EU IUU Catch Certification Scheme

Francisco Blahawww.franciscoblaha.com

Who am I?l Ridiculous mixture of Austrian, Argentinean and New Zealander.

l Involved in commercial fishing since I'm 17. As a fisherman, 2nd mate, fisheries observer, researcher, QC, R&D Manager, Fishery Industry Officer at FAO Rome and a Consultant.

l I work with industry in the Pacific since 93 (since 95 based in New Zealand), and as a advisor for DEVFish, ADB, AUSAid, EU, FAO, WTO, SIPPO, etc.

l I have a MSc in Fisheries Biology (1991), a MSc in Food Science (2000) and I'm doing a PhD in Governance & Public Policy.

l When I’m not doing this I do family, surfing, swimming, music and still go fishing (and spearfishing) as much as I can.

But mostly, I’m just an overqualified fisherman

The EU Market AccessThe European Union (EU) is the biggest single market for fish and fishery products worldwide.

Over 60% of the seafood consumed there originates in 3rd Countries. (For Tuna the estimated figure is 80-90%)

The EU bases its seafood import on government-to-government assurances (official certificates), without the intervention of any private type certification or ecolabel scheme.

The certificationsI will keep my presentation focused on 2 types of certifications

The “usual” deals with “fish a safe food”, and provides official guarantees from the exporting government to the EU that the fish has been submitted to processing conditions as required by the EU legislation. It relates to the “health of the consumers”.

The “new one” who deals with “fish as a legally caught resource”, and provides official guarantees from the vessel’s flag state to the EU, that the fish was harvested in accordance with applicable flag state laws and international conservation and management measures.

Both go in parallel.To access the EU a country must be sanitary approved, then all its vessels intending to provide the EU market need to be too.

Around 100 countries are presently approved.

While both regimes are as different as the work scope of a Seafood Safety Inspector and a Fisheries Officer, there should be synergies in between both certifications.Both certificates cannot contain discordant information.

What comes first?

Health certification

HealthCertificate

Your country CAregistration

vesselsreeferscool storesice factoriestransporterslanding sites

approval

freezer vesselsfactory vessels reeferscool storesprocessing est.

EU

FBOs allowed to supply to FBOs exporting to the

EU

FBOs allowed to export directly to

the EU (EU #)

HealthCertificate

BIP Marketlisting

all FBOs under your legislation

FBOs allowed to produce food and

feed

DG Sancolist that goes to the EU

process and update the listand pass it to all the BIPs

This list stays in the country

Catch CertificationProvides official guarantees from the vessel’s flag state to the EU:

that the fish was harvested in accordance with their own applicable laws and international conservation and management measures

The catch certificate is specified in a expressed format, and shall be validated by the CA of the flag state of the catching vessel.The catch certificate may be established, validated or submitted by electronic means.

By who? Where? In whatquantity?

When? How?

The fish was caught...

Illegal/u

nregulated:

Unreported:

Compliance:

Science:

Primarily concerned with vessel ID & fishing ground

All data types are relevant

Primarily concerned with area, quantity, season

Primarily concerned with catch quantity, perhaps closure period and gear type

What it means?

Flag State needs to prove compliance with:

Fisheries lawMCS activitiesNPOA - IUUInternational agreementsBilateral agreementsCoastal State controlsPort State controlsFlag State controlsMarket State controlsManagement measures of RFMOs

What it means?

National industrial fishing vessel – domestic or overseas landingsImportation of raw fish. products. accompanied by validated catch certificates – domestic processing or for direct export.Mixing of imported and landed fish. products – domestic processing.Transshipments – National industrial vessels transshipping for re-exportTransit with no processing. Similar scenarios for artisanal fisheries...

Scenarios

Most countries do the certificates and most products enters the EU.Signing the paper is easy enough, but how meaningful that certificate is, varies intensely in different countries.And fisheries at each country is a unique universe. As with the sanitary certifications, there should be a system that can be audited in order to provide a background on legality to all statements. If you sign and official document, but can’t prove the truth behind it, problems will follow.

Paper is easy

Laws are not up to date with the present situation of the sector, nor the international and RFMO agreements.NPOA–IUU are not totally complied with, do not incorporate the best international practices, nor facilitate focussing of MCS activities in higher risk areas.Most lack of a Fisheries Information System to integrate all MCS data and the capacity to evaluate effectiveness over time.Under-reporting is hard to quantify.

Coastal State controls

Sanctions system is not normally even-handed and dissuasive – providing proportionate penalties for both artisanal and industrial fishers.The sanctioning regime does not eliminate incentives for appealing and taking matters to long court battles, while the vessel continue operating.VMS application does not completely regulate the operational and legal aspects of it, in order to establish non-conformances as solid legal electronic evidence. This, however is changing rapidly.

Coastal State controls

Tuna vessels landing in 3rd countries are not consistently reporting catches to its flag state fisheries authorities as per their permit conditions.Log book reporting is patchy.Observers programmes are partially implemented and reporting has variable time lags until analysis is performed. Licensing systems is not transparent.Political and economical interference, etc.

