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

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

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

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

June 4, 2021 1:06 pm (EST)

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

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

What is IUU fishing?

More From Our Experts

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

Where is it happening?

More on:

International Law

Oceans and Seas

Global Commons

United States

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

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

What are the concerns?

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

More From Our Experts

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

What is the threat beyond the illegal fishing itself?

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

More on:

International Law

Oceans and Seas

Global Commons

United States

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

How does the United States work to combat IUU fishing?

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

What can other governments do to fight IUU fishing?

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

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

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

What other multilateral efforts are there?

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

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

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

Top Stories on CFR

Daily News Brief

Welcome to the Daily News Brief, CFR’s flagship morning newsletter summarizing the top global news and analysis of the day.  Subscribe to the Daily News Brief to receive it every weekday morning. Top of the Agenda U.S. and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Rome today for their fifth round of nuclear talks. The two sides have clashed in public comments about uranium enrichment in recent days, but a U.S. State Department spokesperson said yesterday that the meeting “would not be happening if we didn’t think that there was potential for it.” The U.S. is being represented by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and the State Department’s Policy Planning Director Michael Anton, and Iran by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. What the parties are saying. The most recent friction was triggered by Witkoff describing a U.S. “red line” last Sunday that Iran should not be able to have “even 1 percent of an enrichment capability.” In prior weeks, some U.S. officials had suggested they might be able to accept a low level of enrichment.  Multiple Iranian officials publicly rejected the zero-enrichment position. The strict anti-enrichment comments from U.S. officials intensified after more than two hundred Republican lawmakers wrote a letter on May 14 calling for such a stance. Araghchi posted on social media yesterday that “zero nuclear weapons” meant there was a deal, while “zero enrichment” meant no deal. U.S. President Donald Trump “wants to see a deal with Iran struck, if one can be struck,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said yesterday. The regional backdrop. Israel is considering striking Iran militarily, multiple news outlets have reported. Trump discussed Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a call yesterday, Leavitt said, adding that Trump asserted Washington seeks a deal with Iran. Araghchi wrote in a letter publicized by Iran’s mission to the United Nations yesterday that if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran would consider the United States responsible. If Israel continues to threaten Iran, he wrote, Iran would take unspecified steps to protect its nuclear materials. Trump has also threatened U.S. military strikes on Iran if talks fail.  “On a macro level, the two important Iranian objectives in these talks are they want to avert another military attack on their nuclear facilities, [and] they want to avert another maximum pressure economic campaign…I think an interim deal or a smaller deal is going to be a much easier political lift in both Washington and in Tehran.” The Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour tells The President’s Inbox Across the Globe Ban on Harvard international students. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard’s permission to enroll international students, saying the school did not provide the government requested records of student conduct. DHS said the school had created a “hostile” environment for Jewish students. Harvard called the action “unlawful.” Foreign students make up around 27 percent of the student body; the university’s director of media relations say they “enrich the university—and this nation—immeasurably.” Charges in DC shooting. The U.S. Justice Department filed federal murder charges against the suspect in Wednesday’s killings of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. Elias Rodriguez confessed to the killings, police said. Investigators are also considering hate crime and terrorism charges. Representatives of Jewish organizations called for more government funding for their safety in the wake of the attack, which comes amid a rise of antisemitic incidents in the United States and around the world following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023.  Tracking the great tech race. A new study by European research center Bruegel examined patents to measure the relative progress of China, the European Union (EU), and the United States on the research frontier of three critical technologies: quantum computing, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence (AI). It concluded that U.S. actors dominate innovation in quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, while Chinese actors are ahead in semiconductors, and the EU lags in all three. U.S. weighs troops in South Korea. The Trump administration is consideringpulling thousands of troops out of South Korea, unnamed sources told the Wall Street Journal. In one reported scenario, roughly 4,500 troops would depart for other parts of the Indo-Pacific, including Guam. A Pentagon spokesperson said there were no policy announcements to make, South Korea’s defense ministry declined to comment, and South Korea’s military said it had not discussed a troop reduction with Washington. U.S. sanctions on Sudan. The United States determined the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war last year and will impose new sanctions on Sudan beginning on or around June 6, the State Department said yesterday. Sudan’s government responded that the measure “lacks any moral or legal basis.” The announcement did not specify which weapons were used or where; unnamed U.S. officials told the New York Times in January that Sudan’s army appeared to have used chlorine gas in remote parts of the country.   North Korea warship damaged. In an unusual acknowledgement of a military malfunction, North Korean state media reported yesterday that the country’s second naval destroyer was damaged during its launch event. Seawater flowed into the ship, state media said today. Satellites showed that North Korea placed a cover over the partially submerged ship, which Pyongyang had reportedly rushed to complete. Aid distributed in Gaza. Humanitarian aid reached warehouses inside Gaza for the first time in eleven weeks, UN agencies said yesterday. The aid included flour and baby food. Twenty-nine children and elderly people in the territory died from “starvation-related” causes in the last few days, the Palestinian Authority health minister stated yesterday. Israel said 107 aid trucks crossed the border into Gaza yesterday, while UN agencies say an estimated 600 per day are needed to address the territory’s humanitarian crisis.  UK deal on Chagos Islands base. The United Kingdom (UK) reached a deal with Mauritius—its former colony—to give up its claim over the disputed Chagos Islands and pay Mauritius some $136 million per year to lease the area that houses a U.S.-UK military base. The UK separated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965, shortly before Mauritius gained independence. What’s Next Today, India’s foreign minister is visiting Germany. On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron begins a visit to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore. On Sunday, Suriname holds a general election and Venezuela holds legislative and regional elections. On Monday, an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders summit begins in Malaysia. On Monday, the African Development Bank begins its annual meetings in Ivory Coast.

South Africa

Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies and former ambassador Michelle Gavin breaks down the tense U.S.-South Africa meeting at the White House. 

Ukraine

President Trump suggested after the call that the United States could “back away” if Russia and Ukraine peace talks don’t advance. That could leave it to Europe to keep Ukraine in the fight.