troubled waters - Greenpeace...more troubled waters 5 Qaeda assets. The terrorist organisation is...

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD International Transport Workers’ Federation

Greenpeace International

troubled w a t e r sfishing, pollution and FOCs

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD International Transport Workers’ Federation

Greenpeace International

August 2002ISBN

Cover photo: Sutton-Hibbert, Jeremy/Greenpeace

major group submiss ionfor the 2002 Wor ld

Summit on Susta inableDevelopment in

Johannesburg

troubled w a t e r sfishing, pollution and FOCs

This booklet focuses on the problems posed by thegrowing use of Flags of Convenience (FOCs) in ouroceans and seas and closely follows joint submissionswhich were made to the Commission on SustainableDevelopment (CSD) in December 1998 and April 1999.

It is recognised that the problems of marine pollutionand overfishing are not limited to the FOC fleet.However, FOCs have a disproportionately large impact inthese areas and they continue to pose a grave threat tothe sustainability of fisheries and maritime transport.

The booklet seeks to address the FOC problem in termsof the three pillars of CSD: environmental; social andeconomic.

preface

introduction 4

what has happened since CSD7 6

maritime transport 8The age of the world merchant fleet 8Growth of FOC shipping 8FOCs and maritime casualties 9Pollution cases and FOCs 10Port State control detentions 11Comments 12

fisheries 16The age of the world fishing fleet 16The growth of the FOC fishing fleet 16Illegal fishing 17Comments 19

conclusions 22

recommended actions 24

contents

4 more troubled waters

The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) is aGlobal Union Federation of 604 transport workers' unionsin 137 countries, representing around 5 million workers.The ITF campaigns on behalf of its affiliates for anintegrated and environmentally responsible approach totransport policy, both nationally and internationally. TheITF has eight industrial sections to look after the interestsof workers in a specific branch of the transport industry:railways, road transport, inland navigation, seafarers, dockworkers, fisheries, civil aviation and tourism services. ITFaffiliates and their members have direct and daily contactwith problems and possible solutions related to thesustainable development of oceans and seas.

Although the lead trade union organisation working onthis issue is the ITF, sustainable development of theoceans and seas is of concern to all workers. Therefore,from the trade union side, this brochure is a jointcollaboration between the ITF, the InternationalConfederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and theTrade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) to theOrganisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) and they will collectively bereferred to as “the trade unions”.

Greenpeace International, like the ITF, is deeply involvedin the issues relating to the use of oceans and seas on adaily basis. Greenpeace has devoted considerableresources to determine the extent and nature of illegalfishing, and has gathered much information on thenature of the problem and proposed solutions.Greenpeace has agreed to co-sponsor this brochure withthe trade unions.

Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 contains a number ofrecommendations crucial for the prevention, reductionand control of degradation of the marine environmentfrom sea-based activities and for the sustainable

utilisation of marine living resources. Like the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)many of the measures are addressed to the flag State.However, although the generally accepted applicableinternational instruments set a comprehensive frameworkfor the regulation of such activities, they are dependenton flag States discharging their obligations and exercisingeffective control over vessels flying their flag.

This joint brochure will show that a significant numberof flag States lack the will and/or the ability to enforcethe requirements established within international lawand the instruments to which they are party. The lack offlag State implementation and the absence of adequateenforcement provisions constitute a serious weakness inthe international regulatory regime. This has caused anumber of severe consequences and adversely impactson the sustainable and responsible utilisation of theoceans and seas.

Flags of Convenience are an institutionalised system forthe negation of international law. They are a clearlyrecognised threat to the sustainable development ofmaritime transport, the protection of the marineenvironment and the sustainable utilisation of marineliving resources. The European Union FisheriesCommissioner, Franz Fischler, Stated the following in“Illegal Fishing – a threat to our common heritage”:

“The practice of flags of convenience, where ownersregister vessels in countries other than their own inorder to avoid binding regulations or controls, is aserious menace to today’s maritime world.”(http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/fischler/illfish en.htm, July 2002)

The Flag of Convenience system also has a darker sidewhich has been demonstrated recently in the hunt for Al

introduction

5more troubled waters

Qaeda assets. The terrorist organisation is believed toown a fleet estimated at between 20 and 80 ships. Dueto the lack of transparency inherent in the Flag ofConvenience system, it is impossible to trace them. TheTamil Tigers had a fleet of 11 commercial ships, underPanama, Liberian and Honduran flag. Other flags havebeen more recently named in connection with peoplesmuggling, and drugs and arms smuggling – notablyCambodia and Tonga. Ahmad Yahya, of the CambodianMinistry of Public Works and Transport, is reported tohave said:

"We don’t know or care who owns the ship or whetherthey’re doing ‘white’ or ‘black’ business…it is not ourconcern.” (Fairplay, 12 Oct 2000)

The Cambodian register is said to be partly owned by aNorth Korean diplomat, and North Korea was identifiedsome time ago as using Cambodia as a base fortrafficking in drugs and illegal wildlife products.Cambodia also has the dubious distinction of being oneof the fastest growing registers, increasing in size byalmost 40% during 2001.

Agenda 21 noted that there are many problems withunregulated fisheries and that fishing vessels are beingre-flagged to escape control. The trade unions andGreenpeace International accept that there is afundamental crisis within the fisheries sector which iscaused by over-fishing, an excess of fleet capacity beyondwhat the fish resources can support, and pollution andthat this crisis is being exacerbated by illegal andirresponsible fishing by flag of convenience fishingvessels. It is clear that many others are aware of thiscrisis and share a common concern.

