AN ADVISORY NOTE - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/ejf_advisory_note_low_res_final... · An...

An Advisory Note for the UK Supply Chain 1

Produced by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) in collaboration with WWF-UK / 2015 Edition

AN ADVISORY NOTE FOR THE UK SUPPLY CHAIN

on how to avoid Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishery products

2 An Advisory Note for the UK Supply Chain

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is the lead trade association for the entire retail industry.

British Retail Consortium21 Dartmouth StreetLondon, SW1H 9BPwww.brc.org.uk

Comments on this report and any questions related to the British Retail Consortium should be directed to [email protected]

The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) is a UK-based charity working internationally to protect the environment and human rights. EJF is a charity registered in England and Wales (1088128).

EJF1 Amwell StreetLondon, EC1R 1ULUnited Kingdomwww.ejfoundation.org

The World Wide Fund for Nature is one of the world’s leading conservation organisations. WWF-UK is a registered charity (1081247).

WWF-UK The Living Planet Centre, Rufford House Brewery Road, Woking Surrey, GU21 4LL

This document should be cited as:BRC and EJF (2015) An Advisory Note for the UK Supply Chain on How to Avoid Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishery Products.

ISBN: 978-1-904523-35-2

Cover photo © Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)

‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing constitutes one of the most serious threats to the sustainable

exploitation of living aquatic resources and jeopardises the very foundation of

the common fisheries policy and international efforts to promote

better ocean governance.’

Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (3)

THIS REPORT WASDRAFTED IN

COLLABORATIONWITH WWF


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4 PART I: THE EU IUU REGULATION 5 1.1 Scopeandsanctions 5 1.2 The‘catchcertificate’ 6 1.3 Catchcertificatevalidation 7 1.4 Importprocess–verification,inspectionandenforcement 8 1.5 Potentialliabilitiesforretailers,brandsandnationals 9

PART II: OVERVIEW OF A DUE DILIGENCE SYSTEM 10 2.1 Informationgatheringandtraceability 10 2.1.1 Sourcesofinformation 10 2.1.2 Frequencyofdatacollection 11 2.2 Risk Assessment 11 2.3 RiskMitigation 12 2.3.1Verificationauditsandassessments 12 2.3.2 Traceability&supplychainverification 13 2.3.3 Alternativesources 13

PART III: KEY ASPECTS OF DUE DILIGENCE RELATED TO IUU FISHING 14 3.1 Fishery 15 3.1.1 Fisheryrangeandlocation 15 3.1.2 Vesselidentification 15 3.2 Fisheries management 18 3.2.1 Flag States 19 3.2.2 Coastal States 23 3.2.3 Regionalfisheriesmanagementorganisations 24 3.3 Supply chain management 27 3.3.1 Transhipments 27 3.3.2 Port landings 27 3.3.3 Processing 28 3.3.4 Supplier due diligence 29 3.3.5LinkbetweenIUUfishingandslavery 29

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31

Annex 1: Regulatory authorities involved in international fisheries 33Annex 2: International initiatives in response to IUU fishing 33Annex 3: Sanctions 34Annex 4: Useful sources of information 34

REFERENCES 35

List of Abbreviations

AIS: AutomaticIdentificationSystemBRC: BritishRetailConsortiumCCAMLR: CommissionfortheConservationofAntarcticMarine Living ResourcesDGMARE:Directorate-GeneralforMaritimeAffairsandFisheries (European Commission)EEZ: Exclusive Economic ZoneEJF: EnvironmentalJusticeFoundationEU: European UnionFAO: UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganizationFoC: Flag of ConvenienceFoNC: Flag of Non-ComplianceFPA: Fisheries Partnership AgreementICCAT: InternationalCommissionfortheConservation ofAtlanticTunas

IEZ: Inshore Exclusion ZoneIMO: InternationalMaritimeOrganizationIPOA: InternationalPlanofActionISSF: InternationalSeafoodSustainabilityFoundationIUU: Illegal,UnreportedandUnregulated(fishing)MCS: Monitoring, Control and SurveillanceMMO: MarineManagementOrganisationNGO: Non-GovernmentalOrganisationPSMA: Port State Measures AgreementRFMO: RegionalFisheriesManagementOrganisationSGP: General Secretariat of Fishing (SpanishGovernmentFisheriesauthorities)TEP: Threatened, Endangered or Protected SpeciesUVI: UniqueVesselIdentifierVMS: Vessel Monitoring SystemWWF: World Wide Fund for Nature


INTRODUCTION

TheEuropeanUnion’sRegulationtoprevent,deterandeliminateIllegal,UnreportedandUnregulated(IUU)fishingenteredintoforceonJanuary1,2010(ECNo1005/2008).Hereinreferredtoas‘theRegulation’,itestablishesacommunitysystemtocombatIUUfishingandtoensurethatonlylegally-caughtfishcanbeimportedintotheEU.

The EU IUU Regulation:

• requiresthatallimportsofmarinefisheryproductsareaccompaniedby acatchcertificatevalidatedbythevessel’s‘flagState’,

• enablesseafoodimportstobebannedfrom‘non-cooperating’countries andIUUfishingvessels,and• includesprovisionsonpunishmentsforthoseinvolvedinthefishingof,

orthetradein,IUUfisheryproducts.

The Regulation is implemented into law in England and Wales by the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported andUnregulated Fishing) Order 2009.

Content

TheBritishRetailConsortium(BRC)andEnvironmentalJusticeFoundation(EJF),1incollaborationwithWWF-UK,havedraftedthisAdvisoryNoteforUKretailersandbrandsbuyingandsellingfisheryproductstohelp informthemoftherisksassociatedwithIUUfishing,withtheaimtoultimatelypreventIUUfisheryproductsenteringUKsupply chains. Leading BRC members and a group of key suppliers provided input during four workshop sessions andthroughoutthedraftingperiod.

TheUK’sMarineManagementOrganisation(MMO),theSpanishGeneralSecretariatofFisheries(SGP)andtheEuropeanCommission’sDirectorate-GeneralforMaritimeAffairsandFisheries(DGMARE)werealsoconsultedonitscontentbuttheirinvolvementshouldnotbeconstruedasanofficialindicationoftheirviewsoradvicetobusinesses on this issue.

Purpose and Scope of the IUU Advisory Note

ThisAdvisoryNote isprimarily concernedwith the legalityoffishery supply chainsand specifically applies tofisheryproductswithinthescopeoftheRegulation,asdefinedinTable1.LegalityisthebasicentrypointtotheEUandisconsideredafundamentalrequirementforsustainablefisheriesmanagement.Fishcaughtincompliancewith applicable laws and regulations, however, may not be considered ‘sustainable’ unless also sourced inconformancewithadditionalrequirementsasoutlinedinvarioussustainabilitycertificationsandstandards.

There isastrong linkbetween IUUfishingactivitiesandhumanrightsabusesonboardfishingvessels.Humantrafficking and human rights issues fall beyond the scope of the EU IUU Regulation, andwill not be coveredspecifically by this Advisory Note, although the same mechanisms which create greater transparency andtraceabilityinglobalfisheriesareagreedtobevitalineradicatingmodern-dayslaveryfromseafoodsupplychains.

WrittenfortheUKmarket,thisdocumenthighlightssomeofthekeyrisksassociatedwithIUUfishingandoutlinesanapproachtopreventIUUfisheryproductsfromenteringUKsupplychains.Itisintendedtoprovideinformal,non-bindingadviceandshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththelegislationitself.Giventherapidlyevolvingnatureoftheglobalfishingindustry,changesinEUfisheriespolicy,andtherelativeinfancyoftheEUIUURegulation, the applicationof thisAdvisoryNote is also subject to changeand should thereforebe reviewed (alongwithrelevantinformationsources)onaregularbasis.

Please note that it is the responsibility of each individual retailer and brand to develop and implement their ownsystemorprocess toensure that theyare incompliancewith legal requirements. Implementationof thedue diligence systems highlighted in this document does not guarantee or confer compliance. For the majority ofbusinessesthatalreadyhaveexistingspecificationsandresponsiblesourcingpoliciesandprocessesinplace,systemsmayneedtobeadapted(orupgraded)toaddressIUUfishing.Inothercases,newsystemsorprocessesmayneedtobedevelopedandimplemented.Ineithercircumstance,externalexpertisemayberequired.

TheBRC,EJFandWWFfullysupporttheaimsoftheRegulationtocombatthetradeinIUUfishandhopeitwillbeimplementedandenforceduniformly,andwithaparticularfocusonthehighestriskfisheryproducts.


PART I: THE EU IUU REGULATION

Globalfisheriesarean importantsourceof foodandemployment for theworld’spopulation.Over the last fourdecades,however,overfishingandotherunsustainablefishingpracticeshavedepletednearlyallcommercialfishpopulationsinmanypartsoftheworld.Itisestimatedthatalmost30%ofglobalfishstocksareoverfished,withfullyfishedstocksaccountingfor60%andunder-fishedstocks10%.2Theleadingcausesoffisherydepletionarefromvesselsthatarefishing illegally fromunregulatedfisheriesorthatarefailingtoreporttheircatch.Theseactionsunderminelegitimatefishingoperationsanddisrupteffortstomanagefisheries.AlthoughitisdifficulttodeterminethetruescaleandimpactofIUUfishing,itisestimatedtocostbetweenUS$10billionandUS$23.5billionperyear.

The EU IUU Regulation is designed to prevent products from IUU vessels from entering the EU market. Asthelargestmarketforimportedfishandfisheryproducts3,theEUhaspotentialtochangebehaviourthroughcommercialincentivesandinternationaltrade.Registeringasubstantialfishingfleetofitsown,theEUalsohasavestedinterestindeterringIUUactivitytosafeguardtheresourcesthatitislegallyentitledtocatch.CriticaltothesuccessfulimplementationoftheRegulationisthepropergovernanceandenforcementofproducingcountries(flag/coastalStates)andfortheEuropeanCommissionandEUMemberStatestotakeactionagainstnationalsinvolvedinIUUfishing.

Table 1: The scope of the EU IUU Regulation

COVERED BY THE EU IUU REG. NOT COVERED BY THE EU IUU REG.

ProductsAllimportsoffrozen,freshandprocessedwildmarinecapturefisheryproducts,bothwholeand processed.

Freshwaterfisheryproducts,aquacultureproductsobtained from fry or larvae, mussels, fresh or chilled scallops,orfishfatsandfishorsharkoils.4

Imports into EU

Catches made by EU vessels and processed in a third country.

Catches made by non-EU vessels imported into the EU.

Catches by EU vessels that land directly into ports of EU Member States (come under scope of EU Control Regulationinstead).

Exports from EU Thosewithacatchcertificate–ifrequired by third country.5

1.1 SCOPE AND SANCTIONS

Toensureeffectiveenforcement, theRegulation includesasystemofsanctions for ‘serious infringements’ tobeissuedagainstanyoperatorparticipatingin/supportingactivitiesthatconstituteIUUfishing(Table2).

Table 2: Examples of activities that constitute IUU fishing6

FISHING FISHING VESSEL AND/OR SUPPLY CHAINWithoutavalidfishinglicenceissuedbytheflagStateorrelevant coastal State. Undertakingunauthorisedtranshipmentactivities.

For prohibited species or stocks. Failingtoreportormisreportingcatches,orassigningcatches to another vessel.

Usingbannedfishinggearormethod. Failing to comply with rules on Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS).

Beyond a quota established by a coastal State or RFMO. Falsifyingorconcealingthemarkings,identityorregistration of a vessel.

In prohibited areas, at a prohibited depth or during a closed season.

Falsifyingacatchcertificateorothertypeoffishery trade document.

InanareagovernedbyaRFMO,incontraventionofitsrules,orwithouttheflagStatebeingsignatorytotheRFMO.

Concealing,tamperingwith,ordisposingofevidencerelating toaninvestigation.

