LETTERS: The international community has acknowledged illegal fishing with a specific term, IUU fishing.
IUU stands for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Historically, Indonesia has experienced high levels of IUU fishing from foreign fleets.
In late 2014, seeking to curtail those activities, the country implemented tough and controversial policies that resulted in the sinking of illegal fishing boats (296 foreign flagged), banning of all foreign owned and foreign-made boats from fishing in Indonesia, and restriction of transfers of fish at sea.
Data shows that 90 per cent of illegal fishing has been reduced since this programme’s implementation.
President Joko Widodo issued a presidential regulation to eradicate illegal fishing in Indonesia and set up a task force. This was a response from the country toward years of illegal fishing conducted in Indonesian territory and millions of dollars in losses from this activity.
However, the presidential regulation only covered illegal and unreported fishing. Articles 1 and 2 of the presidential regulation explicitly mentioned these two activities.
This raises the question of why such regulation does not cover unregulated fishing as one of the activities that must be tackled by the task force.
The International Plan of Action (IPOA) by the Food and Agriculture Organisation stipulates in paragraph 3.3 of the IPOA that unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities in the area of application or a relevant regional fisheries management organisation by vessels without nationality, by a flag that is not a party to that regional organisation, or by a fishing entity in a manner that is not consistent with the conservation and management measures of that organisation.
It includes the fishing activities in the area where there are no regulations on the conservation or management measures about the catch and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with state responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law.
One notable example of unregulated fishing is when there is a fishing activity in the area that is regulated by the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs).
RFMOs as the embodiment of the Fish Stocks Agreement have the right to manage conservation and manage measures of their designated area including the management of catch allocation of such area among its member states in the high seas.
Currently, Indonesia is a member of some RFMOs such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries.
The Indonesian authorities, as a member of RFMOs, is obliged to implement Conventions and Management Measures of those RFMOs at specific levels of national jurisdictions, particularly the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). From this point, Indonesia should monitor every fishing vessel registered under Indonesian flag when they access fishery resources in RFMOs area.
As stated by Article 19 of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement, Indonesia has a duty to ensure immediate investigation of any violation and to report the findings of that investigation to the relevant RFMO.
For the sake of the long-term sustainability goals, the task force should duly reckon any fishing activities beyond national jurisdiction, in particular the RFMO fishing area where Indonesia is not registered as a member, as this situation may lead to unregulated fishing.
Although unregulated fishing is not in fact illegal under Indonesian law as it is notlisted as a member of certain RFMOs, it is nonetheless problematic. It results in additional fish being caught over and above the maximum catches agreed by RFMO member states for their respective regions. As a result, fully exploited stocks can easily become over-exploited.
Furthermore, IUU fishermen often ignore the existence of marine-protected areas established by the RFMOs to support the recovery of such overexploited stocks.
There should be such constructive joint action works in RFMO fishing areas in which appropriate measures and sanctions against IUU vessels would be imposed, since unregulated fishing is subject to effective actions taken by RFMOs and the flag state.
Most RFMOs use lists of IUU fishing vessels to apply sanctions for non-compliance. Well-handled and easily accessible lists of IUU vessels tend to serve as a simple tool to publicly discredit vessels involved in illegal fishing operations.
Further, the IUU list can be a powerful instrument for prioritising inspections, facilitating arrests and condemning vessels involved in IUU fishing activities.
From this point, listing a vessel in an IUU vessel list implies a clear obligation for Indonesia as a flag state to institute legal proceedings, impose adequate sanctions and report to the RFMO on the steps taken to investigate and eliminate the relevant IUU activities.
Indonesia’s remarkable policy to sink illegal foreign vessels to combat IUU fishing seems likely more concerned in any form of violation regarding the absence of licence to catch and carry fish resources conducted within territorial waters.
Although putting an end to IUU fishing is a daunting challenge, nevertheless, when it comes to fisheries, this resource is moving beyond territorial waters.
The enforcement of IUU fishing beyond national jurisdiction still indicates unconnected actions for Indonesia, if the old fashioned view continues to apply which has emphasised the role of RFMOs with regard to high seas fisheries.
RACHMA INDRIYANI - Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
FACHRY HASANI HABIB - Uthrect University, Public International Law, the Netherlands
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times.