Apresentação do PowerPoint - GFETWgfetw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gilles-Hosch.pdf · Why...

Contents

1. About the IUU Fishing Index

2. IUU scores across all state responsibilities

3. IUU scores for coastal state responsibilities

4. IUU scores for flag state responsibilities

5. IUU scores for port state responsibilities

6. IUU scores for general responsibilities

7. Implications

Why have anIUU Fishing Index?


• IUU fishing has enormous negative economic, social

and environmental impacts

• SDG 14, Life Below Water, has a target to end IUU

fishing by 2020

• There are no reliable and complete country-level

data on the volume and value of IUU catches


• Those in those in government, regional fisheries

management organizations, donors and civil society,

currently have little way to identify where action to

combat IUU fishing is most needed

• The IUU Fishing Index fills this gap


• The IUU Fishing Index measures the degree to which

152 coastal states are exposed to and effectively

combat IUU fishing

• It allows for comparison between countries, regions,

and ocean basins, for single indicators or indicator

‘groups’

Methodology

Methodology • Suite of 40 indicators

• Types: vulnerability (13), prevalence (10), and

response (17)

• State responsibilties: coastal (8), flag (10), port

(7), and general (15)

INDICATORS

• Countries are allocated to one of 8 regions and one or

more of 7 ocean basins

• Scores for each country are provided between 1

(good) and 5 (bad) for each indicator based on

thresholds for the five scoring bands

• Indicators are weighted (high, medium, low)

Methodology

SCORING, THRESHOLDS,WEIGHTING, DATA SOURCES

• Country, region and ocean basin scores are based on

the average mean

• Data are from publicly available sources, country

correspondents, and expert opinion

• Missing data are not imputed

• 5 528 data entries and 95% complete data

Methodology

SCORING, THRESHOLDS,WEIGHTING, DATA SOURCE

• Scores between indicator groups are not directly

comparable

• Scores of 1 do not imply that a country has no

vulnerability and no IUU fishing

• Scores of 5 for response indicators do not imply that a

country is doing nothing to combat IUU fishing

Methodology

INTERPRETING THE SCORES

IUU scores for all state responsibilities combined

World overallIUU score

13

2.29

Scores for all state responsibilitiesDISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Range IUU Score DistributionVulnerability Score

DistributionPrevalence Score

DistributionResponse Score

Distribution

4.50—4.50 0 0 0 0

4.00—4.49 0 3 1 3

3.50—3.99 1 17 1 13

3.00—3.49 5 49 1 32

2.50—2.99 30 50 1 24

2.00—2.49 93 28 12 53

1.50—1.99 22 5 44 26

1.00—1.49 1 0 92 1

• China, Indonesia, Russia and Cambodia are in the ten

worst-performing countries for two out of three

indicator types

• Asia has 4 of worst 10, Africa 4, Middle East 1, and

Europe 1 (Russia)

• Asian region and the Western Pacific basin have the

worst scores

Scores for all state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

Scores for all state responsibilitiesGOOD PERFORMERS

• Eight of the ten countries with the best scores

are in Europe

• The European region and the East Atlantic

ocean basin have the best scores

• Top performers in terms of response are from

five of the eight regions

Scores for all state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

China Taiwan Cambodia Russia Vietnam

Sierra Leone Yemen Sudan Liberia Somalia

3.93 3.34 3.23 3.16 3.16

3.01 2.96 2.77 2.76 2.75

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

Scores for all state responsibilitiesGOOD PERFORMERS

Sweden Bulgaria Belize Tonga Ireland

Belgium Latvia Estonia Finland Poland

1.43 1.57 1.67 1.67 1.68

1.73 1.74 1.78 1.82 1.85

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


Scores for all state responsibilitiesREGIONAL SCORES

Asia Africa Middle East Caribbean & Central America

South America Oceania North America Europe

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th 8th

2.69 2.38 2.32 2.24

2.19 2.16 2.13 2.05

Scores for all state responsibilitiesOCEAN BASIN SCORES

East Indian OceanWestern Pacific West Indian Ocean Mediterranean& Black Sea

Eastern Pacific West Atlantic East Atlantic

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th

2.48 2.46 2.36 2.24

2.22 2.22 2.21

IUU scores for coastal stateresponsibilities

21

Indicator group Indicator name

Coastal state byVulnerability

• Size of EEZ• Agreement over all maritime boundaries• Authorise foreign vessels to operate in EEZ• Dependency on fish for protein