The European Parliament Stated the following in the‘Resolution on the Role of Flags of Convenience in the

Fisheries Sector’ A5-0405/2001 : “… that the use of flags of convenience is generallymotivated by a desire to minimise costs and circumventcertain tax regulations by means of complex legaldevices and results in numerous difficulties with regardto the attribution of responsibility in the event of illegalfishing, accidents at sea and , in general, with regard tocompliance with the competition rules to which seatransport is subject;”

This brochure examines the State of the maritimetransport and fisheries industries in terms of the ageand structure of the world fleet and the growth of FOC’s;in the maritime sector the brochure also looks at FOCsand maritime casualties, pollution cases and port Statecontrol detentions. The situation is put into contextthrough an analysis of the issues raised and theirimplications for sustainable development. Finally, thebrochure makes a number of conclusions, summarisesthe principal arguments and makes a series ofrecommended actions to remedy the current situation.

A similar brochure was presented at the 7th Session ofthe Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD7) in1999. The importance of these issues was recognisedand decisions were taken which were recorded in thereport of CSD7. Regrettably, little real progress has beenmade on these issues since CSD7, and whileimprovements have been made in regulations, the lackof effective enforcement has meant that the situation inboth the maritime and fisheries industries has worsenedsince 1999.

This joint publication has focused on the problemscaused by FOCs. While it is recognised that theproblems of marine pollution and overfishing are notlimited to the FOC fleet, it will show that FOCs have anegative impact upon the marine environment out of all

Flag hopping: Al Rabat

Al Amami (Equatorial Guinea

to Belize);

Zarqa Al Yamama (Equatorial

Guinea to Belize)

Photographed in Las Palmas

in 2001

Photo: ITF

proportion to their number.There has been a definite recognition of the problemsposed by Flags of Convenience in both the maritime andfisheries sectors, and there has been a hardening ofattitude towards the problems which these few Stateshave caused to the rest of the world in return for therevenue which they generate for themselves. Here aresome of the steps taken since CSD7:

● The European Commission has condemned FOCsand is now actively encouraging States not to allowthe flagging out of their fishing vessels to FOCs, andhas moved to eliminate any subsidies paid totransfer fishing vessels to recognised FOC countries;

● Spain have enacted legislation which allowsprosecution of their nationals who may be engagedin illegal fishing on board fishing vessels flagged inthird-countries;

● The FAO has adopted by consensus an InternationalPlan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter and EliminateIUU fishing which includes measures to be takenagainst FOC fishing, and reinforces theresponsibilities of all sectors of the maritimecommunity (flag States, port States, market Statesand States of beneficial ownership) to stop thecatch, transfer, trade and sale of illegally caught fish;

● Mauritius has agreed to end the import of fish fromFOC ships, and where the fish cannot bedemonstrated to have been caught by legalmethods;

● South Africa has banned landings by vessels listed bythe International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlanti Tunas (ICCAT) as “believed to be engaged inIUU fishing”

● ICCAT has banned the import of bluefin and big eyetuna and swordfish caught by certain FOC fleets;

● The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea(ITLOS) in a case brought by Belize against France

(France had arrested a vessel engaged in illegalfishing under Belize flag), have decided that the flagof Belize in this case “contained an element offiction” and did not represent the true ownership ofthe vessel;

● The United Nations General Assembly ResolutionA/54/32 called upon the IMO, in cooperation withthe FAO, to define the concept of a genuine linkbetween the fishing vessel and the flag State;

● CSD7 urged the IMO to develop measures, inbinding form where appropriate, to ensure that shipsof all flag States meet international rules andstandards so as to give full and complete effect toUNCLOS and other relevant conventions; and

● The United Nations Millenium declaration confirmedthe rule of law, peace and security and humanrights.

However, what is still missing is the implementation ofthe international instruments and a concerted politicalinitiative to address the fundamental problems.

what has happened since CSD7



what are flags of convenience?

As long ago as 1958, the Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD) defined Flagsof Convenience as:

“the flags of such countries as Panama, Liberia,Honduras and Costa Rica whose laws allow — andindeed, make it easy for — ships owned by foreignnationals or companies to fly these flags. This is incontrast to the practice in the maritime countries(and in many others) where the right to fly thenational flag is subject to stringent conditions andinvolves far reaching obligations”.

Under international law every ship must sail under aflag which gives its nationality to the ship. The flagState accepts responsibility for both the conditions onboard and the activities of the ship. About 30countries effectively rent their flag to shipowners ofany nationality, guaranteeing the minimum of rules,regulations, taxes and interference. These flags arecalled ‘Flags of Convenience’ (FOCs). They makemoney out of their shipping register because theyaccept the fees, but do not effectively exercise anycontrol over the ships in their fleet or the companiesowning these ships, which would normally incur themin expense.

Under the FOC system, the registered owner of mostships is a ‘shell’ company set up for the sole purposeof owning that one ship. That registered owner isoften, in turn, owned by another company which

may itself be registered in a country with very liberalcompany laws. This setup, which works forcompanies, criminals and terrorists as well asshipowners, allows a shipowner the ability todisappear completely from any accountability whichmay be attached to him through owning the ship. Ifanything goes wrong, the company ceases to existand no information is forthcoming on ownership.

The secrecy and lack of transparency of the FOCsystem allows shipowners to ignore theirresponsibilities and cut their operating costs. As wellas lax company laws and a lack of any meaningfulregulation of the shipping or company operation,FOCs offer cheap registration fees, low or no taxes,and the freedom to employ cheap labour from anycountry. Industrialised and developing countrieshave both suffered as a result of the regime of taxhavens and Flags of Convenience. The so farapparently fruitless search for Al Qaeda’s shipsillustrates the problems which this system hasspawned. The trade unions are working to end thissystem and to get owners to return to their nationalflags and to restore the ‘genuine link’ between theship and the flag as required under article 91 of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS).

