Table 22: Impacts of the implementation of EC IUU Regulation in terms of the economic aspects of fisheries
Country Positive Impacts Negative Impacts
Cambodia Improved infrastructure led to enhanced fishery opportunities, safety and good hygiene of fish and fishery products.
Minimal activities on fishery enhancement and in promoting all fishery operations.
Indonesia The country expects to increase seafood
export to the EU market. During Catch Certificate verification process, fish containers are kept on hold and released only after getting clarifications, making the situation and process costly and creating burden to exporters.
Lao PDR Export opportunities of fish and fishery products improved creating income generating options for households.
Malaysia Export opportunities of fish and fishery
products improved. Low supply of raw materials for export from complying fishing vessels, e.g. anchovy, prawns/shrimps, squid while tariff barrier still exists in spite of compliance with EC IUU Regulation due to absence of free trade agreement (FTA).
Myanmar Export opportunities of fish and fishery
products improved. Low supply of raw materials for export from complying fishing vessels (anchovy, prawns/shrimps, squid).
Philippines Improved product quality and safety simultaneous with traceability thus, continued market access of fish and fishery products to EU member countries is ensured.
Loss of market access for those who cannot comply with EC IUU Regulation, in which case fishing boat operators need to spend additional amount of money to be able to comply with the EC IUU Regulation.
Singapore Improved export opportunities of fish and fishery products.
Thailand Improved export opportunities of fish and fishery products, while quality of products is guaranteed due to high competition.
Low supply of raw materials for export from the complying fishing vessels.
Viet Nam Improved export opportunities of fish and
fishery products. Low supply of raw materials for export from the complying fishing vessels, e.g. anchovy, prawns/shrimps, squid, octopus. Tariff barrier still exists in spite of compliance with EC IUU Regulation due to absence of FTA.
9.11 Conclusion and Recommendations on Impact of EC Regulation 1005/2008
Many Southeast Asian countries are exerting efforts to increase the export opportunities of their fish and fishery products to the EU market by complying with the EC IUU Regulation and other international instruments. However, there are still provisions in the Regulation that could not be promoted which governments should address, such as allocating additional budget to enable concerned national agencies in developing and enhancing infrastructures, especially those that are intended for monitoring national fishing activities, as well as capacity building for effective and efficient enforcement of laws and regulations, and for improved collection of data and information on fisheries. Moreover, it is also necessary that governments should work for the betterment of the lives and working conditions of fishers and fish workers, ensuring them of proper labour protection. In a recent development, the EU has lifted the “yellow card” sanctioned to the
Philippine Government almost a year ago (Philippine Star, 22 April 2015). The “yellow card” is an official warning for governments’ failure to combat IUU fishing in their respective waters. With the “yellow card” the concerned countries would be given six months to improve their mechanisms to combat IUU fishing as this often led to over-exploitation of fishing grounds and depletion of the marine resources. In the case of the Philippines, its Fisheries Code of 1998 had been amended and strengthened, and strictly implemented.
As a result of the strict enforcement of laws and regulations, the “yellow card” issued to the Philippines by the EU had been lifted meaning that the Philippines could export fish and fishery products to the EU market. In a similar development, the EU issued the “yellow card” on Thailand if the country fails to take actions in combating IUU fishing within six months in April 2015. If Thailand could not undertake the necessary measures, this ban could have huge impact on the country’s fishery industry since its fishery products could no longer be exported to the EU which is one of the major markets of the country’s products, especially canned tuna. Thailand is now taking emergency steps to address this concern, including addressing the issues related to labour, i.e. labour protection of fishers and fish workers in the country’s fishing industry. As of now, Thailand was released from the “yellow card” status by EU.
It is also necessary that bilateral, sub-regional and regional arrangements, whether formal or informal, should be strengthened in order that data and information are effectively exchanged, more particularly those that are related to IUU fishing in the Southeast Asian waters. As a matter of fact, strengthening regional and sub-regional efforts to combat IUU fishing in the region is a priority action of the ASEAN in preparation for the ASEAN Economic Community unification in 2015 (Poernomo et al., 2011). Through such arrangements, lessons could be learned and experiences could be shared among the Southeast Asian countries with regards to the development of mechanisms and measures to combat IUU fishing, as this could eventually lead to possible lifting of sanctions issued by the EU and result in sustained trading of fish and fishery products in the EU market. Furthermore, the AMSs should continue and sustain the development of their respective National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing (NPOA-IUU) in accordance with the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU).
SEAFDEC shared AMS plans for improving fisheries management in general and addressing the issues of overcapacity and overfishing. SEAFDEC future programme is focusing on overcapacity, especially on the need to have practical ways of understanding and communicating with fishermen, how capacity is built, and the use of rights-based management approaches.
Where it is considered that current national fisheries legislation is inadequate to combat IUU fishing, such legislation should be revised and legislative provisions should be directed at combatting IUU fishing including provisions relating to monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) which should be kept under regular review. Such revision and review thereof should in general aim to enhance fisheries conservation and management and sustainable utilisation of living marine resources and take into account requirements contained in international fisheries instruments and as used in other jurisdictions to combat IUU fishing. In particular, it should be ensured that legislative provisions enhance coastal State control over fishing vessels authorised to fish in areas under national jurisdiction, or improve Flag State control over vessels fishing in the
high seas, directly or through regional fisheries organisations or arrangements as appropriate, and enhance general Port State control.
Regional cooperation was a priority in the fight against IUU fishing and national measures and tools to combat it should build on those already in place. Furthermore, it was recognized that IUU fishing imposed significant costs on governments, exploited the weaken positions of developing countries and undermined efforts to manage fisheries on a long-term sustainable basis. The need to remove the incentive and revenue flows for IUU fishers by blocking port and market access was re-emphasized. It was pointed out that IUU fishing, probably for the first time ever, had mobilized opposition from all players in the fisheries and food marketing sectors.
Building capacity in effective fishery management is important for AMSs in combating IUU fishing. Improvement in data collection and data system is necessary for a better management planning. Management has to be more effective. It is important that their MCS and VMS be improved in order to lessen IUU fishing. There are needs in human resource development as well as financial support and technical assistance.
10.0 THE ASEAN GUIDELINES TO PREVENT ENTRY OF FISH AND FISHERY