Action can also be taken against: ‘legal persons’ such as corporations, companies and cooperatives (hereafterreferred to as ‘companies’), and ‘natural persons’ (or ‘individuals’) if they are found to have conducted business ‘directlyconnected’toIUUfishing,includingthetradein/ortheimportationoffisheryproducts.7MoreinformationonsanctionsisprovidedinAnnex3.

RefertoAnnex1forinformationabouttheregulatoryauthoritiesinvolvedininternationalfisheries;Annex2forinformationaboutinternationalinitiativesaimedataddressingIUUfishing.

6An Advisory Note for the UK Supply Chain

1.1 THE ‘CATCH CERTIFICATE’

ThecatchcertificationisanessentialpartoftheIUURegulation,intendedtohelpfacilitatelegaltradeandtopreventunfaircompetitionfromIUUproductsintheEUmarket.Itprovidesinformationonallpointsofthefisheryproductsupply chain thatwill help to improveproduct traceability (fromcatch to importation, includingprocessingandtransport)andtheeffectivenessofcontrolsusedtosupportcompliancewithconservationmeasures.AnexampleofthecatchcertificateisprovidedinFigure1.

Figure 1: An example of the catch certificate


Forsmallscalefisheries,asimplifiedcatchcertificateisavailable.Thesimplifiedversion:• doesnotrequirethecatchlocationordateofcapturetobelisted,• mayincludethecatchesofanumberofvesselsinthesamecertificate,8 and• doesnotrequirethesignatureoftheindividualfishers.

The simplified catch certificate can be used by vessels less than 12m in length (without towed fishing gear), andfishingvesselslessthan8minlength(withtowedfishinggear),thatlandtheirfisheryproductsintheflagState.

1.2 CATCH CERTIFICATE VALIDATION

Marinefisheryproducts,includingprocessedproducts,canonlybeimportedintotheEUwhenaccompaniedbyavalidatedcatchcertificate.ValidationisconductedbythecompetentauthoritiesoftheflagStateofthecatchingvesselinordertocertifythatthefishwascaughtinaccordancewithapplicablelaws,regulationsandinternationalconservationandmanagementmeasuresi.e.thedomestic,regionalandinternationalrulesthatthecoastalStateandflagStatehaveadopted.

Aspartofthisprocess,itisalsothedutyoftheflagStatetoensurethatthecatchcertificateiscompleteandthattheinformationprovidedasoutlinedinFigure2iscorrect.Consignmentswithvalidatedcatchcertificatescanthenbe exported to the EU.

Buyers should familiarise themselves with the technology used to track fishing vessels, and aim to ensure that vessels providing fish to their suppliers are equipped with the tracking technology and adhering to the traceability standards.

INFORMATION IN THE CATCH CERTIFICATE:

• species,• catch location,• fishing vessel name,• date/period of capture,• fishing licence details, • details of any transhipments.

VALIDATION PROCESS BY FLAG STATE SHOULD CONFIRM:

• information in Catch Certificate is correct,

• fish was caught in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures.

VALIDATION BY VESSEL’S FLAG STATE

Figure 2: Catch certificate validation

Fish being transhipped between two vessels in West Africa © EJF


1.3 IMPORT PROCESS – VERIFICATION, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

OncefisheryproductshavelandedatanEUport,MemberStateauthoritiesarerequiredtoensurethattheRegulationhasbeencorrectlyappliedandhavethepowertocarryout‘alloftheverificationstheydeemnecessary’todoso.9

TheverificationprocessoutlinedinFigure3startswithareviewofinformationprovidedinthecatchcertificatetoensureallrelevantinformationisprovided.Wherethefisheryproductisconsidered‘lowrisk’,determinedaspartofariskassessmentbasedonanumberofriskfactorsidentifiedinFigure4,theconsignmentisaccepted.Iftheproduct is considered high risk – or where there is evidence of vessels (or other operators in the supply chain) being associatedwithIUU–anadditionalverificationprocesswilloccur.

Both thevessel and its consignments canbe retained,with importationdelayedor suspendeduntil a thorough investigationisconducted.OnceaconsignmentisflaggedasanIUUfishingproduct,however,importwillbedenied.

Where the fishery product is considered ‘high risk’, as determined using risk criteria outlined in Figure 4, the consignment is accepted. If authorities suspect the fishing vessel has engaged in IUUfishing or the fisheryproductisotherwiseconsidered‘highrisk’,thereisanincreasedprobabilityofinspectiononarrivalatport.

Catch certificate contains all required information and

fishery product is considered ‘low risk’

Inspection reveals catch certificate

is unclear

Evidence exists of vessel’s involvement

in IUU fishing

Fishery product is identified as

‘high risk’ of IUU according to Member State analysis

Member State rejects import or confiscatesand destroys, disposes of, or sells fishery products

in question

VerificationRequest for information and assistance from flag State or another

third country (e.g. coastal processing State)Examination of accounts and other records (of operators)

Fishery productimported

Verification confirms that fish was caught in compliance

with applicablelaws and regulations

No response or unsatisfactory

response receivedfrom flag State

Verification confirms that fish was not caught

in compliance with applicable

laws and regulations

Figure 3: The import process – Verification of catch certificates by member States


1.4 POTENTIAL LIABILITIES FOR RETAILERS, BRANDS AND NATIONALS

AlthoughthemajorityoffisheryproductswithinUKsupplychainsareoflegaloriginandfromregulatedfisheries,thereisevidenceofIUUfisheryproductsthatareaccompaniedbyvalidatedcatchcertificatesenteringEUsupplychains.Whenconsideredwithintheglobalcontext,wherehighlevelsofIUUactivitypersist,itisevidentthatnotallStatesarefulfillingtheirdutiestoprevent,deterandeliminateIUUfishing.

Critical to theeffectivenessof theRegulation is the roleofflagStatesandMemberStates in thevalidationandverificationofthecatchcertificate.IfintegrityoftheprocessiscompromisedandtherelevantStatesfailtomeetminimumrequirements,theinformationprovidedonthecatchcertificatecannotalwaysbetakenatfacevalueandconsidered completely accurate. In light of this evidence, DEFRA has urged companies to ‘consider their traceability due diligence processes and risk management for all products wherever sourced to mitigate the risk of IUU products contaminating the UK supply chain.’10 As a result, businesses in theUKhave had to invest significant time andresourcestoinvestigate(andverify)informationonthecatchcertificateinordertominimiseriskofproductsbeingdelayedorconfiscatedatport,aswellastoavoidanypotentialliability.

Fish/fishery product

• New product• Species of high commercial value• Significant/suddenincreaseintradevolumeforacertainspecies

Flag State• PresumeddeficienciesincontrolsystemofflagState• TradeisinconsistentwithfishingactivitiesofflagState• IrregularitiesinflagState’svalidationofcatchcertifications

Processing State

• Newtradepatternortradeappearseconomicallyunjustified• Tradepatternisinconsistentwithactivitiesofprocessingcountry• Copiesofcatchcertificatesaresubmittedwithprocessingstatement

Port State • Portnotificationoflandingnotreceivedontime(orisincomplete)

Vessel

• Newoperatororrecentchangeinvesselname,flag,registrationnumber• Vessel/owner suspected of IUU (either current or historical)• Declaredcatchdata/otherinformationinconsistentwithinformationavailable

to competent authority

Figure 4: Summary of criteria used to identify risk during verification process of catch certificates

BoxesoffishbeinginspectedintheportofAbidjan,Côted’Ivoire©EJF


Retailers andbrands alreadyhave systems inplace to collect informationabout their supply chains to assess(andmitigate)riskforfoodsafetyandqualityassurancepurposesaswellastoassessthesustainabilityofthefishery.ThesesystemswillpickupaspectsrelatingtolegalitybutmaynotbesufficientlyrobusttoensurethatallIUUproductsareavoided.Todeterminewhether,andtowhatextent,furtheractionisnecessarytoavoidIUUproducts, it is importantto identifytheproductsupplychainsaffected,togatherrelevant information,andtoassess the risk of IUU.

One way to manage these risks is through a due diligence approach. This involves three simple steps: STEP 1: Information gathering–arangeofsupplychainandproductinformationiscollected. STEP 2: Risk assessment–informationgatheredisanalysedinordertoassessthelevelofrisk. STEP 3: Risk mitigation–stepsaretakentomitigate/eliminate/reducelevelofidentifiedrisks.

The rest of this Advisory Note provides information on IUU fishing and some of the associated risks. It alsooutlines some possible (and pragmatic) approaches to due diligence based on our current understanding.

2.1 INFORMATION GATHERING

Althoughthestartingpoint for informationcollection is thecatchcertificate,thecontaminationof IUUproductswithin the EU marketplace implies that validation processes of State(s) responsible are not consistently (or sufficiently) robust. This leaves businesses exposed to unnecessary risk. We therefore recommend that asbusinesses,youtakeadditionalstepstoprotectyourbrandandmanageriskbycollectingandverifyinginformationaboutyourproductsupplychains.Toensurethattheinformationgatheredrelatesdirectlytothefisheryproductinquestion,thesupplychainmustalsobefullytraceablefromyoubacktovessel(orgroupofvessels).

2.1.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

ForallfisheryproductsinthescopeoftheRegulation,basicinformationaboutthefishery,managementsystemsandsupplychainisrequired.Whereahighriskisidentifiedoryouaresourcingfromanewsupplier(orproductsupplychain), additionalquestionsmayneed tobeaskeduntil youare confidentabout thevalidityof the informationprovided and have the detail required to assess risk.

Mappingthesupplychainisanotherusefulexercisetohelpunderstandandidentifypossibleareasofriskandtoadequatelytraceproductsbacktovessel(orgroupofvessels).Inpractice,themajorityofcompaniesarealreadydoingthisaspartofthecommercialtransactionprocessandtodemonstratecompliancewithregulationsrelatingtofoodsafety.InformationdirectlyrelevanttoIUUfishingcanbegatheredaspartofthisprocessandstoredonaninternalsystem–ideallyonethatisalreadyusedinexistingstockcontrolorduediligencesystems.

Information gathering

Risk assessment

Risk mitigation

Figure 5: Due Diligence approach

PART II: OVERVIEW OF A DUE DILIGENCE SYSTEM

Examples of information to gather from a number of sources such as: 9 catchcertificate, 9 supplier – branded supplier, importer, processor, 9 site visits – documents, records and photographs, 9 writtencommunicationsandemailcorrespondencebetweensuppliers

and the supply chain, 9 self-assessments, audit reports, and 9 internet research – government websites, credible NGOs andacademicorganisations.


2.1.2 FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Thefrequencyatwhichyoucollect(orreview)informationaboutaproductsupplychainwillvaryacrosscompanies anddependonrisktoleranceandapproachtoduediligenceasawhole.Additionalfactorsaffectingthisprocessmayinclude:relativeimportanceoftheproducttothebusiness;relationshipwiththesupplier;knowledgeofthesupplychainsandconfidenceintheintegrityofsupply.

Typicallytherearetwodifferentpointsinabuyingcyclewhendatashouldbecollected:

a) New products with a new supplier Prior to placing your order with any new supplier, it is important to assess their general level of awareness and understandingoftheIUURegulation,alongsideotherrelevantfishinglawsandregulations.Basicinformation aboutthesystemsinplaceshouldalsoberequested,althoughsomedataislikelytobecommerciallysensitive and not easily shared.

b) New (or existing) products with the same supplier Retailers and brands may import and sell the same product throughout the year. If specifications do not change,thenitisreasonabletoassumethatthesourceofthefisheryproductsremainthesame.Inthissituation, annualupdatestore-confirmsourcedetailsarelikelytobesufficient. If product specifications change, however, new information should be provided by the supplier. Buyers canincludeprovisionsfornotificationwithinthecontractualagreementorspecification,usingadeclarationsuchas: “any supplier who intends to change the sourcing of the fishery product should notify the buyer immediately and supply information for approval.”

2.2 RISK ASSESSMENT

AriskassessmentisasystematicprocessthatcanberepeatedlyappliedtoevaluatetheriskofIUUfishingthatmaybeassociatedwithyoursupplychain.Aspartofthisprocess,allpossible issuesandconcernsarefirst identifiedfromtheinformationcollectedandthenassessed.Althoughtheriskfactorswillvarydependingonthefisheryandassociatedmanagementstructuresinplace,therearethreecoreelementsthatdeterminewhetherthecollectiveimpactoffactorsresultsinasignificant(orhigh)riskofIUUenteringyoursupplychain.