The age of the world merchant fleet

The average age of the world fleet has increasedconsiderably since 1980 and is now over 20 years of age.The growing age of the world fleet has considerableimplications for the safety of life at sea and the protectionof the marine environment as there is a positivecorrelation between age and maritime casualties. In 2001,Lloyds Register reported 155 ships which were totallosses. Of these, 8% were less than 10 years old, 25%were 10 – 19 years old and 67% were 20 years old or over.

It should also be noted that older ships are less efficientand that due to the “grandfather clause”* they are notalways required to meet the latest internationalminimum rules and standards. They are only required tomeet the standards in place when the keel was laid.

Port State Control authorities recognise that there is adisproportionately high level of deficiencies for olderships. For the area covered by the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU) in 2001,those ships over 15 years old have 19 times the numberof deficiencies of those ships younger than 15 years.Following the accident of the Erika off France, the ParisMOU carried out a concentrated inspection campaign onolder oil tankers (over 3,000 gt and over 15 years old).The purpose of this was to inspect older tankers muchmore closely than is possible in the time available for anormal port State control inspection. The results of thisthree month campaign highlighted an increasing rate inthe detention of tankers, a lack of structural maintenanceand defects in firefighting equipment. Deficiencies werefound in 47% of the 205 inspections. 23 ships weredetained. 2 of these ships were found with hull crackingand severe corrosion in bulkheads or frames.

* SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions State that, unless

expressly provided otherwise, any amendments to theConventions which relates to the structure of a shipshall apply only to ships which can be considered to bebuilt on or after the date on which the amendmententers into force. The rationale for these so-called“grandfather clauses” is to provide the shippingindustry with some certainty when making investments.*Paris MOU members : Belgium, Canada, Croatia,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, UK.

Growth of FOC shipping

The FOC fleet, both alone and as a proportion of theworld fleet, continues to increase. With most newly builttonnage being registered with FOCs and existingtonnage still changing from national flags to FOCs, theincrease in size of the world fleet is almost entirely anincrease in the FOC fleet.

Panama, which is by far the largest fleet in the world interms of tonnage, has recorded steady growth over thelast ten years. It now comfortably exceeds the combinedtotal gross tonnage of Liberia, Bahamas and Greece(respectively 2nd, 3rd and 4th position). In 2001 about 8million gross tonnes were added to the Panama fleet (atonnage slightly larger than the total fleet of India, forexample). Panama alone now accounts for 21% of theworld’s tonnage. Five out of the six largest fleets in theworld are FOCs (Lloyds Register, World Fleet Statistics,2001).

Of these, Liberia is the second largest fleet in the world.Liberia has been the subject of United Nations SecurityCouncil sanctions, but the Liberian flag and corporateregister remains a lucrative source of funds for CharlesTaylor. The United Nations Security Council panel of

maritime transport


experts concluded in 2001 that the Liberian registry was“vulnerable because of the use of the funds it generatesfor opaque off-budget expenditure including sanctionsbusting.” (United Nations Security Council S/2001/1015,26 Oct 2001). The United Nations Sanctions Committeehas recommended that the money from the Liberianfleet should be audited in future to avoid having it spenton arms. However, whether this is feasible in a countrywith no functioning judiciary is another matter.

In the period since 1980, the number of flags which havebeen designated by the ITF as being FOC has increasedgreatly. In 1980 there were 11 registries and now thereare 29. This list includes the recent 2002 additions ofTonga, Jamaica and Comoros. All FOC fleets have onething in common: their priority is to make money for theStates concerned.

The ship registration business has produced twomodels, neither of which require the existence of afunctioning maritime administration. The first model isthe State owned money making business where the“flag State” collects the tonnage taxes and delegatesmost, if not all, the survey and certification functions toa recognised organisation (a private body and usually aclassification society). Examples of this type includeCyprus and Malta. The other model is where theoperation of the register, including the statutoryfunctions, is franchised out to a commercial entity whichis located outside the territory and jurisdiction of theflag State and which may itself be bought and sold.Examples of this type include Liberia, Cambodia, SaoTome e Principe and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

FOCs and maritime casualties

Some flag States have had a very poor record for lossesof ships year after year. FOCs account for a majority of

these total losses. In 2001, FOCs account for 58% of thelosses by numbers, and 63% of the gross tonnage lost. Intheir annual reports the Institute of London Underwriters,and later the International Underwriting Association, havebeen damning in their criticism of some of the FOCregisters as being among the worst in the world for manyyears. The flags of Panama, Cyprus, St Vincent andGrenadines, Honduras and Malta feature consistently.

Looking at the figures for ships lost in 2001 it is still thesame countries at the top of the lists for both tonnageand numbers of ships lost: the habitual entries ofPanama, St Vincent, Cyprus and Malta. Cambodia hashad a very bad year for casualties in 2001, with 7 shipslost (Lloyds Register, World Casualty Statistics, 2001).

