BRIEFING PAPER

Briefing Paper & Transdisciplinary Bibliography

Ari Marshall

Long Island University Global College

Global Studies Seminar: Theories, Issues, Solutions

Dr. Soenke Biermann

September 23, 2022

BRIEFING PAPER

2
Briefing Paper & Transdisciplinary Bibliography
Briefing Paper

The fishing industry is a billion dollar business which encompasses operations in inland water,

coastal waters, and on the high seas. In 2016 alone, approximately 35% of the world's fish that

were harvested were exported for a sum profit of US $143 billion (Macfadyen et. al., 2019, p. 8).

The immense profits of the fishing industry and the difficulty in establishing efficient ways to

monitor it leaves enormous gaps for citizens to unlawfully fish and for transnational crime

operations to illegally fish and gain billions in profit. Given the challenges of regulating the high

seas, the most quoted statistic about illegal, unregulated, unreported (IUU fishing) is from 2003

in which it is estimated that 10 to 26 million tonnes of fish with a value ranging from US $10

billion to US $23 billion were harvested illegally (Macfadyen et. al., 2019, p. 8). Accordingly, a

more recent report about the world's fish stocks by Desai and Shambaugh (2021) states that

“More than 60% of all monitored fish stocks are fully exploited, and an additional one-fifth is

being depleted faster than the replacement rate” (p.2). This dire statistic about the health of the

world's fish stocks is worsened by the fact that illegally caught fish are not factored into marine

surveys, therefore undermining the evidence based process in which sustainable fisheries

management sets quotas for legal catch limits. (Delpeuch et al., 2022, p. 3). Globally, more than

3 billion people rely on fish for nutrition and an additional 40 million people are employed by

the fishing industry (Coit & Spinrad, 2021, p.9) (Macfadyen et. al., 2019, p. 8). Illegal fishing is

a direct threat to the 40 million people legally employed to fish, the more than 3 billion people

who need fish for nutrition, and is a monumental threat to global food security as the world’s fish

stocks are on the brink of collapse (Coit & Spinrad, 2021, p.9) (Macfadyen et. al., 2019, p. 8)

(Desai & Shambaugh, 2021, p. 2).

BRIEFING PAPER

3
In order to understand the extent of illegal fishing it is critical to understand the different

categories of IUU fishing. Telesetsky (2014) sorts IUU fishing into three overarching categories

of opportunistic fishing, overfishing, and illegally fishing for profit (p. 944). Opportunistic

fishing is a form of IUU fishing in which usually law abiding citizens with licenses to fish

occasionally under report their catches. Overfishing is committed by local fisher people who are

subsistence fishing or are unaware of modern regulations. The third and arguably the most

devastating form of IUU fishing is industrial illegal fishing for profit (Telesetsky, 2014, p. 944).

Industrial scale IUU fishing is incredibly difficult to track for several reasons. First, there is no

global database tracking the location of fishing ships, rather ships are associated with a country

that is in charge of regulating their behavior while on the high seas. As stated by How to End

Illegal Fishing: The Role of the Flag State (2019) “The Flag State also has exclusive control over

the vessel’s administrative matters, such as its registration; social elements, including labor

standards and rights; and technical matters, such as ship safety, in all waters.” (p. 2). Every

country in the world has the right to be a Flag State, meaning that industrial ocean fishing vessels

can register with a state that doesn’t even have a coastline or maritime boats to police the vessels

it is supposed to watch over. Fishing vessels can also register with countries that are unwilling to

police its activities. At certain times illegal fishing is beneficial both to the perpetrators and to

the countries that are Flag States. Accordingly, Flag States can make significant income by

registering new vehicles with fees, vessel inspections, and licenses (How to End Illegal Fishing:

The Role of the Flag State, 2019, p. 2). Oftentimes illegal fishing vessels are owned by one

individual, registered to a different Flag State while operating near a separate State’s coastal

border, and exporting its catches to any number of companies (How to End Illegal Fishing: The

Role of the Flag State, 2019, p. 2). Another key aspect in regards to illegal industrial fishing is
BRIEFING PAPER

4
transshipment. Transshipment is a process that involves a refrigerated carrier vessel collecting

fish from fishing vessels while at sea. This enables fishing ships to stay at sea longer and harvest

more fish rather than wasting time delivering fish to a port. Although transshipment is a great

economic advantage it poses challenges as to deciphering where fish harvests originated from

(Coit & Spinrad, 2021, p. 60).

As global IUU fishing increases several attempts, such as Marine Protected Areas, The

United Nations 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea, and the Agreement on Port State

Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, have

been implemented to curb IUU fishing.

Marine Protected Areas are described as a policy instrument to conserve marine life and

biodiversity. The components of a Marine Protected Area are defined as a legally monitored

geographical place with the goal of long term preservation of ecosystems (Wenzel et al., 2020, p.