Coastal State controls

Difficulties in coordination in between maritime, port, and fisheries authorities.Difficult interaction in between Fisheries CA of of the vessels Flag State and the Fisheries CA of the Port State.Limited capacity to inspects landings. Limited capacity for denial of port access and prohibition of the imports of fishery products from IUU vessels.Political and economical interference, lack of transparency, etc.

Port State controls

Pew’s Port State Performance project consolidates six years of movement data on IUU-listed vessels, tracking their port visits globally to evaluate port State performance in combating illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU). The final data and findings were uploaded on May 25th, 2010.

Port State controls

Difficulties in coordination in between maritime and fisheries authorities. Difficulties in coordination in between registry and fisheries authorities. Fisheries CA have no full control on vessels operating internationally. Limited capacity to interact with fisheries authorities of landing countries. Political and economical interference, lack of transparency, etc.

Flag State controls

Difficulties in coordination in between “health cert.” and “catch cert.” authorities. Sanitary control and approval of vessels that don’t operate in national waters is difficult.Sanitary eligibility of products is complex, as requires separation of fish from arrival to factory.While is not forbidden to give a CC for a vessel that does not hold the sanitary approval, issuing it does jeopardise the official guarantees provided by CA in the health certificate.

Market State controls

Is not really a catch certificate, but rather another export certificate.Not many countries have a information verification procedure, as they lack of a FIS to integrate all data required. They not have an efficient landing account systems (fish from a same landings that goes in different exports, or different landings from a same boat in one lot).Disparity in the forms and what goes in which area, not a complete understanding of the scenarios.Not many rejections, but many expensive delays.

Catch Certification Process

The data first, certifications follow

20

PortsVessels Factories Authorthies EU

ü

e-cert or paper

Fish as Fish Fish as Food

SPC/FFA WCPPNA, etc

Compliance, Science, trade statistics

Regional Organizations

The origin of the raw materials and the way it arrives define the eligibility in terms of “fish as food”

EU listed factory

Philippines

Vanuatu / RMIFSM / Kiribati

PNG

Taiwan

MoU

Ecuador

PNG

Vanuatu

PNG

The data first, certifications follow

The data first, certifications follow

22

The validation of the catch certificate defines the eligibility in terms of IUU fish

Vanuatu

PNG

China

Flag state CA

Ecuador Kiribati

Transshipment orNon processing statement

Ecuador

EU listed factory

EU listed factory

PNG

A third country may be identified as a non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market state, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.The EC is discussing the cases of

Panama (429 vessel in IATTC reg)Belize (34)ColombiaHondurasTogo

Non-cooperating third countries

In the approved and notification list: FijiFrench PolynesiaNew Caledonia/Wallis and FutunaPNGSolomon Islands

Not in the notification listFSM (initially in but taken out in october 2010)KiribatiMarshall IslandsVanuatu and Cook islands

In 2011, a 30 country wide EU funded evaluation programme visited PNG and found only one major issue with the validation of foreign Certs.

Situation in the Pacific

The 2nd part of the that evaluation programme has just started, will visit 15 countries over the next months

The reports of these missions are only of advisory nature, not audits

In the Pacific will visitFijiSolomon IslandsKiribatiMarshall IslandsFSM

In parallel, DG Mare visited Vanuatu in January 2012, and literally suggested it, as a “flag of convenience”

Situation in the Pacific

The EU now has 2 mandatory export certificates instead of one.Categorical Flag State rule (Charters not contemplated)Liability of the captain to operate legally is transferred onto the factories.

Immediate incentive for third countries to monitor national landings is cancelled...

Detection of IUU fishing occurrences becomes less likely (fish does not turn IUU inside a processing plant)National CC models not available on EU web

Difficulties with the CCS

System is erected on circulation of photocopiesPlace of landing is not recordedMost 3rd countries do not simultaneously monitor in- & outflow of Certificates & related products 3rd country to 3rd country sales of partial lots complete with whole CCs 3rd country purchases of raw products through fish brokerage firmsCertified weights on CCs double every single time a partial consignment is sold.

Laundromat for IUU fish

Difficulties with the CCS

Fish laundering

CCs are not issued and/or recorded centrally at the EUCC “migration” and related weights go unmonitoredThe amount of fish entering the EU under specific certificates is unknown3rd countries and MS cannot query individual certificates to assert legality3rd country “e-solutions” can only be incomplete and imply a multiplication of wasteful partial non-solutionsZero “control” at EU level, beyond customs adding up & rubber stamping off (often) fake numbers

Difficulties with the CCS

Very annoying, but not impossible...It offers an opportunity to strengthen MCS system. It does not offer an opportunity to transit and transshipments countries.Countries with fleets need to get sanitary authorization first. Compliance cost increases for industry and CA

Fish accountancy Fisheries volumes forensic analysis

It highlights the need for a comprehensive regional Fisheries Information Management System.

Conclusions for PI countries

Enforce Batch Integrity (Ensuring that the fish certified by the flag State is the same fish imported by the EU after processing) The lack of a central database fuels the multiplication of fake certificates, de facto legalizing imports of IUU fishThe CCS will not curb the importation of IUU fish in any meaningful manner unless a central electronic certification system with global logons for authorities and operators is implemented.The idea behind the regulation is commendable – but so it should be its tools of implementation...

Conclusions for the EU

Thank you and good fishing