In the 2001 Annual Report, the UK Marine AccidentInvestigation Branch (MAIB) chief Rear Admiral JohnLang attacked the majority of flag States who have beenunable or unwilling to conduct independent, in-depthaccident investigations and make their reports publiclyavailable. Admiral Lang blamed States' reluctance on the"lack of transparency in the international shippingcommunity" and also highlights the climate of fear thatis "prevalent throughout the industry". Mariners aregenuinely frightened that if they were known to bereporting safety deficiencies, they would almost certainlylose their jobs, he commented. "This... is not conduciveto the establishment of a safety culture at sea". Hestressed that the issues of sub-standard shipping, under-manning and mariner fatigue were continuing. While hedoes not name any particular flag States, FOCs provideowners with secrecy concerning their commercialoperations, and this is extended to casualtyinvestigations which are not made public, and indeed inmany cases casualties are not investigated at all: “Panama has long ignored its international obligationto carry out casualty investigations, and the Panama


Cypriot flagged fuel supply vessel DALNERECHENSK to supply

BENNY NO.87 fishing vessel. South Atlantic

Photo: Sutton-Hibbert, Jeremy/Greenpeace

Maritime Authority’s excuse that it does not have theresources…” (Fairplay, 13 June 2002)

Three high profile casualties of Panamanian bulkcarriers in 2001 have not been investigated: Leader L(March); Treasure (June) and Kamikawa Maru(September). Panama was reported by the InternationalUnderwriting Association in 2000 to have lost 87 shipsover the previous five years; an average of about oneship lost every three weeks.

Pollution cases and FOCs

On 12 December 1999 the tanker Erika broke up in theBay of Biscay and about 12,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oilwas washed ashore on the coast of France. Erika flewthe Maltese flag, and initial enquiries as to herownership started in Malta, where records disclosedthat the owning company was made up of two corporateshareholders — both of them companies registered inLiberia. Liberia discloses little about the ownership ofcompanies or ships registered there, and so the twoLiberian company names was as close as it was possiblefor anyone to get to determining the ownership of thevessel, which remained unknown until the owner cameforward voluntarily at a later stage.

During the Paris MOU concentrated inspectioncampaign (September 2000, c.f. page 16) of oil tankers,47% of the ships detained were Malta flagged. Two ofthem had serious structural defects. One of theseships, the 26 year old Maria S, had 31 defects coveringall convention certificates, manning levels, shipstability and strength, hull corrosion and cracking andcracks in the bulkheads. The results of theseinspections were a disturbing reminder that there ismuch in oil tankers which cannot normally be seen andwhich indicate another accident waiting to happen.

These ships are most likely to find a home in an FOCflag State.

Pollution caused by FOCs is further illustrated by recentcases in America, where companies have paid largefines and agreed to improve their environmentalprocedures having been caught by the US Coastguardillegally dumping waste oil at sea. These companiesinclude Carnival Cruise Lines; Royal Caribbean CruiseLines and D/S Progress (a Danish shipmanagementcompany). David Uhlmann, chief of the environmentalcrimes section at the US justice department, said

“Nearly all these ships have oil-water separators andpollution control devices, and for whatever reason theowners or the people on the ship decide they are notgoing to pay to use them, they are not going to pay todispose of the waste properly, but instead they aregoing to dispose of it overboard. We are committed toprosecuting those pollution cases if they are in USwaters. But even if they occur out at sea, the companiesinvolved have to maintain records of pollution activities,and we have prosecuted for falsification of records whenthey have come into port. We have made tremendousprogress in this area, but obviously there is still aserious level of vessel pollution and falsification ofrecords. Once the pollution and the lying stops and weare in a position to devote resources elsewhere, wewill.” (Lloyds List, April 25, 2002)

Miami-based Royal Caribbean has agreed to pay recordfines in recent years for illegal discharges andfalsification of the oil record book. In 1999 the companypleaded guilty to 21 felony charges for dumping bilgewater and chemicals, falsifying records and lying aboutit, and agreed to pay an $18m fine. More recently,prosecutors took Carnival Corp, the world’s largestcruise operation, to court in Miami and in April 2002



secured $18m in penalties and a pledge that thecompany would overhaul procedures. This followedallegations that engineers on six cruise ships weredumping waste by fraudulently operating equipmentand falsifying records.

Port State Control detentions

The lamentable record of some flag States and theirabject failure to meet their international obligations hasled to the establishment of port State control regimes,both on a national basis and through regionalmemoranda of understanding. The establishment ofport State control, which is expressly provided for in

international law, in UNCLOS and a number ofinstruments promulgated by the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) and the International LabourOrganization (ILO), marks an attempt by coastal Statesto mitigate the adverse competition their national fleetsare suffering from the operation of sub-standardshipping and to protect their coastal waters fromshipborne pollution.

Many of the flag States which have an above averagerecord in terms of maritime casualties also featureprominently in terms of port State control detentions.The table below provides details of the top ten flagStates, in terms of the number of ships detained, within

the united nations convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea clearly defines the nationality of ships and theduties and responsibilities of the flag State. Article91 (Nationality of Ships) States that:

“ships have the nationality of the State whose flagthey are entitled to fly” and also stipulates that“there must exist a genuine link between the Stateand the ship”.

The convention goes on to explain that ships whichfly under the flag of the State:

“shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on thehigh seas”.

As well as this exclusive jurisdiction on the highseas, the State is also to:

“effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control inadministrative, technical and social matters overships flying its flag” and in particular “shall assumejurisdiction under its internal law over each shipflying its flag and its master, officers and crew inrespect of administrative, technical and socialmatters concerning the ship” (Article 94, Duties ofthe Flag State).

the countries being part of the Paris Memorandum onUnderstanding on Port State Control in 2001:

The top ten flag States, in absolute numbers ofdetentions for the year 2001, Paris MOU region :

The Paris MOU Annual Report contains a “Blacklist”which names flag States which are below the averagefigures for Port State Control detentions. These includePanama, Cyprus, Malta and St Vincent, as well as manyof the smaller FOCs like Cambodia and Tonga, whichhave a truly auful record. It should be noted that, in linewith the casualty statistics, certain States seemunwilling or unable to come off this blacklist and haveremained at a below average level for many years.