1). Nearly every country in the world pledged to collectively protect 10% of the earth’s coastal

area by 2020 and although this goal was not met there has been an increase in Marine Protected

Areas (MPA), especially the creation of large MPA’s measuring 100,000 squared km or more

(Wenzel et al., 2020, p. 2) (Marine Protected Areas, 2016, p. 6). It is crucially important that if

MPA’s are to work they are implemented with the support of the local community and with a

socio-economic plan in place such as sustainable tourism to offset the losses of local citizens'

livelihoods (Marine protected areas, 2016, p. 6). Unfortunately, too many current MPA’s have

been put in place by people in power or by government’s with little care for locals who are facing

sudden displacement and dispossession of their traditional food sources and livelihoods

(Raycraft, 2019, p. 297).

BRIEFING PAPER

5
The United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea introduced monumental

legislation that most importantly saw the creation of Economic Exclusive Zones 200 nautical

miles off of coastal nation states shores and set the expectations of both the coastal nation state

and a Flag State in regards to illegal fishing (United Nations, n.d., p. 8). Unprecedented power

was given to coastal states as per Article 25 (1) in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the

Sea. Coastal states could now exercise maritime control by escorting illegal fishing ships to port

to investigate their actions, impose fines, and even arrest crew (United Nations, n.d., p. 33). As a

form of checks and balances, Flag States are also given rights. Under article 73 (2) it is stated

that “Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of reasonable

bond or other security” (United Nations, n.d., p. 52). This is significant in the fact that if a vessel

is found illegally fishing in the Economic Exclusive Zone of a coastal state, the Flag State has

the right for its vessel and crew to be released quickly. While this may seem like a viable

solution, as the Flag State pays a fine and surrenders its stolen fish to the coastal state, it is only a

band aid as the vessel and its crew are then promptly released back onto the high seas and can

simply continue to illegally fish for profit until caught again.

Another fairly recent measure to counter illegal fishing is the 2009 Agreement on Port

State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. As

discussed above, frequently fishing vessels roam the high seas for an extended amount of time

and transfer their catches to a refrigerated carrier vessel in a process called transshipment which

then brings the fish to a port to be exported and sold (Coit & Spinrad, 2021, p. 60). The 2009

Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated Fishing recognizes that transshipment is a massive transparency issue regarding the

origin of fish, and seeks to add transparency to the fishing industry by implementing protocols
BRIEFING PAPER

6
for Port States to adhere to when a transshipment seeks to offload its catches at a port

(Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing, n.d., p. vii ). Amongst many ambitious goals within this agreement, the

significant takeaways are that party members should be cooperating and sharing information

about overall fisheries management and violations, specific ports shall be designated for the

arrival of transshipment fish, and vessels upon arrival shall be searched and investigated

(Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing, n.d., p. ). The 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and

Eliminate illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing officially was implemented in June of

2016, but was and still is missing notable signatures from China, India, most African and South

American countries (“Parties to the PSMA,” 2022, infographic. 1). It is consequential that China

has the largest fishing fleet, yet is under no obligation to comply with the Agreement on Port

State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

(Telesetsky, 2014, p. 973). As of 2014, there were 4,764 ports across the globe that received

transshipments of fish; yet given countries refusal to ratify the Agreement on Port State

Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, 2,395 out

of these ports were under no obligation to inspect the transshipments they received (Telesetsky,

2014, p. 959).

Ultimately, it is an undeniable fact that illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is

increasing as the global demand for seafood rises and the world's fish stocks continue to decline.

IUU fishing significantly harms local small-scale fishers who often live on less than $1 USD and

in developing nations where there are relatively no alternatives for income or substantial protein

(Desai & Shambaugh, 2021, p. 2). On a global scale IUU fishing is seriously undermining
BRIEFING PAPER

7
sustainable fishery strategies and is a leading cause in global food insecurity. While strategies

such as Marine Protected Areas, the United Nations 1982 on the Convention of the Law of the

Sea, and the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate illegal,

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing are significant steps forward it is necessary for governments

all around the world to work more collectively and urgently to continue implementing new and

enforceable measure to curb IUU fishing.

References

Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing. (n.d.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

https://www.fao.org/3/i5469t/i5469t.pdf
BRIEFING PAPER

8
Coit, J., & Spinrad, R. W. (2021). Improving International Fisheries Management. NOAA

Fisheries. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-08/2021Report to Congress on

Improving International Fisheries Management.pdf

Delpeuch, C., Migliaccio, E., & Symes, W. (2022). Eliminating Government Support Illegal,

Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing. Fisheries and Aquaculture Unit of the OECD

Trade and Agriculture Directorate.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/f09ab3a0-en.pdf?expires=1663813474&id=id&a

ccname=guest&checksum=A44F7ECC9AF044A58A05CB5835C61AAB

Desai, R. M., & Shambaugh, G. E. (2021). Measuring the global impact of destructive and illegal

fishing on maritime piracy: A spatial analysis. PLoS ONE, 16(2), 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246835

How to End Illegal Fishing: The Role of the Flag State. (2019). The Pew Charitable Trusts.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2019/08/theroleoftheflagstate_factsheet_v3.pdf

Macfadyen, G., Hosch, G., Kaysser, N. and Tagziria, L., 2019. The IUU Fishing Index, 2019.