Asastartingpointofanalysis,threemainareastoconsideraspartofyourriskassessmentare:fishery,fisheriesmanagement and supply chain management.

Inspection:MeasuringthemeshsizeoffishingnetsinElmina,Ghana©EJF


Insomecases,additional informationmayberequiredtoascertainwhethertheriskdirectlyaffectsyoursupplychain. If so, youmay decide to consider alternative sourcing options or to explore opportunities to address ormitigatetheriskinordertocontinuesourcingfromthesupplier.Thisassessmentprocessandallocationofriskwillvarybycompany,andwilldependonrisktoleranceaswellasonthevalueorrelativeimportanceofthefisheryproductinrelationtotheoverallbusiness.

2.3 RISK MITIGATION

Riskmitigationconsistsofasetofmeasuresandproceduresthatareadequateandproportionatetominimisethatrisk,withdifferentactionsrequiredtoaddressit(dependingonthetypeofriskidentified).Itmayfirstbenecessarytoverifytheinformationreceived,whetherdirectlyorthroughathirdparty,tobetterunderstandtheriskandhowtoaddressit.Thedegreetowhichretailersandbrandsengageinriskmitigationwilldependonrisktoleranceaswellas other factors such as the importance of the product to the business. Other circumstances such as the nature of thesourcingrelationship(i.e.lengthofrelationship,historyofsuppliercompliance)andtheirabilitytoinfluenceandresourcetheimprovementplanwillalsoaffectthetermsofengagement.

Wherepossible,businessesshouldincorporateIUUfishingriskmitigationmeasuresintotheirexistingsystemsandsourcingpolicies,andthenimplementthroughoutthesupplychain.Thismayinvolvetheinsertionofanadditionalclauseinsuppliercontractsandinotherdocumentssuchassignedsupplierdeclarations.However,itisimportanttonotethesedeclarationsdonotnegateyourliabilityasanEUimporter.Itisthereforerecommendedthatretailersandbrandshavesystemsinplacetoverifythattheinformationprovidedbysuppliersiscredibleandissupportedby evidence.

FISHERY FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Level of IUU associated with fishery & vulnerability/susceptibility of

fishery to IUU

Governance systems in place to monitor, control, and enforce

the IUU Regulation

Supply chain controls in place to assess & mitigate risk of IUU from entering

the supply chain

•Whatisthefish/fishproduct? •Isitthirdpartycertifiedwithchain ofcustody?

•Whomanagesthefishery (flag/coastalState)?

• Have any States been issued with ayellowcard(orpendingredcard)?

•IstheflagStateconsideredaFlag ofConvenience?

•Isthefisheryproductprocureddirectlyfromatrustedsupplier/source?

•Whocatchesthefish? • Are any vessels in the supply chain flaggedbyaStatethathasbeenissuedayellowcard(orpendingred)?

•AreanyflaggedtoaFlag of Convenience?

• Does the State have MCS measures andpracticesinplace?

•Istherealicencingsystem?

• Is there a robust traceability system inplace?

•Isthereachainofcustodycertificate or documentedpapertrail?

•Whereisitcaught? •DoestherangeoffishingactivityextendacrossmorethanoneEEZ?

• Is the State a member (oraco-operatingparty) oftherelevantRFMO?

• Is the supply chain traceable from deliverytoyoubacktocatchvessel?

•Istheretranshipment? • Is it supervised (or are details of transhipmentavailable)?

• Does the State/RFMO maintain a publically available register of licencedvessels?

• Does the supplier maintain a list ofvessels?

•Whereiscatchlanded? •ArethereportStatecontrolsinplace?

• Is there an observer programme inplace?

• Are observers trained and independent?

• Does the port State have controls inplace?

•Doesitregisteralllandings?

•Isthepriceofthefishsignificantlylowerthantheaveragemarketprice?

•Doyoutrustthecatchcertificate? • Is the State associated with a high level ofcorruption?

• Does the processing facility verify legalityofcatchreceived?

•Istheretranshipment? • Is it supervised (or are details of transhipmentavailable)?

Table 3: Questions for your supplier


2.3.1 VERIFICATION AUDITS AND ASSESSMENTS

Additionalinformationordocumentationmayberequiredtodeterminewhethertherisksidentifieddirectlyaffectyoursupplychain.Someofthisinformationcanbeobtainedfromyourdirectsuppliersbutbusinessesmaywishtoconductamoredetailedinvestigationandverificationofinformationthroughsitevisitsandaudits.Retailersmayalso choose toappoint anorganisation to carryout thirdparty verificationbyundertakingadetailedaudit andreviewofitssuppliers.Thetypeandfrequencyofverificationdependsonthelevelofriskassociatedwiththefisheryproductandtherelativesignificanceoftheproductbyvolumeand/orvalue.

Types of verification could include: • Self-assessments/declarations: Anassessmentconductedbyasupplieronitsownoperations (orthoseunderitsdirectcontrolorownership)toensuretheinformationprovidediscredible.

• Second party audit: Internalauditconductedbybusinessesontheirsuppliers(orpotentialsuppliers) toascertainwhetherornotthesuppliercanmeetexistingorproposedsourcingrequirements.

• Third party audit: Externalauditsperformedbyorganisationsthatareindependentofboththebusiness andthesupplier.Thesearelikelytobeusedforfisheryproductswhichfallintothehigherriskcategories anddelivertheappropriatelevelofverification. In all cases, the auditors used must have the skills and knowledge necessary to assess sources against each of the legislativecomponentsrequiredundertheregulation.

2.3.2 TRACEABILITY & SUPPLY CHAIN VERIFICATION

Traceabilityistheabilitytofollowspecificbatchesorlotsoffish/fisheryproductsfromthesourcefisherythroughall stages of the supply chain to its point of sale. Food businesses should already have a range of robust traceability and riskmanagementprotocols inplace toaddress food safetyandqualitymanagement systems, soadditionalaspectsrelatingtoIUUshouldbeintegratedintotheseexistingsystemswherepossible.AnexampleoftraceabilitycomplianceisprovidedintheISOstandard‘Traceabilityoffinfishproducts’(12875:2011).

Traceabilityauditsorchainofcustodycertificationsprovideassurancesthatproductscomefromaparticularfishery,andthatabusinesshasadequatesystemsinplacetotrackandtracefisheryproductsfromthepointofcapturetothepointofsale.RobustcertificationsservetolowertheriskofproductsbeingcontaminatedbyIUUfisheriesproductandareakeytoolingatheringandverifyinginformation.

Forsomehighrisksources,DNAtestingmayprovideanadditionallevelofassurancebyverifyingspeciesidentityinthefisheryproduct(Box4).Mis-labellingandmis-identificationcanleadtoIUUproductsenteringthesupplychain.AlthoughDNAtestingcanbeusedasatooltoverifyinformationandpotentiallyidentifyanIUUfisheryproduct, itshouldnotbeconsideredasubstitutefordatacollectionandanalysis.

2.3.3 ALTERNATIVE SOURCES

Ifahighriskisidentifiedasdirectlyaffectingyoursupplychain,youmaydecidetoexploreopportunitiestomitigatethe risk and continue sourcing from the supplier or you may decide to consider alternative sourcing options.Actions considered appropriate to the risk identified should be developed into an improvement plan with therelevantparties,with atimelineandagreed seriesof correctiveactions. In situationswhere the influenceand/or resources available tomitigate the risk is limited, however, businessesmay need to stop sourcing from thesupplierorfishery inquestion.Thisdecisionandthereasoningbehindthedecisionshouldbecommunicatedtotherelevantparties,withrecommendationsofhowtoimprovepracticeswithinthesupplychaintoavoidtheriskofIUU.TheserecommendationsmayalsoextendtoMemberStatesandStatesassociatedwiththegovernanceandimplementationoftheRegulation.


VesselsengagedinIUUfishingactivitydisregardlimits,frequentlytargetingspeciesofhighvalueinremoteareasor fishing where there is limited capacity and/or ineffective control measures in place to protect the fishery.Vesselsoperatingillegally(orotherwisefailingtoaccuratelyreportoncatch),aremostprolificwherethereisweakgovernanceorenforcementandwherepoortraceabilitysystemsfailtoidentifyIUUproductsbacktovesselorgroupofvessels.UsingcriteriaidentifiedbytheMMOandthoseoutlinedinFAOvoluntaryguidelines,wehavecategorisedriskintothreecoreareas–Fishery,FisheriesManagementandSupplyChainManagement(Figure6).

TheduediligenceapproachoutlinedinthisAdvisoryNoteisintendedforuseinindustrialfishingoperations.ItisameanstohelpidentifytheriskofsourcingIUUfisheryproductsandtopreventtheseproductsfromenteringsupplychains.Theprocessoutlinedisasimplifiedoverviewofwhatthismightlooklike;butshouldbeadaptedandbuilton as needed.

Foreachfisheryproductsourced,basicinformationaboutthenatureofthefisheryandhowitisbeingmanagedbytheStateandindustryshouldbecollected.Foreverybusiness,theremaybeadditionalquestionsandfactorstobeconsideredbeforemakingadecisiononsourcingdependingontheproductsupplychain,relationshipwithsupplierand level of risk tolerance.

AlternativeduediligencemeasuresmayberequiredforsmallscalefisheriesbecausethesystemsusedbyflagStatesandsuppliersmaybedifferenttothoseusedinindustrialfisheries.

Part III: KEY ASPECTS OF DUE DILIGENCE RELATED TO IUU FISHING

Supply Chain Management

Fishery

Fisheries Management

IUU Risk Assessment

Figure 6: Core IUU Risk Assessment areas

PiratefishinginSierraLeone©EJF


3.1 FISHERY

CertainfisheriesmaybemoresusceptibletoIUUactivitiesdependingonthefisheryoperationsandthenatureandstructureofthesourcefishery.Fisheriesoperatingundereffectivelyenforcedquotasystems,forexample,aremoreregulatedandthereforelesspronetoIUUactivity(withtheexceptionofhighgrading)thanthosethataremanagedasacommonresource.Keyfactorsincludethevalueofthespecies(atdifferentsizes),thecostsofcatchingthem,rangeandlocationofthefishery,andtheefficiencyofcontrolandenforcementmeasuresinplace.11

Toassessthepotentialriskassociatedwiththefisherysourcedfrom,informationtobecollectedaboutthefisherymay include the following:

• Species: high value commercial species targeted, including data on by-catch species.

• Range and location: listofFAOcatchareasandinformationonspeciescaughtinmorethanone

‘legal’ area, includingthosethatmigrateacrossmultipleEEZsoronthehighseas.

• Operations: fleetsize/capacity,listofvesselidentities.

• Management/governance:listofrelevantStatesandauthoritieswithjurisdictionoverfishery; anymanagement/mitigationmeasuresbeingusedwithrespecttotargetspecies(i.e.quotas/TACs) andthoseinplacetoreduceby-catch,whererelevant;andinformationonfisherycertification andchainofcustodycertification,whereitexists.

3.1.1 FISHERY RANGE AND LOCATION

To determine the impact and susceptibility of a fishery to IUU fishing activities, basic knowledge of the stockstructureandthegeographicalareasitoccupiesisrequired.Ifthespatialrangeofthestockextendsintomorethanonearea,thefisherymaybemanagedbymultipleStatesthathavevaryingcapacitiestomonitorandpatroltheirwaters.Spatialdistributioncanalsochangeseasonally.Sometunastocks,forexample,followmigratoryroutesthattake them through the waters of several countries and out into the high seas. This route may lead to a higher rate of underreportingcomparedtofisherieslocatedwithintheterritorialwatersofregulatedStates.Factorstoconsiderwhenassessing theabilityof theflag/coastal State (or theRFMO) tomonitorandcontrol access related to thegeographical area the stock occupies (whether it is within territorial, EEZ or high seas) and the extent to which this expandstootherwatersduetomigrationorseasonalpatterns.