The Paris MOU Annual Report for 2001 comments on theexistence of flag States which have more interest inrevenues than in maintaining safety standards.Cambodia, Sao Tome e Principe and Tonga arementioned as being particularly bad. All three of theseflags are run as franchise – type operations from othercountries, pure money making ventures with negligible

State control. The report noted that other notoriousflags “seem to be comfortable with their position on theBlack List and have not shown any sign of improvementover the years.”

The Paris MOU recognizes the close correlation betweensafety and working and living conditions. Deficiencyrates for working and living conditions, under thestandards of ILO 147, have increased over the years. Thereport notes that older bulk carriers and general drycargo ships are sometimes found in an appallingcondition for the crew. This of course has an effect onaccident and pollution prevention as well, and thereport notes that “Combined with contracts of longservice on board and extensive working hours there isno room for a proper safety culture on board theseships.”

Comments

It is evident that maritime transport is of crucialimportance to world trade and that there is a clear needthat such a transport mode be sustainable andenvironmentally friendly. The following decision wasamongst those noted in the report of CSD7 in 1999,where the Commission:

“Invites IMO as a matter of urgency to developmeasures, in binding form where IMO membersconsider it appropriate, to ensure that ships of all flagStates meet international rules and standards so as togive full and complete effect to UNCLOS, especiallyarticle 91 (nationality of ships), as well as provisions ofother relevant conventions. In this context, theCommission emphasises the importance of furtherdevelopment of effective port State control;” (CSD,Report of the Seventh Session, page 20,E/CN.17/1999/20)


Flag Ships detainedTurkey 212Panama* 176Malta* 152St Vincent* 136Cyprus* 116Cambodia* 72Russia 66Antigua and Barbuda* 65Bahamas* 57Ukraine 38Paris MOU on Port State Control, 2001 Annual report* indicates FOCs


Left: Illegal longliner Rita

downloading Tootfish in Port

Louis, Mauritius Accession

Right: Illegal toothfish

longliner "Grand Prince"

from Belize running away,

Indian Ocean. Photo: Beltr·,

Daniel/Greenpeace

belize

As at 31 December 2001, Belize had a fleet of 481vessels engaged in fishing (e.g. slightly larger thanChina, about the same size as the UK). The latestfigures for declared catch for the FAO were for 2000,when the Belize fleet was 509 fishing vessels andthe declared catch was 61,000 metric tonnes, or anaverage of 120 tonnes of fish per vessel for the year.

The former prime minister of Belize, ManuelEsquivel, Stated in 1999 that his government hadreceived many diplomatic complaints about illegalfishing by Belize flagged ships. He said:

“There was little we could do. These people aren’tresponsible to anyone. The ships are never seen inBelize. The Belize shipping registry is privatised.There should be proper accountability.” (SundayExpress, UK, 4 April 1999)

The Belize flagged fishing vessel ‘Grand Prince’,owned by the Spanish company Noycan, was caughtfishing illegally for the threatened Patagoniantoothfish in December 2000 and impounded by theFrench court at Reunion with a bond set at over 1,7million Euros for the release of the vessel. Belizeargued on behalf of the owner that the bond shouldbe lowered to about 200,000 Euros. TheInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)questioned apparent irregularities in the Belizeregistry of this vessel. In its decision, the tribunalheld that:

“in the view of the tribunal, the assertion that thevessel is ‘still considered as registered in Belize’contains an element of fiction, and does not providesufficient basis for holding that Belize was the flagState of the vessel for the purposes of making anapplication under article 292 of the convention”[paragraph 85].

In 2001, Belize attended the annual meeting ofICCAT. In an attempt to remove the trade restrictionsimposed by ICCAT Belize presented a programme ofproposals for control of fishing vessels flying theirflag. However, ICCAT did not consider thesemeasures as sufficient to justify the lifting of importbans on bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna and swordfishcaught by vessels flying the Belize flag.

Belize also has a sizeable merchant fleet, 751 cargo-carrying ships. This approximately equates, innumber of ships, to the Netherlands. There thesimilarity ends; the average age of the Belize cargofleet is 25 years; the flag has a history of the worstkind for Port State Control detentions, casualties andproblems with crew.

Unfortunately, the IMO has not responded to thisinvitation with any urgency, and it remains a greatdisappointment to many in the maritime community thatto date little or nothing has been done by the IMO todevelop measures in binding form to ensure compliancewith international instruments or to move this matterforward in any meaningful way.

The port State control figures indicate that one of thelatent effects of the unfair competition and competitivedistortion generated by the FOC system is that it has alsohad a profound impact on many traditional flags States.Although such States are not FOCs some of them alsohave a very poor record with regard to compliance withwidely accepted international minimum rules andstandards. This is explained by the fact that shipping is aglobal industry and the sub-standard operatorestablishes the marginal freight rates and this alsocauses problems for national flag operators who have tocompete within the global market. The threat of “flaggingout” can also sharply reduce the capacity of nationaladministrations to be able to exercise effective control ofships flying their flag as, if they also want to retain anational fleet and prevent the vessels from flagging out toan FOC registry, they may have to be flexible and, in doingso, compromise on the enforcement of internationalminimum rules and standards.

There have been attempts to define sub-standardshipping and quality shipping solely in terms of thehardware or the technical regulations promulgated bythe IMO. There have even been attempts to define asub-standard ship or operation as one that was“substantially below” IMO requirements and to define a“quality” ship or operation as one that is in accordancewith the applicable international minimum standards ofthe day. This is indicative not of a quality culture butrather and, at best, a compliance culture.