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management limited and the Global Initiative Against

Transnational Organized Crime.

https://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IUU-Fishing-Index-Report-web-v

ersion.pdf

Marine protected areas. (2016). OECD.

https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/Marine-Protected-Areas-Policy-Highlights.

pdf
BRIEFING PAPER

9
Parties to the PSMA | Agreement on Port state measures (PSMA) | Food and agriculture

organization of the United Nations. (2022).

https://www.fao.org/port-state-measures/background/parties-psma/en/

Raycraft, J. (2019). Conserving Poverty: Destructive Fishing Gear Use in a Tanzanian Marine

Protected Area. Conservation & Society, 17(3), 297–309.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26677965

United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/un

Wenzel, L., D'Iorio, M., Wahle, C., Cid, G., Cannizzo, Z., & Darr, K. (2020). Marine protected

areas 2022: Building effective conservation networks. NOAA.

https://nmsmarineprotectedareas.blob.core.windows.net/marineprotectedareas-prod/medi

a/docs/2020-mpa-building-effective-conservation-networks.pdf

Transdisciplinary Bibliography

Carolin, C. (2015). The Dragon as a Fisherman: China’s Distant Water Fishing Fleet and the

Export of Environmental Insecurity. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 35(1),

133–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27000982
BRIEFING PAPER

10
Colin, S. (2016). China, the US, and the Law of the Sea. China Perspectives, 2 (106), 57–62.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44090432

Collins, C., Nuno, A., Benaragama, A., Broderick, A., Wijesundara, I., Wijetunge, D., &

Letessier, T. B. (2021). Ocean‐scale footprint of a highly mobile fishing fleet:

Social‐ecological drivers of fleet behavior and evidence of illegal fishing. People &

Nature, 3(3), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10213

Crowell, B., & Turvold, W. (2020). Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing And The

Impacts On Maritime Security. In A. L. Vuving (Ed.), Hindsight, Insight, Foresight:

Thinking About Security in the Indo-Pacific (pp. 209–216). Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific

Center for Security Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26667.18

Desai, R. M., & Shambaugh, G. E. (2021). Measuring the global impact of destructive and illegal

fishing on maritime piracy: A spatial analysis. PLoS ONE, 16(2), 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246835

Eriksson, H., Albert, J., Albert, S., Warren, R., Pakoa, K., & Andrew, N. (2017). The role of fish

and fisheries in recovering from natural hazards: Lessons learned from Vanuatu.

Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.012

Hongzhou, Z. (2012). China’s Evolving Fishing Industry: Implications for Regional and Global

Maritime Security. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17188

Honniball, A. N. (2020). Unilateral Trade Measures and the Importance of Defining IUU

Fishing: Lessons from the 2019 USA “Concerns” with China as a Fishing Flag State. The

Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 7(2), 7–26.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/jtms.7.2.7
BRIEFING PAPER

11
Karcher, D. B., Fache, E., Breckwoldt, A., Govan, H., Elías Ilosvay, X. E., Kam King, J. K.,

Riera, L., & Sabinot, C. (2020). Trends in South Pacific fisheries management. Marine

Policy, 118, N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104021

Keel, A. L., & Wolf, M. (2020). Towards a classification of marine wildlife crime: Marketing

strategies to curtail illegal fishing, malicious acts, and waterway pollution. Psychology &

Marketing, 37(12), 1743–1754. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21425

Knudsen, M. (2016). Poverty and Beyond: Small-Scale Fishing in Overexploited Marine

Environments. Human Ecology, 44(3), 341–352. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24762785

Miller, D. D., Sumaila, U. R., Copeland, D., Zeller, D., Soyer, B., Nikaki, T., Leloudas, G.,

Fjellberg, S. T., Singleton, R., & Pauly, D. (2016). Cutting a lifeline to maritime crime:

marine insurance and IUU fishing. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(7),

357–362. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44001066

Poling, G. B., & Cronin, C. (2017). Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing as a National

Security Threat. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep23297

Resosudarmo, B. P., & Kosadi, E. (2018). Illegal Fishing War: An Environmental Policy during

the Jokowi Era? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 35(3), 369–385.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26545319

Seo, H. J. (2018). Trapped At Sea: Blood, Sweat, And Tears Of Thailand’s Fishing Industry.

Harvard International Review, 39(2), 44–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26617340

Shaver, A., & Yozell, S. (2018). Security Threats of IUU Fishing. In Casting a Wider Net: The

Security Implications OF Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (pp. 7–18).

Stimson Center. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15848.8

BRIEFING PAPER

12
Telesetsky, A. (2014). Laundering Fish in the Global Undercurrents: Illegal, Unreported, and

Unregulated Fishing and Transnational Organized Crime. Ecology Law Quarterly, 41(4),

939–997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44320331

Vince, J., Hardesty, B. D., & Wilcox, C. (2021). Progress and challenges in eliminating illegal

fishing. Fish & Fisheries, 22(3), 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12532

Wilcox, C., & Bergseth, B. J. (2021). Effectiveness of interventions to shift drivers of roving

banditry and reduce illegal fishing by Vietnamese blue boats. Conservation Letters,

14(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12823

Zhang, H., & Bateman, S. (2017). Fishing Militia, the Securitization of Fishery and the South

China Sea Dispute. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), 288–314.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44683771