3.1.2 VESSEL IDENTIFICATION

Under the IUURegulation, fish from vessels on the EU IUUVessel List and thosewithout the necessary RFMOauthorisation (if applicable)will beblocked fromexport into theEU. The identityof vessels isobtainedusingacombinationofvesselname,flag,ownershipandinsomecases,anidentificationnumber.

Toverifyvesselidentityandcompliancerecords,allrelevantvessellistsand/orvesselregistersthatareheldbyflagState,coastalStateand/orRFMOmustbechecked.Vesselsmayappearonmultiplelists,regardlessofwheretheyarecurrentlyfishingandmayevenbe listedunderdifferentnames,owners,andflags.Dependingonthesupplychain,itmaybedifficulttoquicklyandaccuratelyverifythisinformation,whichmaycauseshipmentstobedelayedat port at a cost to the importer along with possible legal liability.

Examples of information to collect on fisheries:

9 Rangeandlocationoffishery – fish/seafoodspecies;stock (including commercial by-catch and unwanted TEP by-catch),

9 catch – FAO (or ICES) catch area, catch method, 9 fleetstructure/capacity–numberofvessels,typeoffleet (sizeofvessels,complexity/lengthofsupplychain).

Examples of information to collect on vessels: 9 vesselname,ownerandflagState, 9 uniquevesselidentifier(Phase1:IMOnumberifover100GT), 9 registrationnumber, 9 skipper/fishermanlicence.


Global Record of Vessels

Itiscurrentlyverydifficultforbusinessestoverifyvesselidentitiesduetofrequentchangesinvesselownership,vesselname,flagStateetc.Toimprovethisprocess,therelevantvesselinformation–includinghistoryofnon-compliance,vesselname,ownershipetc.–needstoremaintiedtothevesselthroughoutitslifespan.Themandatoryallocationofauniquevessel identifier (UVI), suchas the InternationalMaritimeOrganization (IMO)number, forallfishingvesselswouldincreasetransparencyofoperationsandensurealevelplayingfieldforallvessels.Onceallocated,IMOnumberscanthenbeintegratedintosupplychainrecordsfromvesselregistrationsthroughtotranshipmentdeclarationsandsalesnotes,thereinimprovingthetraceabilityoffishproductsthroughoutthemarketchain.

IMO numbers are widely used in the merchant shipping sector and also required for passenger vessels of at least 100 GT and for cargo vessels of at least 33 GT. It is the only UVIinoperationthatisavailableonthescalerequiredforthefishingsectorandsincethe number is free and easy to obtain, burden on vessels would be minimal. Although fishingvesselscannowapplyforanIMOnumber,theschemeremainsvoluntary(withtheexceptionofafewRFMOssuchasICCATandCCAMLRthatrequireIMOnumbersforlarge-scale vessels). Consequently, use of IMO numbers remains low, with only one third offishingvesselsregistered.

Global Record of Fishing Vessels, Refrigerated Transport Vessels and Supply Vessels

On its own, use of an IMO number does not confirm vessel compliance with the Regulation.Tostrengthenassurancesoftheidentitiesandhistoriesofthefishingvesselsinsupplychains, it isthereforenecessarytocoupleuseofIMOswithregistrationonaglobalplatformoronadatabaseliketheGlobalRecordofFishingVessels,RefrigeratedTransport Vessels and Supply Vessels (or Global Record of Vessels).

TheGlobalRecordofVesselsisanFAOinitiativetoimprovetransparencyandtraceabilityin the fisheries sector by providing a centralised database of information on fishingvessels. The FAO plans to apply a Global Record in three phases: Phase 1: Coveringallvessels≥100GTor≥100GRTor≥24m. Phase 2:Allvessels<100GTor<100GRTor<24mbut≥50GTor≥50GRTor≥18m. Phase 3: All other eligible vessels, notably vessels < 50GT or < 50GRT or < 18m but≥10GTor≥10GRTor≥12m.

Thisdatabasewouldcontaindatathatisverifiedbytherelevantauthoritiesincluding:

• vessel name, gear type,• descriptionofcapacityandcapability,• name of owners (and associated interests), • listoffishingauthorisations,• historyofnon-compliance(inspections,infractions,IUUlists,etc.),• informationonvesselsinvolvedintranshipmentandrefuellingoperations,and• any other relevant and available data.

To ensure coverage is comprehensive, RFMOs should also coordinate their vessel records with the Global Record. RECOMMENDATION: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fishing vessel identity verification, theBRC,EJFandWWFsupporttheuseoftheIMOnumberasauniquevesselidentifierforthefishingindustryinconjunctionwithregistrationofthesenumbersintheGlobalRecord of Vessels.

Box 1: International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Numbers


KEY QUESTIONS WHAT TO RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS ACTION NEEDED

Whatisthefish/fishproduct?

Nameoffish/seafoodspecies. Stock component (list of by-catch species – commercial and unwanted/TEP by-catch).

There is a high level of IUU associated with thefishery.

Priceoffishissignificantlylowerthanaveragemarket price.

AssessriskofIUU(levelofIUU,susceptibility/vulnerability) against business tolerance to risk, including whether it is high value/high volume. ForacredibleestimateofIUUinthefishery,reviewindependent reports and journals (eg. ICES, NOAA, peerreviewedscientificreports). Obtaininformationonfisheryoperations– data/records of catch and/or by-catch.

Where/how is itcaught?

Rangeandlocationoffishery–FAO/ICES catch areas.

Fishingactivitytakesplaceinmorethanone EEZ or on high seas. ObtaininformationonMCSmeasuresinplace.

Type of gear/catch method used.

Gearusedisnotverifiedaslegal. Gear used is associated with unwanted by-catch and/or environmental damage (eg. seabed impacts).

Verify gear used is legal in catch area. Obtaininformationongearselectivityorothermeasures in place to reduce risk of bycatch and/or damage to environment.

Whocatchesit?

Vessel information (for entire supply chain): •listofvessels–toincludeflagStates,registrationnumberand licence,

•UniqueVesselidentifier(UVI).

One or more vessels in the supply chain are registeredtoaflag/coastalStatethatisyellowcarded (or pending red card).

Considerrelativeimportanceoffisheryproduct,history of State performance (risk of being issued aredcard,levelofIUUassociatedwithfisheryetc),relationshipwithsupplier.

One or more vessels are registered to a Flag of Convenience. Supplychainis(unjustifiably)longandcomplex. Access to information: •informationforoneormorevesselsis

unavailable, inaccurate, or incomplete,•registrationand/orlicencenumberismissing

for one or more vessels,•weak/limitedinformationonfleet size/capacity.

Obtain/verifyallvesselidentitiesandhistoryofcompliance(currentlynotpracticaltoverifyonlarge scale – need mandatory IMO and Global Record to do so). Conduct traceability audit. Cross check list of vessels with: • EU decision, •InterpolPurplenoticesforIUUarrests, • State registers, RFMO register.

Where fishery is regulated by an RFMO: • RFMO vessel register.

Where fishery is regulated by an RFMO: • one or more vessels are not on RFMO register,•oneormorevesselsisflaggedto

a non-cooperatingparty(notamemberof the RFMO).

Verifyvesselidentitiesandcompliancewith RFMO requirements.

Is there transhipment?

Details of transhipment (date, at sea/at port). Name of State issuing licence.

Transhipment is not standardpractice inthefishery. Transhipment is not conducted in accordance withRFMOregulations. No observer programme/ transhipment is not supervised. Protocol for transhipment not in place or lacking.

Check that supplier can reconcile product transfer records with mass balance at every stage in the supply chain. Verify details of transhipment with copy of catchcertificate. Verify protocols on Government or RFMO websites.

Basicvesselinformationforcatch and carrier vessels involved in transhipment (flagState,registrationnumberand licence, UVI).

Access to information: •informationforoneormorevesselsis

unavailable, inaccurate or incomplete,•lackofinformationanddocumentationrelatingtothetranshipment.

ObtaininformationaboutportStateinspectionprogram(numberofinspections,percentageconductedatrandom,coverageoffishery). Verify with observer reports.

Where is catch landed?

List of port landing States or country (province).

StatusonratificationofPortState Measures Agreement for each port State.

Evidence of port State controls.

PortStatehasnotratifiedPSMAordevelopednationalinterpretation. No evidence of standards or protocols in place. LackofinformationonportStateinspectionsorthird party controls in place at port of landing.

Obtaininformationonportlandingprocedures anddocumentsrequiredincountryofoperation. Obtaininformationoninspectionprogrammeorthird party controls in place. Verify with evidence or State controls in place (eg.documents,recordsofinspection).

Notallfishisregisteredonlanding. Verifywithportlandingregistrationrecords.

Isthefisherycertifiedbyathirdparty?Isthereachainofcustody?

Listnameofcertification. Certificatenumberassociatedwithfisheryproductandchainof custody.

Fisheryisnotthirdpartycertified. No established chain of custody.

Verifycertificatenumberonwebsite. Check for evidence of other traceability systems in place and verify with audit reports.

Table 4: Assessing IUU risks in fisheries and required actions


3.2 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

IUUfishingisnotanewphenomenonincapturefisheries.Althoughcommonlyassociatedwiththehighseas,IUUalsooccursinexclusiveeconomiczones(EEZs)andtheterritorialwatersofcoastalStates,extendingintoinlandfisheries.Thesezones(ormaritimeareas)areunderthejurisdictionofthecoastalStateorRFMO.

ThelikelihoodofdetectingIUUactivityisaffectedbyanumberoffactors,including:sizeofterritorytobepatrolled,numberofavailablepatrolboatsand inspectors, frequency (andadequacy)of inspections,access to technologyfor vessel monitoring, quality of controls at port and judicial infrastructure. This depends on the capacity of the relevantflag/coastalStateorRFMOandtheresourcesavailabletotheminordertomonitorvessels,controlaccesstofisheriesandultimatelyenforcerelevantlawsandregulations.Referredtoasmonitoring,controlandsurveillance(MCS)systems,thesearethesystemsinplacethatgather,effectivelydetermineandestablishtherulesofthefishery.Usually,itisoneofthedepartmentswithintheMinistryresponsibleforfisheriesthatisresponsibleforsettingupand maintaining the MCS system.

DifferentfisherytypesrequiredifferentMCSresponses.IndustrialfisheriestendtousemoretraditionalcomponentsofMCSsuchasvesselregisters,observerprogrammes,VMSandpatrolvesselsandaircrafts.Inanartisanalorsmallscalefisherythecombinationoflargenumbersoffishersandlandingplaces,mixedgearsandmigrantfishersmakesMCSanoftencomplextask.Thecombinedapproachofcommunity-basedmanagementandthemoretraditionaluseofgovernmentdatacollectors,framesurveysandsomeenforcementpersonnelareoftenrequired.