From the seafarer’s perspective — and ultimately for thesafe and environmentally acceptable operation of a ship— priority must be afforded to social and labourconditions. This means that equal attention must begiven both to IMO standards and to applicable ILOinstruments, especially ILO Convention 147, the ILODeclaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights atWork of 1998 and applicable human rights instruments.It is worth noting that the UNCLOS requirement that flagStates must conform to generally accepted internationalregulations, procedures and practices means that evenif the State concerned has not ratified the instrument inquestion, it is nevertheless bound by it.

An OECD Maritime Transport Committee study entitled“the Cost to Users of Sub-Standard Shipping” (January2001) had the following to say about the currentregulatory environment:

“The strongest message which underlines this study isthat as things stand there are no real incentives foreither good operators/users, to actually do anythingabout sub-standard ships. Those in the industry whichtake their responsibilities seriously are thwarted by thesystem, and are essentially limited to minimising thedamage to their own operations, while those who arenot responsible can act with relative impunity, and arebeyond the reach not only of their industry peers, butprobably most of the regulators as well. The bottom line,if this can be distilled in one phrase, is that howeverappealing the concept of industry self-regulation mightbe (and this Committee has promoted it strongly) in theend it is likely to be largely ineffective.”

We have, in practice, a non-functioning self-regulatorysystem. The use of FOCs and the ability to change flagat whim enables shipowners and ship operators todetermine the degree to which they will comply with


internationally agreed minimum standards. We acceptthat many choose to do so and that some voluntarily gobeyond the standards set out in internationalinstruments. However, a sizeable minority do not andwe are confronted with the problems and real humansuffering which results on a daily basis. The ITF believesthat the maritime industry is suffering from regulatoryfailure due to the fact that many international standardslack an enforcement mechanism and therefore what isrequired is an agreed framework which ensurescompliance.

It is time for governments to confront the inherentproblems of the shipping industry and for them to put inplace an effective regulatory regime, which will beenforced, and which will restore rationality to theindustry . It should ensure that the industry is run in amanner which is consistent with the concepts ofsustainable development, both in terms of the ships andthe seafarers who are needed to serve on them. Aglobal industry needs the uniform application of all theprovisions of international law, rather than selectiveapplication and the disregarding of those which it ispolitically or economically expedient to disregard.


more troubled waters

Flags of Convenience in Fisheries offer the advantagesavailable to owners in the maritime sector: lack oftransparency; ease of transfer of flag; increased abilityto circumvent international regulations on safety andother aspects of life at sea; lack of oversight ofcommercial fishing operations. In addition, they have anadditional important advantage for fisheries alone: thecover for illegal fishing.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) hasconfirmed the link between FOCs and Illegal,Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in the RomeDeclaration, and the IMO has been called upon to definethe concept of a ‘genuine link’ between fishing vesseland flag State in order to combat the threat from FOCs.The IMO have not treated this matter with the urgencyrequested by the United Nations/FAO and so far noeffective definition of a genuine link has beenforthcoming from the IMO.

Since CSD7 there have been several initiatives whichhave aimed to cut down on IUU fishing, notably the FAOInternational Plan of Action to prevent, deter andeliminate IUU fishing. Regrettably, the period since 1999has seen both a small increase in the FOC fishing fleetand also a large increase in the number of fish catchingvessels which are ‘without flag’ according to thestatistics. In this section we will examine the underlyingproblems which have contributed to the rise in FOCs,the effect of some of the measures which have beentaken against them and what can be done to increasethe hope of a sustainable fishing industry.

The age of the world fishing fleet

Lloyd’s Register of World Fleet Statistics 2001 notes thatthe average age of the world fleet of fish catchingvessels over 100 GT is 22 years (in 1998 it was 20 years).

The fact that the average age of the world’s industrialfishing fleet has become as high as 22 years is a sourceof great concern and is not compatible with the conceptof sustainable development. There is a clear need for aneffective scrapping programme as well as a bettermanagement of fishing fleets capacity, one which wouldalso pay due regard to the availability of resources toprevent and eliminate excess fishing capacity. This iscalled for in the FAO International Plan of Action for theManagement of Fishing Capacity, amongst otheragreements.

Old fishing vessels pose more than just a risk to thecrew that sail on them. When their value is so low, theyare prime candidates for illegal fishing operations as thepossibility of the vessel being impounded carries verylittle financial risk for the owner. As with many elderlyships, the value of the cargo (in this case fish) is likelyto be many times the value of the vessel itself.

The growth of the FOC fishing fleet

The FOC fishing fleet has increased in size since CSD7.In 2001, FOCs constitute about 12.5% of the worldfishing fleet (in 1998 it was about 10%). However, withinthe FOCs there have been some changes regarding thenumber of fishing vessels flying their flag. Panama,Malta and Mauritius have reduced the number of fishingvessels flying their flag. Belize, Cambodia, Bolivia andEquatorial Guinea have all substantially increased theirfleets since CSD7. Although Belize and Honduras haveclaimed that they were in the process of deregistringfishing vessels which do not comply with relevantfisheries regulations. Unfortunately, the nature of FOCfishing means that when one country tightens up onregistration conditions for fishing vessels in response tointernational pressure, there are still several othercountries where registration can be performed and new

fisheries

16

FOCs are emerging in fisheries, such as Bolivia. Also,mouvements between FOCs can be observed assanctions are being applied or lifted by certain regionalfisheries organisations. For instance, after the traderestrictive measures imposed by ICCAT to Panama werelifted after Panama joined ICCAT, a number of vesselshave been reflagged back to Panama and there areclaims that they are engaged in IUU fishing activitiesagain. That has lead ICCAT at its last meeting inNovember 2001 to re-identify Panama as having vesselsengaged in IUU fishing.

