database at EU level would be more effective and provide the platform for improved information sharing, it says.

“It’s important that all member states do step-up and digitalise controls in ways that are much more advanced than today, and also that they share information,” Lindström said.

She also highlighted that the European Commission has already the developed EU-wide IT system CATCH to help detect fraud and to automate controls. But despite being available since 2019, no member state has used it because its implementation is on a voluntary basis while a handful of countries have developed their own systems.

The Commission has proposed to make the use of the IT system mandatory – a move that ECA supports. But there remains a reluctance for member states to do so, despite the concerns of EU citizens, Lindström conceded.

“The proposal has been on the table and debated for several years now, and it’s very much up to the legislators to take the step because no chain is stronger than its weakest link. That’s why it’s so important that member states comply and have these controls.”

Infringements

With member states responsible for checking the fishing activities of their flagged fleets and in their waters, the auditors found that national checks often detected instances of illegal fishing. Between 2015 and 2019, some 345,510 inspections were conducted in EU waters and on the fleet, with 13% identifying at least one suspected infringement and 6% finding at least one suspected serious infringement. In total, member states reported 69,400 infringements during this period.

“This demonstrates that these checks are useful but also that non-compliance remains an issue in EU fisheries,” Lindström said.

But not all member states have effective control systems, she stressed, with over 76% of the infringements detected by just three member states: Italy (46%), Greece (11%) and Spain (8%); and the now non-EU United Kingdom (12%).

“This is a clear sign that these countries have more advanced control systems because we have no indications that there should be more infringements in these areas. I think that’s something for the other EU countries and the Commission to look at and learn from.”

With regards to the sanctioning system, the auditors noted the vast majority of serious infringements detected led to an investigation or prosecution. That said, the audit found the playing field across the EU wasn’t level, whereby the average fine imposed for a similar infringement ranged from around €200 in Cyprus, Lithuania, and Estonia to more than €7,000 in Spain.

The report also determines that in some member states, sanctions are not dissuasive enough to deter illegal fishing, simply because they aren’t proportionate to the economic benefit derived from the infringements. The auditors are therefore recommending that the Commission should work on the uniform and effective application of a dissuasive sanctioning system, as well as a harmonised penalty-point system across member states.

Loophole

Beyond European waters, the report deems that the EU’s yellow and red carding system for third-countries exporting to the region, part of its IUU Regulation, has proven useful, but that it mainly impacts countries with only minimal EU fish trade.

Of the 27 procedures initiated since 2012, six have resulted in a red card, whereby member states must reject all imports of fishery products from that country’s vessels. Three of these countries have since been delisted.

ECA advises that while pre-identification (a yellow card) doesn’t involve any sanctions, the warning is generally sufficient to spark relevant reforms. Indeed, since launching the system, 14 yellow cards were lifted after one to four years following significant reforms in the countries concerned.

Nevertheless, it’s also identified that a loophole exists with there being no international legal basis to prevent the reflagging of a fishing vessel, nor to prevent third-country vessels from operating in the exclusive economic zone of carded countries. As such, vessels flagged by a non-cooperating flag state can reflag elsewhere, and third-country vessels can still operate in that country’s exclusive economic zone. In both cases, their certified catches can be legally exported to the EU.

“When it comes to what ends up on the consumers’ plates, we really do have to rely on the control systems – both in terms of import controls and also what comes from fleets in the EU,” Lindström said. “In the EU, we have a control system in place to make it harder for illegal fish products to reach consumers, but some improvements are needed to make it stronger. It’s clear we need to tighten the net to end illegal fishing.”