non-compliance may help change States’ behaviour.
107 Of the six countries listed as
non-cooperating countries, three of them have been delisted for making good
progress in curbing IUU fishing.
108
The EU is not the only one to name and shame a country for lack of commitment
against IUU fishing. The United States as another top seafood importer also issues
reports, which indicate countries that do not have regulatory measures comparable to
the United States to curb IUU fishing.
109 Like the EU, once the United States
identifies a country, it will first carry out a two-year consultation process to address
the problem.
110 Failure to take adequate measures would result in the import
prohibition of fisheries products originating from that country and deny port privileges to their fishing vessels.
111 Unlike the EU, the United States appears only to
identify those countries that are exporting seafood products to the United States.
112
Learning from the EU, and to some extent from the United States, by identifying a
State for not doing enough to address IUU fishing, Indonesia could give an IUU
reputation to the identified State thus providing a warning to seafood importing
countries. This chapter recognises, however, that Indonesia does not have comparable market power as the EU or the United States. It does not have special resources to
assist unable developing or less developed flag States. Moreover, identification of
non-complying States may not fit with the way States interact in the ASEAN region,
which prefers consultation and cooperation than naming and shaming.
Despite its shortcomings, Indonesia could still capitalise on the EU market power
to secure its waters from IUU fishing and ensure compliance of fishing vessels to its
conservation measures. In 2017, when the EU notified Vietnam of the possibility of
being identified as a non-cooperating third country, it took notes of Vietnameseflagged vessels, which committed IUU fishing in the neighbouring countries’
EEZ.
113 Even though the EU did not specifically mention cases involving Vietnamese vessels in Indonesia’s EEZ as one of the bases of its decision against Vietnam, it
has generally taken into account other countries or RFMOs’ reports. For instance,
when the EU yellow-carded Belize in 2012, it expressly acknowledged the use of
107 Bellmann et al. (2016), p. 187.
108 Belize and Guinea were both identified in 2013, while Sri Lanka was identified in 2015. Belize
was the first country to have been removed from the list, which was in 2014; whereas Guinea and
Sri Lanka was delisted in 2016 (See Council Implementing Decision 998/2016 of 16 June 2016).
109 NOAA (2019), Identification of IUU Fishing Activities.
110 Id.
111 NOAA (2015b), United States Continues Global Leadership to Address Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing.
112 In 2015 itself, the United States identified Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and
Portugal as having vessels under their flag participating in IUU fishing (See NOAA 2015a).
113 See EC Decision of 23 October 2017 on Notifying the Socialist Republic of Vietnam of the
Possibility of Being Identified as a Non-Cooperating Third Country in Fighting IUU Fishing.
7 Market-Based Measures Against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in. . .
137
107 Of the six countries listed as
non-cooperating countries, three of them have been delisted for making good
progress in curbing IUU fishing.
108
The EU is not the only one to name and shame a country for lack of commitment
against IUU fishing. The United States as another top seafood importer also issues
reports, which indicate countries that do not have regulatory measures comparable to
the United States to curb IUU fishing.
109 Like the EU, once the United States
identifies a country, it will first carry out a two-year consultation process to address
the problem.
110 Failure to take adequate measures would result in the import
prohibition of fisheries products originating from that country and deny port privileges to their fishing vessels.
111 Unlike the EU, the United States appears only to
identify those countries that are exporting seafood products to the United States.
112
Learning from the EU, and to some extent from the United States, by identifying a
State for not doing enough to address IUU fishing, Indonesia could give an IUU
reputation to the identified State thus providing a warning to seafood importing
countries. This chapter recognises, however, that Indonesia does not have comparable market power as the EU or the United States. It does not have special resources to
assist unable developing or less developed flag States. Moreover, identification of
non-complying States may not fit with the way States interact in the ASEAN region,
which prefers consultation and cooperation than naming and shaming.
Despite its shortcomings, Indonesia could still capitalise on the EU market power
to secure its waters from IUU fishing and ensure compliance of fishing vessels to its
conservation measures. In 2017, when the EU notified Vietnam of the possibility of
being identified as a non-cooperating third country, it took notes of Vietnameseflagged vessels, which committed IUU fishing in the neighbouring countries’
EEZ.
113 Even though the EU did not specifically mention cases involving Vietnamese vessels in Indonesia’s EEZ as one of the bases of its decision against Vietnam, it
has generally taken into account other countries or RFMOs’ reports. For instance,
when the EU yellow-carded Belize in 2012, it expressly acknowledged the use of
107 Bellmann et al. (2016), p. 187.
108 Belize and Guinea were both identified in 2013, while Sri Lanka was identified in 2015. Belize
was the first country to have been removed from the list, which was in 2014; whereas Guinea and
Sri Lanka was delisted in 2016 (See Council Implementing Decision 998/2016 of 16 June 2016).
109 NOAA (2019), Identification of IUU Fishing Activities.
110 Id.
111 NOAA (2015b), United States Continues Global Leadership to Address Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing.
112 In 2015 itself, the United States identified Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and
Portugal as having vessels under their flag participating in IUU fishing (See NOAA 2015a).
113 See EC Decision of 23 October 2017 on Notifying the Socialist Republic of Vietnam of the
Possibility of Being Identified as a Non-Cooperating Third Country in Fighting IUU Fishing.
7 Market-Based Measures Against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in. . .
137