The registered owners of the vessels are located insome 80 countries, but most of the beneficial owners

are based in Taiwan, Japan and the European Union. Paragraph 17. 52 of Agenda 21 and the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries require flag States toprovide full, detailed, accurate and timely reporting ofcatches and the fishing effort of vessels flying their flag.It can be clearly seen by comparing figures for catchdeclared to the FAO with the number of vesselsregistered an FOC country that they are not keeping theFAO correctly informed. For the year 2000, for example,the total declared catch for the Belize registered fleet of509 fishing vessels was 61,000 metric tonnes (anaverage of 120 MT per fishing vessel per year). Thisillustrates the enormous discrepancy between thedeclared nominal catch of the FOC registered fleet of


the international commission on shipping (ICONS)

“For thousands of today’s international seafarers lifeat sea is modern slavery and their workplace a slaveship.” (ICONS report, page3)

ICONS comprised four Commissioners and wasunder the Chairmanship of Hon Peter Morris, formerMinister of Transport for Australia. Their enquiry intoship safety began in March 2000 and culminated in areport one year later entitled “Ships, slaves andcompetition”.

“The underlying cause of substandard shipping isthe commercial advantage that a shipowner can gainthrough avoiding international standards for safety,environmental protection or labour conditions.Wherever possible, this element of the industry

shifts its costs to other parties. The elimination ofsub-standard shipping requires a sustained attackon this fiscal advantage, using commercial andregulatory mechanisms.”(ICONS report, page 8)

With regard to the International MaritimeOrganization, it is generally agreed within theindustry that the IMO has developed an adequateset of standards for ship safety, but thatimplementation of these standards is the centralproblem. ICONS observed that:

“responsibility for implementation rests withmember States, several of whom have neither thewill nor the skills to effectively meet theirobligations.” (ICONS, page 194).

certain countries and the amounts that might beexpected given the numbers of vessels and grosstonnage of the fleets which fly their flags.

Significantly, there are also 1,349 fish catching vesselsflying ‘unknown flag’ in 2001, a significant increase on2000 (1,043) and a huge increase over the figure eightyears ago in 1994, listing only 14 fishing vessels flying‘unknown flag’. A number of the fishing vessels seen ininvestigations into IUU fishing in the last three yearshave shown no markings or name.

Illegal fishing

It is impossible to divorce the use of FOC fishing vesselsfrom the issue of IUU fishing. The FAO States:

“increasingly, the reflagging of fishing vessels inparticular fisheries has been directly associated with theavoidance of fisheries management measures.”

In Troubled Waters 1 (CSD7) details were given of shipswhich had been arrested for illegally fishing, and alsonames of other fishing and reefer ships which had beenunloading illegally caught Patagonian toothfish inMauritius. Of these vessels, 50% were FOC, and 36%carried the flag of Belize.

Since CSD7 there has been active monitoring of IUUfishing by some organisations, and eye-witness reportshave helped to demonstrate the scale of the problem.On 20 July 2001, Greenpeace took part in an officialaerial surveillance mission organised by theLuxembourg-funded Surveillance OperationsCoordination Unit (SOCU), based in Banjul (the Gambia).The 5 hour mission covered the Exclusive EconomicZone (EEZ) of Guinea Conakry. In total 32 fishing vesselsand two reefers (transport vessels)were sighted. Most

of them were bottom trawlers. Approximately half of theships were big (40-50m) trawlers with no name, flag, oridentification. The few with a name had hidden it withnets. They were fishing for the most valuable species,cephalopods, shrimp, grouper, sole.Between 7 and 14 September 2001, off West Africa,Greenpeace sighted 31 trawlers and 3 reefers:

● 8 fishing vessels and 2 reefers were FOC vesselsregistered in Belize

● 1 mothership registered in Panama● 2 fishing vessels had no name● 3 fishing vessels had 2 names each (one had Lian

Run 12 / Long Way 008; another Long Way 008 / LianRun 3 (or 8); another Long Way 009 / Lian Run 7)

● 2 different fishing vessels had the same name (LongWay 009)

● 27 vessels displayed no country or port of registry● 9 fishing vessels had been sighted previously

engaged in illegal operations by the sub-regionalaerial surveillance.

In addition to the information based on these sightings,information from the sub-regional SurveillanceOperations Co-ordinating Unit is available. Many vesselswere repeat offenders. The use of FOCs, the fact thatsome vessels had two names or no markings at all, andthe use of very short term licences makes it virtuallyimpossible to control these fishing activities.

Recognizing the global nature of the problem, theinternational community has become increasinglyconcerned about illegal fishing, in particular flag ofconvenience fishing, and the failure of some flag Statesto control fishing vessels flying their flag. In recent yearsa series of Resolutions have been adopted by theUnited Nations General Assembly during the annualdebate on Oceans and the Law of the Sea. In



highlighting the threat to the worlds’ oceans, the UnitedNations Secretary General and the General Assemblyhave placed particular emphasis in the need toeradicate illegal fishing. In October 2000 a resolutionwas adopted which called on States to:

“deter reflagging of fishing vessels flying their flag toavoid compliance with applicable obligations and toensure that fishing vessels entitled to fly their flag donot fish in areas under the national jurisdiction of otherStates unless duly authorized buy the authorities of theStates concerned and in accordance with the conditionsset out in the authorization, and that they do not fish onthe high seas in contravention of the applicableconservation and management measures.”

