TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Fighting fisheries crimes: Ways forward
This third symposium on fisheries crimes held by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) in Vienna on Sept
Change Size
T
his third symposium on fisheries crimes held by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) in Vienna on Sept. 25-26 seemed so different. Those in attendance shared a positive and strong commitment to the fight against fish poachers and crimes along the value chain of fisheries.
This followed the first fisheries crimes symposium held in Cape Town (2015) and the second in Yogyakarta (2016). The collaborative and tireless efforts of the Indonesian Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry, the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, UNODC, Interpol, the Nordic Council of Ministers, the North Atlantic Fisheries Intelligence Group and the PescaDOLUS research network to bring about this crucial matter to the fore has attracted global attention.
This could be observed by the large number of participants at the symposiums including the growing number of ministers attending and declaring their commitment. Thailand promised to fight Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and bring the perpetrators to justice. The country has been trying to change its image as an IUU fishing friendly nation to a robust and committed state in combating IUU fishing and fisheries crimes.
China’s statement at the forum was interesting too. It perceived IUU fishing as activities not associated to Transnational Organized Crimes (TOC). China refused to exercise too much force to enforce the law. It is also viewed fishing in disputed water as incomparable with IUU fishing.
Having the biggest fishing fleet in the world, China’s position is imperative because flag states are responsible for effectively exercising its jurisdiction in terms of administrative, technical and social over fishing vessels flying its flags.
While the representatives of China, Indonesia and other countries shared the same forum, China’s perception of IUU fishing and TOC could be viewed as a direct message to Indonesia and other countries that seek to eradicate IUU fishing and TOC.
China has barely changed its traditional interest, which is interesting to discuss because Indonesia and China have overlapping claims of exclusive economic zone and the two perceive IUU fishing differently.
Transnational crimes in the fisheries industry are real. One instance is the Bengis case in which an American national was prosecuted in South Africa and the United States. The defendant was accused of illegally catching and exporting rock lobsters from South Africa to the US from 1987 to 2001.
Parties to the framework of the UN Convention on TOC remain split over IUU fishing. Some are of the view that it is the problem of fisheries management rather than crime.
In fact, illegal fishing is a crime, but unreported and unregulated fishing is difficult to criminalize if there is no obligation to report and no regulation in place. For Indonesia, IUU fishing is provisioned under the Criminal Code while other countries see it only as an administrative issue.
____________________
Indonesia has the jurisdiction to sink and/or blow up illegal fishing vessels.
Furthermore, excessive law enforcement against IUU fishing, no matter if the activity is regarded a crime or not, by a coastal state can be justified. Unquestionably, Indonesia has the jurisdiction to sink and/or blow up illegal fishing vessels within its territorial waters.
Nevertheless, in exclusive economic zone, Indonesia shall comply with Article 73 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
When it comes to disputed waters and IUU fishing, it is evident that a dispute can be cleared up when arbitration or another choice of forum reaches a decision as in the case of the South China Sea arbitration ruling.
In the event that no decision has reached bilaterally or multilaterally on maritime borders, basic terminology of IUU fishing in International Plan of Action on IUU fishing makes it clear that flag states assume the responsibility over their fishing vessels as members of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The fishing vessels fall under a set of regulations in RFMOs convention.
As such, Indonesia’s defense of its waters from fish poachers followed the right path and is in line with international rules despite protests from other countries. On the ways forward, first of all, the initiatives to gather support from international communities should be the top priority because the issue will become an international concern in the years to come.
The second concern is how to link different national legislations together to bring the perpetrators to justice through universalization or harmonization. Third, as transnational organized crime is not static and takes place in the fisheries industry, countries should keep planning and finding creative and different ways to fight it.
“The number of countries showing an interest in fighting IUU fishing is increasing and we must bring more ministers on board,” said Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti at the third Fisheries Crime Symposium recently.
________________________________
The writer is a UN Nippon fellow 2016 of the United Nations Division on Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea and currently a PhD student at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong. The views expressed are his own.