Territorial Sea

Baseline

Contiguous Zone

200 M12 M 24 M3 M

Limited enforcement

zone

Exclusive Economic Zone

Continental Shelf The Area

The High Seas

State/ Territory Coastal Waters

Territorial Sea

Scale of Rights

Sovereign Territory

No national rightsSovereign rightsto the

continental shelf

Sovereign rights to the watercolumn and continental shelf

Sovereignty extends to the air

space, watercolumn, seabed

and subsoil allowing for theright of innocent

passage

To 200 M inherent sovereign rights forexploringandexploitingnon-livingresources of seabed and subsoil,

plus sedentary species

Sovereignrightsforexploring,exploiting,conserving and managing living and

non-living resources of the watercolumnandunderlyingcontinentalshelf

Watercolumnbeyondnationaljurisdiction

1nauticalmile(M)=1852m

Beyond 200 Msubmission

required to theCommission on

the Limits ofContinentalShelftoconfirmrights

Seabed and subsoil non-livingsesources administeredbytheInternational

Seabed Authority

Theouteredgeofcontinentalmarginupto a maximum of 350 M from the TSB or 100 M beyond the 2,500 m isobath,

which ever is the greatest

Maritimezonesandrightsunderthe1982UnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(UNCLOS)

Figure 7: Maritime zones recognised under international law

Figure 7: Maritime zones recognised under international law


3.2.1 FLAG STATES

TheflagStateofafishingvesselisthecountryunderwhoselawsthevesselisregisteredorlicenced.Amongotherduties,theState isresponsibleforauthorisingfishing licencesandformonitoringandcontrollingfishingactivitiescarriedoutbyvesselsoperatingunderitsflag.Byauthorisingavesseltofish,theflagStateeffectivelyassumesauthorityandcontrolovertheshipandbecomesresponsibleforensuringthefishingactivitiesofthevesselareconductedinaccordancewithstandardssetoutinrelevantfisherieslawsandregulations.However,thedegreetowhichflagStatesfulfilthesedutiesisinconsistentandinsomecases,maynotmeettheminimumstandardrequiredtoverifycatchcertificatesortoenforcefisheriesregulation.Whereperformanceisfoundlacking,theEuropeanCommissionmayissue a warning (yellow card) to the State. If no improvement is made, a red card is issued and the State is considered tobeanon-cooperatingthirdcountry(i.e.anynon-EUcountry)anditsproductsbannedfromimportintotheEU.

Flag State Performance

The criteria by which the European Commission evaluates the performance and compliance of third countries and the process through which these decisions are made are considered by some stakeholders as not fully transparent.13

The FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance help provide some insight into the criteria used by outlining arangeofactionstoensurethatregisteredvesselsdonotengageinIUUfishing.Eventhoughtheguidelinesarevoluntary,theirendorsementbytheFAOCommitteeonFisheries(COFI)providesasharedsetofstandardsagainstwhich States can benchmark performance. These include:

9 issuingfisherieslicencesandverifyinglicencesforcoastalStates, 9 exercisingjurisdictionandcontrolovervesselsflyingitsflag, 9 vesselregistrationandmaintenanceofthevesselregister,includinginformation

on history of non-compliance, etc., 9 monitoringandcontrollingfishingactivity,and 9 validatingcatchcertificatestoensurefishexportedisincompliance withapplicablelawsandregulations.

Box 2: About Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MCS systems can be developed for either specific fisheries or a group of interactingfisheries.Thesesystemsaredefinedby:12

‘Monitoring’: The collection, measurement and analysis of fishing activity including:catch, species composition, fishing effort, by-catch, discards and areas of operation.Examples: Vessel logbooks, VMS and observers, port landings.

‘Control’: Thespecificationofthetermsandconditionsunderwhichresourcescanbeharvested.These specificationsarenormally contained innationalfisheries legislationandotherarrangementsthatmightbenationally,subregionally,orregionallyagreed.

‘Surveillance’:Theregulationandsupervisionoffishingactivitytoensurethatnationallegislationandterms,conditionsofaccessandmanagementmeasuresareobserved.

MCS is improving in many countries but success depends on:• firmfoundationofnewlegislationonfisheries,• human resources – inspectors and observers with basic training in monitoring and surveillance,• informationsystems/IT–thequalityoftheinformationsystemsplusintegrationwith

vessel monitoring systems (VMS),• infrastructure – patrol vessels and planes.


Flag State performance: EU Decision on non-cooperating country

Flag States are designated as ‘non-cooperating third countries’ if they fail to comply with requirements underinternational lawand/or fail to take action to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUUfishing.When theCommissiondeterminesthataflagStateisnotfulfillingitsduties,14itisfirstissuedawarning(oryellowcard)andthengiven6-12monthstoimprove.Duringthisperiod,itisstilllegaltoimporttheseproductsintotheEUbutifflaggedwithayellowcard,consignmentsareatgreaterriskofdelayduetoincreasedscrutinyfromenforcementauthorities.

Red card

IfafterissuingayellowcardtheCommissiondeterminesthatprogressisinsufficient,itwillproposethecountryislistedas‘non-cooperating’andissuedaredcard.TheproposalmustbeadoptedbytheEuropeanCouncilbeforethecountryisofficiallylistedasnon-cooperating–aprocessthatcouldtakeseveralmonths(Figure8:EUdecisionsonflagStateperformance).Duringthisperiod,thefish/fisheryproductmaystillbeimportedintotheEUlegallybutatgreaterrisktothebuyer,duetotheidentifiedfailingsinthesupplychainandbecauseimportofthefish/fisheryproduct may be blocked at any point in the months following the proposal. Increased consignment controls and verificationsmayfurtherresultindelaysatport.

Valiente whilst detained in the Spanish port of Las Palmas © EJF


Figure 8: EU decisions on flag State performance – issuing yellow and red cards

Commission determines that flag/coastal State

is not fulfilling duties (aslistedinArticle31.3)

State is issued a YELLOW CARD

TIMELINE: 6 to 12 months to improve

PRODUCT IS LEGAL TO IMPORT

European Council adopts proposal and issues

a RED CARD to the flag/coastal State

YELLOW CARD remains in place –

Commission reviews the case after several months

Insufficient progress, Commission proposes that State

is issued a RED CARD (i.e.listedasnon-cooperating)

Proposal is reviewed by European Council

TIMELINE: several months

PRODUCT IS LEGAL TO IMPORT

RED CARD

Fisheries products caught by vessels from this flag/coastal State

(or transported by refrigerated cargo vessels) are BANNED FROM IMPORT

INTO THE EU

Sufficient progress made, YELLOW CARD

revoked


WhenaStateassociatedwithyoursupplychainisissuedayellowcard,companiesmaychoosetolookforalternativesources, or cease sourcing if the risk is considered too high. In some circumstances, such as where there is a long establishedsupplierrelationshiporthesupplychain inquestionisfundamentaltothebusiness,companiesmaydecide to continue sourcing.Whenmaking this decision, however, efforts should be made to mitigate risk bysupporting improvementprojects,monitoringprogressof the State and/orby verifying their own supply chain.Factors to consider when assessing the risk of sourcing from a supply chain associated with a yellow card include:

9 importanceofproductbothintermsofquantityandvaluetoyourcompany, 9 risk tolerance of your company, 9 corporatecommitmentstofisheriesimprovement,investmentin

Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIP’s) etc., 9 natureofnon-complianceidentifiedbyCommissionDecision, 9 longevity/historyofrelationshipwiththesupplierengagement,and 9 supplierengagementwithfisheryandevidenceprovidedinrelationtogovernance insupplychain,effortstoimprovemonitoringandcontrol(e.g.useofVMSetc.).

Vessel registration – Flags of Convenience

Itisverydifficulttoprovideastandardoverviewofregistrationrequirementsforfishingvesselsbecausetheissuingofregistration,licencingprocessandrenewalperiodcanvaryfromStatetoState.Atoneendofthespectrum,asanentrylevelstandard,someStatesrequireonlyaminimumlevelofinformationbeforeissuingregistration,whichmaytakeaslittleasoneday.ForStatesoperatingmorerobustsystems,amuchgreaterlevelofinformationisrequiredandregistrationisonlyissuedaftertheStateverifiesdetailsthroughaseriesofcrosschecksthatmayevenincludea survey of the ship.

IfsourcingproductwithvesselsfishingunderaknownFoC,additionalmeasuresarerequiredtomitigaterisksofIUUfisheriesproductsenteringsupplychains.ThismayincludedetailedinformationonMCSsystemsinplacebytheflagState,includinguseofVMS,observercoverage,accesstologbooksetc.aswellasrecordsofinspectionsthatconfirmlegalityofoperations.

EffectivemonitoringbyflagStates requiresgood infrastructureandcommunicationbetweenship registries, thegovernmentandotherregulatorybodies.Better informationexchangeandco-operationamongcountrieswouldenableflagStatestoidentify(andrefuseregistrationof)vesselsthatare‘flag-hopping’(e.g.attemptingtoregisterwithmorethanoneflagState)andtorefusevesselsthathavebeenreportedforIUUfishing.

Examples of information to request on flag States:

9 listofflaggedvessels,includingflagState,registrationnumber,licenceandUVI,

9 typeofStatefisherycontrolsinplace–quota/effort, 9 Statesystemoflicencingandregistration,includingrenewal, 9MCS systems in place – VMS, port sampling, observer coverage, use of logbooks,

9 recordsformaintenanceoffishingandrelatedlogbooks, 9 name of State authorising transhipment licences, 9 catch and transhipment reports (aggregated according to areas and species).


3.2.2 COASTAL STATES

MorethanninetypercentoftheglobalcatchisestimatedtobetakenwithinwatersunderthejurisdictionofcoastalStates.17Underinternationallaw,coastalStates–countriesinwhosewatertheactualfishingactivitytakesplace–areresponsibleforfisherieswithinitsterritorialwatersaswellaswithintheEEZ.This includesconservationandmanagementofresourcesandtheissuingoflicencesforvesselswithintheEEZandverifyinglicencesissuedbyflagStates.However,thesedutiesdonotextendtothehighseaswhereithasvirtuallynolegalpower,excepttoregulateitsownnationalsandvessels.

IUUfishingthatoccurswithinterritorialwatersortheEEZisfrequentlyconductedbyvesselsregisteredinthecoastalStatesthemselvesandtendstomanifestintheformofunderreportingormisreportingofcatch.18 CoastalStaterolesandresponsibilities:

9 issuingfishinglicencesforvesselsfishingwithinitsjurisdiction(theEEZ), 9 verificationofvessellicencesfishingwiththeEEZ(asissuedbyflagState), 9 publicationoflicencelists(vesselsregistry), 9 conservationandresourcemanagementwithintheEEZ, 9 regulatingfishingaccess–monitoring,controlandsurveillanceoffishingactivitiesintheEEZ, 9 logbookrecordingitsfishingactivities,and 9 licencingofat-seatranshipmentandprocessingoffishandfishproductsincoastalStatewaters.

Box 3: Flags of Convenience

FishingvesselsmustbelicencedbyaflagStateandregisteredtofishinordertooperate.Once registered, the vessel flies theflagof that State,with theunderstanding that itoperatesunderitslawsandregulations.Somevesselowners,specificallythoseoperatingillegally,willthereforeprefertobeflaggedbyStatesthathaverelativelylaxlawsandlowstandardsofmonitoringandenforcement.ThesevesselsareabletoregisterwiththeflagState of choice as long as it operates an open register and allows foreign vessels in.

A flag State is considered a Flag of Convenience (FoC) ‘where beneficial ownershipand control of a vessel is found to lie elsewhere than in the country of the flag thevesselisflying’.15Vesselownersbenefitfromthelinkthroughfewervesselrestrictions,competitive tax rates, lower administration and registration fees,minimal nationalityrequirements,quickandefficientregistrationprocess,and/orowneroperationalcostsof the vessel.16Byoperatingthisregistry,flagStatesareabletogeneraterevenuefromtonnageandregistrationfeesandfranchiseand/orroyaltyfees.

AlthoughtherearenouniversallyagreedcriteriaonwhatconstitutesaFlagofConvenience,there are some general indicators: •flagStateisalandlockednation, •disproportionatenumberofforeignownedvesselstodomesticonregistry, • open ship registries run by private companies based in other countries.

ToencouragebestpracticeinsteadofsimplylabellingcountriesasFlagsofConvenience,the term ‘Flags of Integrity’ can be used, with the aim to promote states that have effectivelegislationandenforcementtoaddressIUUfishing.

RECOMMENDATION: Retailers and brands should ensure that there is a genuine link betweentheflagStateandthefishingoperation/operators,andshouldpromoteStateswith robust national laws regarding IUU fishing and already effectively enforcing allmajorinternationalfishingtreaties.


Ofall its responsibilities, theroleofcoastalStates inverifying licences isoneof themostcritical,particularly incountries where licences can be obtained through agencies. Ideally, a coastal State should not allow access unless itisrequestedtodosobytheflagState,ortheflagStateatleastindicatesthatitdoesnotobjecttotheproposedfishing.ThepermissiongrantedtosuchavesselbyacoastalStateserves,ineffect,asasecondauthorisationtofish.