Coastal state by Prevalence

• Has MSC-certified fisheries• Views of MCS practitioners on coastal compliance incidents

Coastal state byResponse

• Coastal State is contracting party or cooperating non-contracting party to all relevant RFMOs

• Operate a national VMS/FMC centre

Coastal state indicators

World overallCoastal score

23

2.51

Scores for coastal state responsibilitiesDISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Range Coastal Coastal by vulnerability Coastal by prevalence Coastal by response

4.50—4.50 0 20 1 1

4.00—4.49 1 27 5 8

3.50—3.99 7 23 8 0

3.00—3.49 22 25 6 22

2.50—2.99 49 16 106 0

2.00—2.49 49 18 8 1

1.50—1.99 22 17 2 16

1.00—1.49 2 6 16 104

• Ten worst performers generally (across all types) are

in Asia, Oceania and Africa (scores 3.38 - 4.00)

• Island states shown to be especially vulnerable

• Six of the ten worst coastal state responders are

developing island states

Scores for coastal state responsibilities

POOR PERFORMERS

• Oceania region and Western Pacific ocean basin

have the highest scores for vulnerability to IUU

fishing

• The Asia region, and East and West Indian Ocean

basins are the worst performing for prevalence


POOR PERFORMERS

• European countries dominate the lists of best

coastal state performers across all types

• Scores from 1.19 - 1.69

• Europe is the best performing region for

indicator types aggregated


GOOD PERFORMERS

• Europe and N America are the best performing

regions for response indicators

• Med & Black Sea is the best performing ocean

basin for indicator types aggregated, but the East

Pacific basin the best for response


GOOD PERFORMERS

Scores for coastal state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

Cambodia Somalia Vietnam Myanmar Taiwan

Kiribati Timor Leste Philippines Seychelles Yemen

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


3.633.643.694.00 3.63

3.383.503.503.50 3.38

Scores for coastal state responsibilitiesGOOD PERFORMERS

Australia Netherlands Finland Belize Lithuania

Germany Estonia Latvia Slovenia Belgium

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


1.561.501.441.19 1.63

1.691.691.631.63 1.69

Scores for coastal state responsibilitiesREGIONAL SCORES

Asia Oceania Africa Caribbean & Central america

South America North America Middle East Europe

2.94 2.82 2.69 2.54

2.41 2.33 2.28 1.99

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th 8th

Scores for coastal state responsibilitiesOCEAN BASIN SCORES

Western Pacific East Indian Ocean West Indian Ocean West Atlantic

Eastern PacificEast Atlantic Mediterranean& Black Sea

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th

2.89 2.70 2.63 2.55

2.35 2.31 2.17

IUU scores for flag state responsibilities

33


Flag state byVulnerability

• Distant water vessels on RFMO RAVs• Distant water vessels under several RFMOs

Flag state by Prevalence

• Vessels on IUU lists• View of fisheries observers on flag state compliance incidents• Views of MCS practitioners on flag state compliance incidents

Flag state byResponse

• Accepted to FAO Compliance Agreement• Authorised vessel data provided to FAO HSVAR• Provision of vessel data for inclusion in Global Record• Compliance with RFMO flag state obligations• Flag State is contracting party or cooperating non-contracting party to all

relevant RFMOs

Flag state indicators

World overallFlag score

35

2.01

Scores for flag state responsibilitiesDISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Range Flag Flag by vulnerability Flag by prevalence Flag by response

4.50—4.50 1 16 1 1

4.00—4.49 1 3 1 3

3.50—3.99 2 12 1 12

3.00—3.49 4 11 3 57

2.50—2.99 14 9 1 40

2.00—2.49 34 11 13 19

1.50—1.99 80 17 14 12

1.00—1.49 16 73 118 8

• The mix of countries showing up in the table of ten

worst performers is diverse (scores 2.87 – 4.70)

