Illegal Fishing Is a Global Threat. Here’s How to Combat It.

Illegal Fishing Is a Global Threat. Here’s How to Combat It.

Chinese fishing boats band together to thwart an attempt by Korea Coast Guard ships to stop alleged illegal fishing in the Yellow Sea.
Chinese fishing boats band together to thwart an attempt by Korea Coast Guard ships to stop alleged illegal fishing in the Yellow Sea. Park Young-Chul/AFP/Getty Images

Fishing provides a critical source of food and income for many countries, but much of it occurs unlawfully, harming vulnerable populations and eroding maritime governance.  

June 4, 2021 1:06 pm (EST)

Chinese fishing boats band together to thwart an attempt by Korea Coast Guard ships to stop alleged illegal fishing in the Yellow Sea.
Chinese fishing boats band together to thwart an attempt by Korea Coast Guard ships to stop alleged illegal fishing in the Yellow Sea. Park Young-Chul/AFP/Getty Images
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing—known as IUU fishing—is a global scourge. Carried out by malicious actors in the shadows of the world’s oceans, it can devastate ecosystems, degrade food stocks, and undermine fragile fishing economies. A broad network of international partners, including U.S. civilian and military agencies, should work to eradicate this threat to the world’s shared prosperity.

What is IUU fishing?

More From Our Experts

Illegal fishing refers to fishing activities in contravention of applicable laws and regulations. Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities that are not reported or are misreported to relevant authorities. And unregulated fishing is done by vessels without nationality or that are not regulated by their flag state, the country in which a vessel is registered. It also occurs when vessels fish in areas or for stocks for which there are no applicable conservation or management measures.

Where is it happening?

More on:

International Law

Oceans and Seas

Global Commons

United States

IUU fishing is a global problem, occurring in the South China Sea, off the west coast of Africa (where estimates put illegal catch at 40 percent), off both coasts of South America, in the eastern Indian Ocean, throughout Oceania, and around Antarctica. According to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime’s IUU Fishing Index, which benchmarks countries’ vulnerability to, prevalence of, and response to IUU fishing, four of the top five worst-scoring countries are in Southeast Asia. China tops the list, and Russia is the sole non–Southeast Asian country, at number four.

In one particularly egregious example last year, a fleet of 350 Chinese vessels was observed conducting predatory high seas fishing around Ecuador’s Galapagos Islands, a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site. The fleet was targeting squid and scooping up other valuable and vulnerable marine life. Locals sounded the alarm, fearing the vessels were depleting fish populations, hurting the livelihoods of small-scale fishermen in the islands, and devastating the sensitive ecosystem. Ecuador called for help, and the U.S. Coast Guard deployed a national security cutter to help patrol the area.

What are the concerns?

IUU fishing threatens ocean ecosystems, including sustainable fisheries, which are critical to global food security, and it puts those that abide by the law in the United States and abroad at a disadvantage. In 2020, the U.S. Coast Guard said that IUU fishing has replaced piracy as the leading global maritime security threat. It is estimated that up to one in every five fish caught around the world is obtained through IUU fishing, representing about a $23 billion annual loss for the legal fishing industry. And, in large part, the poorest countries in the world, which depend on fisheries for food and livelihoods, are hit the hardest.

More From Our Experts

Fish is an essential protein source for over 40 percent of the global population. IUU fishing can decimate fish stocks, undermining a country’s ability to feed its people. Further, IUU fishing can disrupt and destabilize fragile economies of coastal states. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable, in that many have vast ocean resources but very limited capacity to patrol their exclusive economic zones, or EEZs. Many of these small nations also struggle to apprehend and prosecute transgressors.

What is the threat beyond the illegal fishing itself?

IUU fishing often happens along with other unlawful activities, including human trafficking and forced labor. Interpol reports that fishing vessels are often used to smuggle people, drugs, and weapons, as well as to carry out acts of piracy and terrorism. IUU fishing activities are highly mobile, increasingly sophisticated, and sometimes conducted with logistical and security support from fishers’ flag states.

More on:

International Law

Oceans and Seas

Global Commons

United States

These acts undermine internationally recognized fishing regimes, the work of regional fisheries management organizations, and international bodies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Fisheries Division. Broadly speaking, it erodes collective global maritime governance.

How does the United States work to combat IUU fishing?

Various U.S. government agencies work with foreign partners or participate in different multilateral forums to combat IUU fishing. For instance, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration works with the United Nations and regional fisheries management organizations. The U.S. military, particularly the coast guard and navy, provides maritime security assistance and training to coastal state partners in regions around the world. At the same time, the United States works to model responsible maritime behavior through a strict fisheries management program and ranks in the top five countries [PDF] in the world in responding to IUU fishing.

What can other governments do to fight IUU fishing?

Roles and responsibilities for a government vary depending on its relationship to the vessel and the catch. A vessel’s flag state has exclusive authority over it on the high seas, including with regard to matters such as labor standards and ship safety. Therefore, flag states must ensure that regulations are in place and enforced to deter IUU fishing and associated crimes from occurring on their vessels. Ignoring the duties of being a flag state can, and often does, allow illegal activity to take place. In addition, there are particularly concerning cases where flag states willfully abet IUU perpetrators by encouraging or assisting vessels that encroach on sovereign waters and EEZs of other nations or intimidate local fishermen.

Port states also can play a significant role by blocking vessels engaged in IUU fishing from using their ports and landing their catches. Governments have a framework to do so pursuant to the Agreement on Port State Measures, a UN treaty that came into force in 2016 and was the first binding international agreement that specifically targets IUU fishing. Approximately one-third of the world’s countries are party to it, but UN members should collectively work to increase that number.

Meanwhile, coastal states have a responsibility to assist in curbing IUU fishing. They are responsible for conservation and management of the ocean resources to which they have sovereign rights (within their EEZs). Finally, market states, where the fish are sold, should work to ensure that their seafood is coming from legal, legitimate sources.

What other multilateral efforts are there?

IUU fishing can only be combated by a whole-of-world approach, presenting an opportunity for state-to-state cooperation. Regional fisheries management organizations are working with the International Maritime Organization to boost accountability requirements aboard commercial fishing vessels across the globe. Other international bodies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are contributing to the fight as well. Interpol’s Project Scale is succeeding in catching much illegal fishing. Technology initiatives such as the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Oversea Ocean Monitor and Global Fishing Watch’s satellite-based platforms have been highly effective tools for spotting suspect activity across large spans of the ocean. And NGOs such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace, which operate on contributions from private donors with vessels crewed by volunteers, also help build maritime domain awareness.

The world needs to collectively continue to fight the scourge of IUU fishing in order to protect sensitive marine environments and food sustainability, prevent irreparable damage to coastal economies, counter corruption and associated criminal activity, and uphold the sovereignty and security of the world’s maritime nations.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.