Thepublicationoflicencelists(ortheregistry)bycoastalStatesisanotherimportantsafeguardthathelpstocombatlicencing irregularities andminimises the incidenceof fakeor fraudulent licences.However,where lists arenotavailable, it may be necessary to clarify the process for obtaining licences with the supplier.

3.2.3 REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS

Regionalfisheriesmanagementorganisations(RFMOs)aretypicallyformedwherethesamestock(s)ofassociatedspecies occur within the EEZs of two or more coastal States i.e. straddling stocks and where the stocks are highly migratory.Ingeneral,themarineresourcesmanagedbyRFMOsarecommerciallyvaluableandusuallycoverfishstocks that travel long distances as well as those that move between the waters of more than one country or between nationalandinternationalwaters(highseas).

Thereareapproximately17RFMOscoveringvariousgeographicareas.Ofthese,fivearethetunaRFMOs,whichmanagefisheriesfortunaandotherlargespeciessuchasswordfishandmarlin.

Examples of information to request on coastal States:

9 list of vessels registered by coastal State, 9 informationaboutsystemofregistration,includingrenewal, 9 informationonMCSsystemsinplace–VMS,portsampling,observer coverage, use of logbooks etc.,

9 licenceverificationrecords(e.g.audits,certifications), 9 list of transhipments occurring within EEZ, including vessels involved anddateandlocationofalloccurringatsea.

Tuna vessel, Belouga,mooredatthePortofAbidjan,Côted’Ivoire © EJF


CCAMLR

CCBSP

GFCM

NEAFC

NASCO

NAFO

SEAFO

SIOFA

SPRFMO

AIDCP

CCSBT

IATTC

ICCAT

IOTC

WCPFC

• ConventiononConservationofAntarcticMarine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

• ConventionontheConservationandManagementofPollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (CCBSP)

• General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

• North-EastAtlanticFisheriesCommission(NEAFC)

• NorthAtlanticSalmonConservationOrganisation(NASCO)

• NorthwestAtlanticFisheriesOrganization(NAFO)

• South-EastAtlanticFisheriesOrganization(SEAFO)

• South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)

• SouthPacificRegionalFisheriesManagement Organisation(SPRFMO)

• AgreementontheInternationalDolphinConservationProgramme(AIDCP)(sisterorganisationtoIATTC)

• CommissionfortheConservationofSouthern BluefinTuna(CCSBT)

• Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

• InternationalCommissionfortheConservationofAtlanticTunas(ICCAT)

• Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

• WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission(WCPFC)

Figure 10: RFMOs which manage highly-migratory species, mainly tuna

Figure 9: RFMOs which manage fish stocks by geographical area

© European Union, 1995-2014 © European Union, 1995-2014

ActionstakenbytheRFMOtoidentifyandaddressIUUfishinghelptoreducetheriskofIUUbutmechanismsputin place to enforce compliance are of variable quality.

RFMOactivitiesmayinclude:

9 operationofIUUvessellistsand/orauthorisedvessellists, 9 mechanismstoverifyfishingvesselactivitiesandaddressnon-compliance, 9 sanctioningIUUfishingactivitythroughcompliancecommittees, 9 operationofelectroniccatchcertificationschemes, 9 employment of trained independent observers on vessels, and 9 useofDNAtomitigaterisksofspeciessubstitutionormislabelling.

Box 4: DNA Testing

DNAisbeingincreasinglyseenasaneffectivewayofidentifyingIUUfisheryproducts.Itisameanstocheckthereliabilityoflabellingthroughverificationofspeciesandtheoriginoffisheryproducts.

Article13ofCouncilRegulation(EC)No1224/2009madeitcompulsoryforMemberStates to explore genetic tools for fisheries enforcement purposes. TheMMO’s IUUTeam has now begun a sampling programme for imports, which aims to ensure that speciesmatchdeclarationsoncatchcertificatesandotherimportdocumentation.

AdoptionofmorewidespreadusesofDNAtestingbyotherportstateauthoritiescouldfacilitateincreasedidentificationofIUUfisheryproducts.



Who is managing thefishery?

ListofvesselflagStates. List of coastal States.

Oneormoreflag/coastalStatesinthesupply chain have been issued a yellow card (or pending red card).

Considerrelativeimportanceoffisheryproduct,relationshipwithsupplier.

State performance – risk of being issued a red card, level ofIUUassociatedwithfishery.

FAOguidelinesonflagStateperformance,independentreportsonfisheriesIUU.

One or more vessels are registered to aflagStateconsideredtobeaFlagofConvenience. Nonationalactionplansinplaceto address IUU.

Statemanagingfisheryisassociatedwithhighlevelofcorruption.

Obtainadditionalinformation/evidenceofvesselcompliance including use of MCS, VMS and observers. Check State performance: • check ranking of States in the World Bank indicies of corruptionandgovernance,

•estimates/levelofIUUassociatedwithfishery(ICES,NOAA,peerreviewedscientificreports)

•checkfisherylawsandregulationsareavailable/accessibleongovernmentwebsite;andthatState hasnationalactionplanstocombatIUU,

• check compliance against FAO guidelines on flagStateperformance.

Where fishery is managed by an RFMO: • name of RFMO, • evidence of RFMO

membership requirements.

RFMOhasissuedawarning/takenactionagainstoneormoreflagorcoastalStates in the supply chain. FlagStateisanoncooperatingmemberoftheRFMOthatismanagingthefishery.

RFMO does not maintain a vessel register.

ReviewenforcementactivitiesofRFMO,recent meetingsetc.

How is access tothefisherycontrolled?

Type of fishery controls in place: •quotaand/oreffort.

Accesstofisheryisnotcontrolled. Harvestingcontrolrules.19

Informationonlicencing andregistrationsystem(period of review/renewal, issuing party etc.)

CoastalStateisnotverifyingallflagStatelicencesforvesselsfishinginmultipleEEZ. One or more vessels are missing required licencestofishineachoftheEEZs. Licenses are not issued directly by government.

Obtaininformationonlicencingandregistrationsystem,includingperiodofrenewal,responsibleparties,methodof payment.

How are vessels monitored?

Type of monitoring systems in place: • VMS (or other systems for small scale), • port sampling, • logbooks, • observer programme.

Limited uptake of VMS by vessels withinfleet. No observer programmes in place. Lackofdocuments/recordsofinspection.

Obtainadditionalinformation/evidenceofvesselcompliance including use of MCS, VMS and observers.

Where fishery is managed by an RFMO: • reference to RFMO

requirements and monitoring/control measures in place,

• list of registered vessels.

LackofinformationonRFMOrequirements for monitoring/control regime. One or more vessels not registered on RFMO list.

Table 5: Assessing IUU risk in fisheries management and required actions


3.3 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Therearethreecriticalcontrolpointsinthesupplychain–transhipment,landingandprocessing–thatmayrequireadditionalmeasurestopreventIUUproductsfromenteringthesupplychain.Fulltraceabilityisneededthroughouttoidentifyandtracethehistory,applicationorlocationofafishproductbymeansofrecordedidentificationthroughspecifiedstagesofproduction,processinganddistribution.

3.3.1 TRANSHIPMENTS

Transhipmentsrepresentahigh-riskpointinthesupplychainbecauseofthepotentialforIUUfishtobemixedwithlegallycaughtfish.TranshipmentsatseaareconsideredhigherriskduetothelackofaccessibilitytoenforcementofficersandarebannedforvesselsflaggedtoEUMemberStates,unlesstranshippingontocarriervesselsundertheauspicesofaRFMO.ManyflagStatesandcoastalStateshavealsotakenstepstobantranshipmentsatseainaneffort tocombat IUUfishing.For somefisheries, transhipmentsmaybecharacteristicof thefisheryandtherefore unavoidable.

Whereappropriate,itisrecommendedthatthereisanobserverprogrammerunningwithinthefisheryoperationwith independent observers in place to supervise transhipments.

3.3.2 PORT LANDINGS

Another criticalpoint in the supply chain is at theportwherefish is landedprior toprocessingorentering themarket.Port State control is the inspectionof foreign ships innationalports to verify that the conditionof theship and its equipment complywith the requirementsof international regulations and that the ship ismannedandoperatedincompliancewiththeserules.Theserulesgrantnationalmaritimeauthoritiesthepowertoboard,inspect,andpossiblydetainmerchantshipsthatflyaforeignflag.

Enhancedport State controls can act as a disincentive to IUUfishers by increasing the cost of their operations(forexample,byforcingthemtoseekoutmoreremoteandthusmorecostlyports).OneofthemainbenefitsoftighterportStatecontrolisthatitisrelativelycost-effectivecomparedtotraditionalenforcementmeasuressuchasinspectionatsea.

However,portsknownforlaxlawenforcementorlimitedinspectioncapacityaresafehavensforIUUvesselsandcaneffectivelyactasportalsforIUUfishingtoentersupplychains.

Examples of information to collect on port States:

9 port of landing and port State,

9 port landing procedures and controls,

9 portregistrationandinspectionrecords,

9 statusonratificationofPortStateMeasuresAgreementandreference

fornationalinterpretationofPSMA.

Examples of information to request on transhipments:

9 list of vessels involved in transhipments including carrier vessel

(basicvesselinformation,flagState,registrationnumber,licence,UVI),

9 detailsoftranshipment:date,area(portorsea);position

9 informationonobserverprogram,includingnumberofinspections,

percentage conducted at random, and

9 independent observer report.


Box 5: Port State Measures Agreement Port State Measures (PSM) are requirements established by port States which a foreign fishingvesselmust complywithasa condition foruseofportswithin theport State.NationalPSMwouldtypicallyincluderequirementsrelatedtopriornotificationofportentry, use of designated ports, restrictions on port entry and landing/transhipmentof fish, restrictions on supplies and services, documentation requirements and portinspections,aswellasrelatedmeasures,suchasIUUvessellisting,trade-relatedmeasuresand sanctions. ThebindingAgreementonPort StateMeasures to Prevent,Deter andEliminate IUU Fishing, or Port State Measures Act (PSMA), was adopted in 2009 by the FAOandwilltakeeffectwhenratifiedby25states.TheAgreementaimstopreventIUUfishfromenteringinternationalmarketsthroughports.

Countries that ratify the treaty must: 9 designateportsthroughwhichforeignfishingvesselsmayenter, 9 conductdocksideinspectionsfollowingsetstandards, 9 block entry to vessels known or believed to have been involved in IUU or those on anIUUvessellistofaRegionalFisheryManagementOrganisation(RFMO),and

9 shareinformationwiththegovernmentsofvesselswithIUUproduct,whendiscoveredduringinspection.

As of January 2015, eleven States have ratified the PSMA: Mozambique, NewZealand, Gabon, Oman, Seychelles, Uruguay, Chile, Norway, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and the European Union.

RECOMMENDATION: Ifyousourcefishthatisprocessedinathirdcountry,youshouldconsider whether it is one of the 11 signatories of the PSMA. If this is not the case, promotetheratificationofthePSMAwiththefisheriesministryorotherrelevantnationalauthoritytoensureminimumstandardsforcontrolsandinspectionsinports,highlightingtheadvantagesofreducedrisksofIUUfishenteringsupplychainsforyouasabuyeraswellasforthemasaStatewherefishprocessingtakesplace.

3.3.3 PROCESSING

Afterlandingatport,thefishmaybetransportedtoanimporter/supplierwithintheEUforfinalsaleorsenttoafactoryinside/outsidetheEUforprocessing.UndertheIUURegulation,theCompetentAuthoritiesinprocessingStatesarerequiredtoverifythetraceabilityoffisheryproductsfromthefishingvesselthroughtoprocessingandexport to the EU. However there are concerns that traceability can be lost at the processing stage, therefore enabling illegalfishtobemixedwithlegalproduct.Theriskofmixingincreaseswhereconsignmentsoffisharedividedandcatch certificatesphotocopied. This canprovide an incentive for processors toprocess and sell asmuchfish asappearsinthecatchcertificate,ratherthantheactualamountreceivedfromthatparticularconsignment.