• Eight of the ten worst-performing countries for

vulnerability indicators are developed states

Scores for flag state responsibilities

POOR PERFORMERS

• China has the highest score of prevalence, as well as

the second poorest flag state response

• North America and Europe are the most vulnerable

regions, due to their long-range fleets

• Asia has the worst regional score for prevalence


POOR PERFORMERS

• Six of the ten best performers are in Europe,

three in Latin America, and one in Pacific

• Scores from 1.05 - 1.42 for the top ten countries


GOOD PERFORMERS

• South America is best performing region and

West Atlantic the best peforming ocean basin

for indicator types aggregated

• The Eastern Pacific is the best performing ocean

basin for response indicators


GOOD PERFORMERS

Scores for flag state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

China Taiwan Panama Russia Spain

Japan Liberia Korea (Rep. South) Libya Indonesia

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


3.743.964.134.70 3.46

2.963.253.303.38 2.87

Scores for flag state responsibilitiesGOOD PERFORMERS

Argentina Belgium Sweden Finland Tonga

Estonia Bulgaria Latvia Colombia Uruguay

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


1.111.101.081.05 1.17

1.351.331.331.21 1.42

Scores for flag state responsibilitiesREGIONAL SCORES

Asia North America Europe Africa

Oceania Caribbean& Central America

Middle East South America

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th 8th

2.44 2.33 2.03 1.98

1.93 1.89 1.83 1.69

Scores for flag state responsibilitiesOCEAN BASIN SCORES

Western Pacific Eastern Pacific Mediterraneanand Black Sea

East Indian Ocean

East Atlantic West Indian Ocean West Atlantic

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th

2.35 2.16 2.16 2.11

2.01 1.86 1.84

IUU scores for port state responsabilities

45


Port state byVulnerability

• Number of fishing ports• Port visits by foreign fishing vessels

Port state by Prevalence

• Views of MCS practitioners on port compliance incidents• View of fisheries observers on port compliance incidents

Port state byResponse

• Ratified, approved or acceded to the PSMA • Designated ports specified for foreign vessel landings• Compliance with RFMO port state obligations

Port state indicators

World overallPort score

47

2.41

Scores for port state responsibilitiesDISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Range Port Port by vulnerability Port by prevalence Port by response

4.50—4.50 1 46 3 23

4.00—4.49 1 68 0 8

3.50—3.99 2 28 0 10

3.00—3.49 13 6 3 6

2.50—2.99 44 0 5 34

2.00—2.49 58 0 13 25

1.50—1.99 29 0 17 11

1.00—1.49 4 4 107 33

• Five of the worst ten countries (scores 3.13 – 4.67) are

in Asia, with China, Taiwan and Vietnam having the

highest scores

• Many industrial fishing nations such as Canada, China,

France, Indonesia, Japan and Norway are vulnerable

• 22 countries have response scores of 5

Scores for port state responsibilities

POOR PERFORMERS

• Asia has the worst score for indicator types

aggregated, and for prevalence

• The Middle East has the the worst score for response


POOR PERFORMERS

• Scores for the best ten country performers are 1.00

– 1.67

• Europe and North America have the best scores for

aggregated indicators, and for response scores


GOOD PERFORMERS

• The East Atlantic ocean basin has the best score for

aggregated indicators, and the East Pacific the best

ocean basin response score


GOOD PERFORMERS

Scores for port state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

China Russia Cambodia Vietnam Singapore

Taiwan Yemen Ukraine Grenada Cameroon

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


3.733.874.074.67 3.42

3.273.273.283.28 3.13

Scores for port state responsibilitiesGOOD PERFORMERS

Eritrea Barbados Haiti Dominica Senegal

Palau Mauritania Tonga Albania Belgium

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


1.331.001.001.00 1.56

1.671.561.561.56 1.67

Scores for port state responsibilitiesREGIONAL SCORES

Asia Middle East South America Africa

Caribbean& Central America

Oceania Europe North America

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th 8th

2.87 2.74 2.35 2.33

2.31 2.26 2.26 2.11

Scores for port state responsibilitiesOCEAN BASIN SCORES

Western Pacific East Indian Ocean West Indian Ocean Mediterranean& Black Sea

West Atlantic Eastern Pacific East Atlantic

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th

2.65 2.63 2.53 2.43

2.31 2.26 2.25

IUU scores for general indicators not specific to other responsibilities

58


General state byVulnerability

• Transparency International corruption perceptions indicator• Gross national income per capita• Volume of catches• Trade balance for fisheries products• Share of global imports

General state by Prevalence

• 'Carded' (identified) under the EU IUU Regulation• US MSRA NOAA identified• Mentions of illegal activity in media reports

General state byResponse

• Mandatory vessel tracking for commercial seagoing fleet• Ratification/accession of UNCLOS Convention• Ratification of UNFSA• Mentions of positive responses in media reports to combatting IUU• Have a NPOA-IUU• Demand for MSC products• Market State is Cooperating non-contracting party to all relevant RFMOs