Whereariskisidentifiedattheprocessingcontrolpoint,retailersandbrandsmaywishtoverifythesystemsusedbytheprocessingfacilitytomaintaintraceabilityoffisheriesproductsfromentryoftheprocessingfacilitytoexit.Whererequired,atraceabilityauditorchainofcustodycertificationmaybeconductedtoverifysystemsinplace.

Examples of information to request on traceability:

9 goodsreceiptdocumentationtraceability/batchcode,

9 traceability records – for product received back to catch vessel

(or group of vessels),

9 productspecifications,

9 systems in place to verify legality at level of processing,

9 massbalancereconciliation.


3.3.4 SUPPLIER DUE DILIGENCE

Detailedinformationaboutyoursupplier(s)andtheirownsystemsisakeycomponentofeffectiveduediligencefor retailersandbrands. Increasedcommunicationand information-sharingwithsupplierscanserve tohighlightpotentialrisksearly,andreducetheworkneededtoundertakeeffectiveduediligence.

OnekeywayforretailersandbrandstoreducetheriskofpurchasingIUUfisheryproductsistoworkwithsuppliersthat have their own due diligence system (or other means to assess and address risk of IUU) in place. This starts with a list of supply vessels that should be updated at a minimum of every 12 months but should ideally be reviewed and updatedevery6months.WhilewerecognisethattheFAOhasanambitiontodevelopaGlobalRecord,thiseffortwilltaketime.TominimiseriskofIUUintheinterim,suppliersneedtobeabletoidentifythevesselswithinthesupply chain and then check to see which vessels have IMO numbers, who are RFMO registered, who has VMS etc.

Suppliers should be able to demonstrate:

9 anunderstandingofthescopeoftheIUUregulation, 9 awarenessoftherelativeperformanceoftheflag/coastalState, 9 thelegalregimeapplicableinthefishery, 9 risksassociatedwithcriticalcontrolpointsinthesupplychain.

3.3.5 LINK BETWEEN IUU FISHING AND SLAVERY

Duetoexhaustedfishstocks,vesselshavegoout furtherandstayatsea longer.Tocrewtheirvesselsandkeepdowncosts,operatorsareusinghumantraffickingnetworks,debtbondage,violence,intimidationandevenmurder.Slaveryintheindustry,fuelledbytheimpactsofoverfishing,isoftenassociatedwithIUUfishing–whichisitselfbothadriverofandresponsetotheover-exploitationoffishstocks.Numerousinvestigationsbythemedia,NGOs,andgovernmentdepartmentsoverthelastfewyearshavehighlightedthislinkbetweenslaveryandworkerexploitationandillegalfishingonfishingvessels.25

Tobetter understand the extent of the situation at sea, furtherwork is needed to adapt assessment tools andmethodologiesmore appropriate to vessels. Seafish26 has already initiatedwork in this area by integrating keyprinciples of crew health, safety and welfare into its Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS) standard – a third party certification for ‘good practice’ on fishing vessels. It is also being revised in line with ISO 17065 accreditationrequirementstoensureitwillbeavailableforinternationalapplication.

Whiletheeradicationofhumantraffickinginthefishingindustrywillrequiremultilateralactionfromgovernments,civilsocietyandindustry,increasedmonitoringandsurveillancemeasurestoenforcetheIUURegulation,suchasvesselinspectionsandVMS,couldalsofacilitateeffortstoimprovethevisibilityandmonitoringofworkingconditionsonfishingvessels.

EJF’sinvestigationintohumantraffickinginThailand’sfishingindustry©EJF



Whocatchesit?

List of vessels in entire supply chain, including): •flagState, •registrationnumber, •licenceUniqueVesselIdentifier

(UVI).

One or more vessels are registered to aflag/coastalStatethatisyellowcarded (or pending red card).

One or more vessels are registered to a Flag of Convenience.

Fleetrangeisauthorisedtofishinmorethan one EEZ.

Considerrelativeimportanceoffisheryproduct,relationshipwithsupplier,history. State performance – risk of being issued a red card,levelofIUUassociatedwithfishery. FAOguidelinesonflagStateperformance,independent reports on IUU.

Lackofvesselinformation–notprovidedby supplier or not accessible on websites (RFMO vessel register or State register).

Evidence of supply chain systems and informationavailabletoverifycompliance of vessels.

Obtainadditionalinformationonfleet,includingrelativesizeofvesselsandcomplexity/length of supply chain.

Is there transhipment?

Details of transhipment (date, area (at sea/at port), location,listofvesselsinvolved–catch and carrier).

Generalinformationonobserverprogrammeoperatingwithinfishery.

Transhipment is not supervised/no observer programmeoperatingwithinfishery.

One or more vessels involved is registered toaFoCortoaflagorcoastalStatethatisyellow carded.

Transhipment occurs on high seas.

Check with supplier that transhipment is standardpracticeinthefishery.

Check that supplier can reconcile product transfer records with mass balance at every stage in the supply chain.

Check that transhipment is conducted accordingtoRFMOregulations.

Verifydetailswithcopyofcatchcertificate.

Verify details with product transfer records.

Verify with observer report.

Basicvesselinformationtoinclude(flagState,registrationnumber,licence, UVI).

Name of State authorising licence.

Access to information: •informationforoneormorevesselsis

missing or incomplete,•lackofinformationanddocumentationrelatingtothetranshipment,

• protocol for transhipment not in place or lacking.

Verify protocols on Government or RFMO websites.

Whereisfishlanded?

Name of country (province), port State. InformationonportStatecontrols(includingratificationandnationalinterpretationofPSMA).

PortStatehasnotsigned/ratifiedPSMA.

Noreferencefornationalinterpretation of PSMA. Lack of port controls in place, no evidence ofinspectionsorthirdpartycontrols. Landings are not registered and documented.

ObtaininformationonportStatelandingproceduresandinspectionprogramme. Cross check with FAO Guidelines on port State controls and port State website. Verifywithportlandingregistrationandinspectionrecords.

Where is it processed?

Listofprocessingfacilities (primary and further processing) in supply chain. Documented paper trail from processor back to catch vessel (or group of vessels).

Detailsofprocessingfacilitiesincomplete. Weak/limited traceability back to catch vessel (or group of vessels).

Obtaininformationoninternalcontrolsystems in place at processing level to manage risk of IUU from vessels. Assess understanding/awareness of processor on applicable laws and risks associated with IUU. Conduct traceability audit with mass balance reconciliation. Verify traceability systems/controls are in place with food safety records, goods receiptdocumentationandtraceabilitybatchcode records.

Is supply chain transparent?

Map of supply chain from delivery offish/fishproductbacktocatchvessel through exporter, processor, auction/auctioneerand/orbuyingagent (or collector from co-operative).

Supply chain map does not demonstrate full traceability back to catch vessel (or group of vessels).

Fill in gaps in the supply chain map and confirmidentity/informationprovided. Verify with evidence provided by supplier, including:in-persondiscussions/meetings,traceabilityrepors,speedofinformationprovision etc. Cross check for compliance in DG Sanco reports.

Is there third party traceability or chain of custody?

Number/reference for third party chainofcustodycertificate. Documented paper trail back to catchcertificate.

Traceability system is not robust.

Areasofnon-complianceidentifiedin audit/certificationreports.

Verifydetailswithcopyofcatchcertificate.

Conduct traceability audit.

Table 6: Assessing IUU risk in supply chain management and required actions


DesigningandimplementinganeffectiveIUUfishingduediligenceprocessprovidesanopportunityforUKretailersandbrandstosupporttheglobalfightagainstIUUfishing,andhelpsecurethefutureviabilityandhealthofglobalfisheries,whilealsoreducingpotentialreputationalandlegalrisksinseafoodsupplychains.TheduediligenceprocessandriskareashighlightedinthisAdvisoryNotearenotexhaustivebutintendedforuseasabasicplatformonwhichsystems tailored by individual retailers and brands can be developed and used alongside wider due diligence systems across the EU.

To be effective, industry effortsmust be supported by a robust system ofmonitoring, control and surveillancethat are enforced across flag, coastal, port and processing States. The standardisation of performance acrossStates could help improve the integrity of the catch certificate and effectively prevent and deter IUU activity. TherecommendationsprovidedinthisAdvisoryNotetoavoidIUUfisheryproductsenteringsupplychainswouldalsoallowforeasiermonitoringofworkingconditionsaboardtheworld’sfishingfleetandhelpensurethatproductscreatedunderexploitativeconditionsarenotallowedtoenterintotheEUmarket.

Business can help provide much needed impetus and promote greater understanding and transparency to support globalinitiativesandpolicydevelopments.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

•Support international initiatives designed to increase transparency and traceability in seafood supply chainsandspecificallyaGlobalRecordoffishingvesselsusing InternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO)numbersasappropriateUniqueVesselIdentifiers(UVIs).Industryshouldencouragevesselsintheirsupplychaintotakeup IMOnumbersandsignthevoluntaryGlobalRecordoffishingvessels.

• Promote the use of forensic risk-based analysis and due diligence throughout the supply chain to minimise costs ofmonitoringandmaximiseefficiencyandimpactoftheriskassessmentprocess.Outcomescanbeverifiedby third-partyauditingandcertification,includingunscheduledauditsbyindependentobservers.

•Larger businesses should use their leverage throughout the supply chain to encourage States to ratify andimplementthePortStateMeasuresAgreement(PSMA)andpromoteinformation-sharingbetweenportStates,flagStates,coastalStates,marketStatesandotheractors.ThiswouldstandardiseandimproveportcontrolstoreducetheriskofIUUfisheriesproductsenteringtheEUmarket.

•IdentifypoorperformingflagStatesinvolvedinthesupplychainsandsupportimprovementsintheirperformanceby encouraging States to adopt and follow the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, and to have adequate systems inplace toassessperformanceandaddressdeficiencies, suchasadequatevessel licensing,monitoring and enforcement.

• Take measures to ensure vessels in the supply chain have adequate monitoring systems in place, that they source fromfishingvesselswithworkingVMSsystemsonboardandsupporttheuseofsatellite-basedtrackingsystemsbylarge-scalefishcarriers.

• To increase transparency and accountability, all stakeholders should promote publicly available vessel lists by coastalStates,flagStatesandRFMOs,whichshouldincludeinformationonthevessel,itsowner,fishingactivitylicensed and all fees paid to the Government.

•Encourage EUMember Stateswhere they operate to proactively implement the EU IUU Regulation. EffectiveimplementationofthisRegulationreducestheriskofIUUfishenteringthesupplychainofretailersandbrands, reducingtheburdenofduediligenceandcorporateriskmitigationandpreventingunfaircompetition.

•All stakeholdersshouldsupport the implementationof interoperablesystemsfordigitalcatchcertificationanda centrally-coordinated EU-wide database of digitised catch certificates, which may also include digital crewmanifestsandship logbooks.Thiswoulddeterover-fishingandpreventthefraudulentuseofcatchcertificates andtheentryof illegalfishproducts intotheEU.Crucially,overa longerperiodthesesystemscanreducethecostsassociatedwithregulatoryburdens,corporateduediligenceandeffortstoachieveverifiablesustainableandethical systems.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Isthefisherycertifiedwithchainofcustody?

DoesthefishingactivityoccurwithinanEEZ?

Isthecatchtranshipped?

DoestheStatemanagingthefisheryhave MCSsystemsandpracticesinplace,

includingvessellicencing?

Statemanagingthefisheryisrankedpoorlyagainstindicesforcorruptionandgovernance

(e.g. WGI, CPI)

Is there evidence of port State controls and inspectionsinplaceatpointoflanding?

Doesthefisheryhaveanobserverprogrammethatcoversasufficientpercentage offishingactivitiesandusetrained

independentobservers?

EstimatedlevelofIUUassociatedwiththefishery isrelativelylow(e.g.ICES,NOAA,peerreviewed

scientificjournals/reports)

Areanyvesselsinsupplychainflaggedby a State that has been issued a Yellow Card

(or pending Red Card) by the EUorflaggedtoaFoC?

AreallvesselsinsupplychainflaggedbyaStatethatisamemberof(orcooperatingparty)

oftherelevantRFMO?

AreallfishingvesselsinthesupplychainontheauthorisedvessellistoftherelevantRFMO?

Isthefisheryproductprocureddirectlyfrom a trusted supplier/source with robust

traceabilitysystemsinplace?





Catchpriceissignificantlylowerthan the average price on the market.

Aretranshipmentssupervised?Aredetailsoftranshipment accessible (including date, area,

list/identityofvesselsinvolved)?

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

HIG

H R

ISKFigure 11: Sample decision tree to assess risks of illegal fishing

Response: Yes Response: No


ANNEX 1: Regulatory authorities involved in international fisheries

COUNTRY RESPONSIBLE DEFINITION ACTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES

Flag State The country that has licenced a vessel tooperateunderitsflag.

Licencingafishingvesseltocarryoutfishingactivity.

Ensuringthatthefishingvesselcomplieswithapplicablelaws andregulations.

Verifyingthelegalityoffishingactivitiesandvalidatingcatchcertificates.

Coastal StateThecountryinwhosewatersfishingactivitytakesplace(whennotinareabeyondnationaljurisdiction).

Licencingandmonitoringfishingactivities(includingtranshipments)intheirExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

DoesnotprovideinformationfortheEUcatchcertificate.

Providinginformationtoinvestigatingauthoritieswherethereareallegations ofIUUfishingintheirnationalwaters.

Port State Thecountrywherefishislanded. Verifyinglegalityoffishingactivitiesandlandedfisheryproducts.

Processing State Thecountrywherefishisprocessedprior to export.

Providinginformationontheprocessingthathastakenplace.

Guaranteeingthetraceabilityofthefisheryproducts.

ImportingState EUcountrywherefisheryproducts are imported.

Assessinglegalityofimportedfisheryproducts,includingthroughtheprocessofverificationswhereavailable.

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

Organisationformedbycountrieswithfishinginterestsinanarea–canbegeographicalorspeciesspecific.

Manyhavemanagementandsanctioningpowers.

Mayalsodetermineadditionalcertificationsandstatisticalforcertainspecies,(e.g.AtlanticandMediterraneanbluefintuna,bigeyetuna,swordfish andtoothfish).

ANNEX 2: International initiatives in response to IUU fishing

Instrument or initiative STATUS VOLUNTARY OR BINDING SCOPE

UNFAOInternationalPlanofActiontoPrevent,Deterand Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPOA – IUU)20

IN FORCE Voluntary – adopted by the UN FAO within the framework of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

ProvidesflagStates,coastalStatesandportStateswithmeasurestoaddressIUUfishing.Manymeasuresalreadyexistinbindinginternationalfisherieslaw.

Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing21

NOT YET IN FORCE (will come into force 30daysafterthe25th ratification)

Binding on Signatories.

Aimstopreventillegally-caughtfishfrom enteringinternationalmarketsthroughports.Involves ports taking steps to verify the legality of catches, and deny port access to vessels involved inIUUfishing.

FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance22

IN FORCE

Voluntary – but the Guidelines are derivedfromexistingobligations contained in the Fish Stocks Agreement, the FAO Compliance Agreement, and UNCLOS. It is thereforepracticalguidanceonhowtoimplementexistinglaw.

SetsoutminimumstandardforflagStatesinmonitoringfishingvesselsandaddressing IUUfishing.

Global Record of fishingvessels23

NOT YET IN FORCE Voluntaryandphasedinitiative approvedbyUNFAOCommittee on Fisheries.

Phase 1 – fishing vessels over 100 GT:•UniqueVesselIdentifier(UVI),•GlobalRecord(includeskeyinformation about the vessel).


ANNEX 3: Sanctions

Under the UK The Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009 a person found guilty of anoffenceisliable:

(a) onsummaryconviction,toafinenotexceeding£50,000;(b) onconvictiononindictment,toafine.24

Inaddition,theOrderallowsforIUUfishtobeseized.

ANNEX 4: Useful sources of information

REGULATION

EU IUU Regulationhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:286:0001:0032:EN:PDF

Commission Regulations that provide additional detail about the way these controls are to be applied Regulation 1010/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) No395/2010. The Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009.

DG Mare handbook on the practical application of the EU IUU Regulationhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/handbook_original_en.pdf

Seafish Industry Guidance Note on the EU IUU Regulationhttp://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/SeafishInfoNote_GuideforImporters_201001.pdf

VESSEL LISTS

EU IUU Vessel Listhttp://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:193:0006:0011:EN:PDF

TheEUIUUVessellistitisacompilationofalloftheIUUlistsdeveloped by RFMOs. All vessels that feature on the list are banned fromexporting to theEU,however IUUvesselshavebeenknowntochangenamesandotheridentificationmarkingsinordertoescapedetection.Itisthereforerecommendedthatwhereconductingadetailedriskanalysis,suppliersbeabletoobtain the names, identificationmarkings and flags of boatsduring the previous three years.

Combined IUU Vessel Listhttp://iuu-vessels.org/iuu Norwegian non-profit organisation, Trygg Mat Foundation,works to track IUU vessels and document their movements and anychanges in identity.TryggMatFoundationalsomaintainsits own IUU Vessel List. As well as containing all vessels that currently appear on RFMO IUU lists, the Trygg Mat list also contains vessels that were previously on IUU lists but have been delisted since 2004, as well as providing more extensive informationontheownersandoperatorsofIUUvessels.

Tuna RFMO Vessel lists The major tuna RFMOs also maintain a record of vessels authorisedtofishfortunaortuna-likespeciesintheareathatthe RFMO covers. For example, ICCAT maintains a list of vessels ofover20mauthorisedtofish inthe ICCATconventionarea.ICCAT also maintains a record of carrier vessels authorised to receive transhipments of tuna and tuna-like species. These lists are easily accessible on the RFMO websites.

ICCAT: http://www.iccat.int/en/vesselsrecord.aspIATTC: http://www.iattc.org/VesselListsENG.htmCCSBT:http://www.ccsbt.org/site/authorised_vessels.phpWCPFC:http://www.wcpfc.int/record-fishing-vessel-databaseIOTC: http://www.iotc.org/English/record/search3.php

Please also see the CCAMLR Vessel listhttp://www.ccamlr.org/en/compliance/licenced-vessels

ISSF Proactive Vessel Registerhttp://iss-foundation.org/pvr-database/

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) maintainsa Proactive Vessel Register (PVR), which contains a list of tunavessels that are confirmed as not appearing on IUU vessels listsand as authorised by the relevant RFMO. The register also contains information about their compliance with other laws and regulations. All of the vessels on the ISSF PVR have a seven digit InternationalMaritimeOrganisation(IMO)numberasaUniqueVesselIdentifier(UVI).

FAO Fishing Vessel Finderhttp://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/fvf/en

The FAO Fishing Vessels Finder (FVF) is an online tool to locate information on individual fishing vessels (including supportingvessels,carriers,fisheryresearchvesselsandinspectionboats)thatare disseminated – or were disseminated in the past – by a range ofnational,multi-national,regionalandinternationalorganisations.

GOVERNANCE/PERFORMANCE

European Commission Decisions on Non-Cooperating Countries

The European Commission Decision includes extensive reasoning as towhythecountrieshavefailedtoperformadequatelyasflagStates.

March 2014 Red Cards http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0170&from=EN

October 2014 Red Card Sri Lanka http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0715&from=EN

December 2014 Yellow Card Saint Vincent and the Grenadines http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D1217(02)&from=EN

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

DG Sanco Listshttps://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco/traces/output/non_eu_listsPerActivity_en.htm#

The European Commission’s DG Sanco approves Third Country Establishments for export to the EU, according to health and hygiene criteria. The responsibility to accredit individual fishingvessels or processing factories rests on the third country, which then undergoes audits by the European Commission. A list of approved establishments is available on the DG Sanco website.

European Commission List of notified third countrieshttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/flag_state_notifications.pdf

The European Commission has published a list of all the countries that have notified their competent authorities to the EU, and arethereforeauthorisedtovalidatecatchcertificates.

FAO page with National Plans of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-iuu/npoa/en

MRAG and University of British Columbia Report on the Global Extent of IUU fishinghttp://www.mrag.co.uk/Documents/ExtentGlobalIllegalFishing.pdf

FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profileshttp://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp

Transparency International Corruption Perception Indexhttp://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview


REFERENCES

1. ThisdocumenthasbeenwrittenbyCatherinePazderka(BRC)andEJF,withsupportfromkeyindustrystakeholders and WWF-UK.

2. FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report (SOFIA), 2014. 2011estimates–28.8%fishedatanunsustainablelevel,71.2%fishedwithinasustainablelevel.

3. FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report (SOFIA), 2014.4. TheEURegulationappliestothoseproductsdescribedinthe‘CombinedNomenclature’bytheCouncil

Regulationno2658/87(p.45-57)butexcludingthoselistedintheEUIUURegulationAnnex1.5. CouncilRegulation(EC)No1005/2008(16)6. CouncilRegulation(EC)No1005/2008Article37. CouncilRegulation(EC)No1005/2008Article438. CouncilRegulation(EC)No1010/2009(6)9. CouncilRegulation(EC)No1005/2008Article17(1)10. ‘ImportantinformationregardingtheimportofWestAfricanfishproductsintoEUandUKmarkets’.

LetterfromDEFRAdated27th February 2013.11. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/peg/publications/report/eftec12. FAO2005http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/3021/en

Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. Topics Fact Sheets. TextbyG.V.Everett.Rome.Updated27May2005.

13. Article31.3:Regulation(EC)No1005/2008of29September2008establishingaCommunitysystemtoPrevent,DeterandEliminateIllegal,UnreportedandUnregulatedFishing,amendingRegulations(EEC) No2847/93,(EC)No1936/2001and(EC)No601/2004andrepealingRegulations(EC)No1093/94and (EC) No 1447/1999.

14. Article31.3.15. TohelpdeterminewhethertheflagStateisconsideredanFoC,refertotheInternationalTransportWorkers

Federation(ITF)websitethatmaintainsalistof34flagStatesthatitconsiderstobeFlagsofConvenience. http://www.itfseafarers.org/foc-registries.cfm

16. FAOReportoftheExpertConsultationonFishingVesselsOperatingunderOpenRegistriesandtheirImpactonIllegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Miami, Florida, United States of America, 23 – 25 September 2003.

17. ImplementationoftheInternationalPlanofActiontoDeter,PreventandEliminateIllegal,UnreportedandUnregulatedFishing.FAO,2002.CoastalStatemeasures.www.fao.org/docrep/005/y3536e/y3536e08.htm

18. FAOImplementationoftheInternationalPlanofActiontoPrevent,DeterandEliminateIllegal,Unreportedand Unregulated Fishing. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 9. Rome, FAO. 2002.

19. Harvestcontrolrulesofferanautomatedmanagementresponseincaseaspecificreferencepointisreached.This aims to ensure a rapid response to avoid limits being exceeded and to provide a more predictable management for industry. The development of the harvest control rules should be fully transparent and basedonscientificknowledge.

20. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM21. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf22. ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/tc-fsp/2013/VolGuidelines_adopted.pdf23. http://www.fao.org/fishery/global-record/en24. The Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009 (No. 3391).25. EJF(2014)SlaveryatSea:TheContinuedPlightofTraffickedMigrantsinThailand’sFishingIndustry.26. SeafishisaNon-DepartmentalPublicBodysetupbytheFisheriesAct1981andfundedbylevyonthefirst

saleofseafoodproductsintheUK:http://rfs.seafish.org


British Retail Consortium 21 Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BP

www.brc.org.uk

Designing and implementing an effective IUU fishing due diligence process provides an opportunity for UK retailers and brands to support the global fight against IUU fishing while also reducing potential reputational and legal risks in seafood supply chains.

AN ADVISORY NOTE - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/ejf_advisory_note_low_res_final... · An...

Documents

Transcript of AN ADVISORY NOTE - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/ejf_advisory_note_low_res_final... · An...