General indicators

World overallGeneral score

60

2.32

Scores for general state responsibilitiesDISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

Range General General by vulnerability General by prevalence General by response

4.50—4.50 0 0 0 0

4.00—4.49 0 3 0 10

3.50—3.99 1 9 0 28

3.00—3.49 11 46 3 28

2.50—2.99 41 32 2 18

2.00—2.49 62 29 13 48

1.50—1.99 35 25 12 19

1.00—1.49 2 8 122 1

• Poorest performing countries are from Asia, Middle

East, Africa and Latin America (scores 3.10 – 3.58)

• Vietnam is the worst overall performer, with India

the most vulnerable and Singapore the worst

response

Scores for general state responsibilities

POOR PERFORMERS

• Asia has the worst regional score in terms of both

vulnerability and prevalence

• The West and East Indian ocean basins display the

highest levels of vulnerability, with the East Indian

Ocean also yielding the worst score for prevalence


POOR PERFORMERS

• Ten best performers scores are between 1.43 –

1.73

• The best response is typically by large developed

fishing nations, such as Australia, UK, Canada,

France, Japan and New Zealand


GOOD PERFORMERS

• Response scores are best for the Eastern and

Western Pacific ocean basins, reflecting the

strength of regional institutions and fisheries

policy


GOOD PERFORMERS

Scores for general state responsibilitiesPOOR PERFORMERS

Vietnam Comoros Isl. Sierra Leone Yemen Cambodia

China Korea (North) Somalia India Sudan

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


3.233.233.303.58 3.23

3.133.133.213.23 3.10

GOOD PERFORMERS


New Zealand Belgium Canada Australia United Kingdom

France Nauru Ireland Cook Islands Monaco

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th


1.531.501.471.43 1.56

1.721.671.641.60 1.73

Scores for general state responsibilitiesREGIONAL SCORES

Asia Africa Middle East South America

Caribbean& Central America

Europe Oceania North America

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th 8th

2.64 2.54 2.47 2.39

2.32 1.98 1.90 1.87

OCEAN BASIN SCORES


East Indian Ocean West Indian Ocean West Atlantic East Atlantic

Mediterranean& Black Sea

Eastern Pacific Western Pacific

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

5th 6th 7th

2.57 2.51 2.32 2.26

2.24 2.22 2.20

Implications

70

Implications

• The Index scores provide a strong indication that the SDG target – to eliminate IUU fishing

by 2020 – will not be achieved, and that combating IUU fishing remains a huge global

challenge

• FAO indicator 14.6.1 being used to assess progress in eliminating IUU fishing has a number

of weaknesses, and cant be used to assess individual country performance

• Index scores on the other hand cover all 152 coastal states, can be disaggregated by

indicator types and state responsibilities, and allow for country comparison

Implications

• The IUU Fishing Index can complement indicator 14.6.1 generated by FAO, when

assessing progress in achieving the SDG goal to eliminate IUU fishing

• It would be useful to update the scores in the IUU Fishing Index in 2020

• Countries can do little about vulnerability indicators/scores, but there are many

actions that states can and need to take to combat IUU fishing

Implications

• There is a strong argument for action in areas/countries with high vulnerability and poor

prevalence scores e.g. the Asia region and the Western Pacific ocean basin

• The Western Pacific scores poorly for prevalence but has a relatively good score for

response, suggesting existing recognition of the need for action and high policy priority

given to fisheries by countries and regional institutions

Implications

• The Middle East has poor response scores as a result of the lower importance given to the

sector

• Developing countries are often vulnerable to IUU fishing and lack resources, so require

special support in combatting IUU fishing

Implications

• The vulnerability of island states is also highlighted when ranking scores for both coastal

and port state indicators, with countries likely to have strong dependence on fisheries

sector

• Nations operating distant-water fishing fleets that yield poor scores for both

flag/prevalence and flag/response indicators may be considered as particularly

problematic. Solving their poor performance would go a long way to eliminate major

portions of IUU fishing globally

IUUfishingindex.net

VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

76

Apresentação do PowerPoint - GFETWgfetw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gilles-Hosch.pdf · Why...

Documents

Transcript of Apresentação do PowerPoint - GFETWgfetw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gilles-Hosch.pdf · Why...