Again, little has improved here. The internationalcommunity has registered its concern, and has takensteps to address the issues through resolutions, but theenforcement of existing measures is still not effectiveand there are too many loopholes which make IUUfishing a hugely lucrative trade, where the rewardsheavily outweigh the risks.

Flag of convenience fishing is rife in the Southernocean around Antarctica. Fishing companies registertheir vessels and use flags from countries such asBelize, Panama, Seychelles and Saint Vincent and theGrenadines to avoid international fishing rules and anycontrol of the activities of their beneficial owners.France has caught and arrested almost 20 vessels inthe waters surrounding its sub-Antarctic territories,many of which flew flags of convenience. World-wide,Belize is the top flag of convenience fishing countrywith over four hundred industrial-scale fishing vesselsflying its flag.

In April and May 2000, Greenpeace conducted a seven

week expedition to the Atlantic fishing grounds. Theinformation collected clearly showed how the operationof FOC longliners are supported by a whole sea-goinginfrastructure designed to trans-ship the FOC catches tomarket and to supply the FOC fishing vessels at sea. Theflags of these vessels were Belize, Cambodia, Panamaor Equatorial Guinea (“Pirate Fishing, Plundering theOceans”, Greenpeace, February 2001). Their authoritiesdid little or nothing to act against these activities.However, in November 2000 the members of theInternational Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas (ICCAT) agreed to close their markets toall bigeye tuna caught by fishing vessels flying the FOCsof Belize, Honduras, Equatorial Guinea, St Vincent andthe Grenadines and Cambodia.

In the Southern Ocean, illegally fishing for Patagoniantoothfish, many of the vessels engaged in this fishery flythe flags of Belize, St Vincent and the Grenadines,Panama, Honduras and Vanuatu. Flag-hopping betweenFOC States makes the ships harder to track and toprosecute.

Comment

As 90% of commercially important fishing stocks liewithin the exclusive economic zones of coastal States,there is little to be gained from registering a fishingvessel within an FOC, apart from either being able tocircumvent the applicable management regime or to fishillegally. This was recognised in paragraph 17.45 ofAgenda 21. The problems caused by FOC fishing vesselshave been recognised and were the principal reason forthe FAO adopting the Agreement to Promote Compliancewith International Conservation and ManagementMeasures by Fishing Vessels on the High Sea (theCompliance Agreement). It should also be noted thatSection 7.8 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible

Left: Japanese owned and Panamanian flagged,

refrigerated cargo vessel HATSUKARI.

South Atlantic Ocean.

Right: Cambodian flagged BENNY NO. 87

trans-ships tuna to HATSUKARI. South Atlantic

Photo: Sutton-Hibbert, Jeremy/Greenpeace

Fisheries, under the heading “Financial Institutions”,took note of the problems caused by the re-flagging offishing vessels to FOC registers in order to escapecontrols, and States:

“Without prejudice to relevant internationalagreements, States should encourage banks andfinancial institutions not to require, as a condition of aloan or mortgage, fishing vessels or fishing supportvessels to be flagged in a jurisdiction other than that ofthe State of beneficial ownership where such arequirement would have the effect of increasing thelikelihood of non-compliance with internationalconservation and management measures.”

The Secretary General of the United Nations has calledthe prevalence of illegal, unregulated and unreportedfishing “one of the most severe problems currentlyaffecting world fisheries.” The United Nations GeneralAssembly has adopted a series of Resolutions calling oncountries to exercise control over the activities of fishingvessels flying their flag. In March 2001, 114 nationsagreed to an International Plan of Action of Action tocombat Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU)fishing. Among other things, they stressed the need toimpose sanctions of sufficient severity to deter fishingvessels from illegal fishing and deprive them of thebenefits of their fishing.

The European Commission has been active in looking atways to eliminate FOC fishing activities, and theCommunication on the Reform of the Common FisheriesPolicy (see box EU Fisheries Policy, page 21) outlines theEC action plan against IUU fishing. There have beenother international organisations which have takensteps to prohibit illegal fishing by FOC vessels. TheInternational Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has banned the import of certain

tuna and tuna-like species from both contracting andnon-contracting parties. At their meeting in November2001, ICCAT decided to adopt the following traderestrictive measures on non-contracting parties : Belize(import ban on swordfish, bluefin and bigeye tunas);Cambodia (bigeye tuna) St Vincent and the Grenadines(bigeye tuna); and also on a contracting party,Equatorial Guinea (bluefin and bigeye tuna).

It is clear that current trade sanctions imposed by ICCATare effective in forcing FOC countries to presentinformation to ICCAT, and in some cases to join theorganisation. However, the one sanction many of thesecountries are able to take is to eliminate vessels fromtheir flag, which simply exports the problem to anotherFOC. In November 2001 ICCAT agreed to re-identifyPanama (a contracting party) and identify four othercountries (non contracting) as having vessels engagedin IUU fishing (Bolivia, Indonesia, Sierra Leone andVanuatu). If these countries do not take measures torectify the situation, trade measures could be agreed atthe ICCAT meeting in 2002.

In their efforts to prevent the illegal fishing ofPatagonian toothfish, the Commission for theConservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) introduced a Catch Documentation Scheme(CDS). If implemented correctly, this could allow catchesmade in accordance with conservation measures to beidentified and therefore make it more difficult forFOC/IUU fishers to sell their catch. This has had goodresponse and participation but some countries haveused the CDS to validate IUU fish shipments.

Thye CDS has been followed by a resolution to denyaccess into port of any vessel identified as illegallyfishing even where they have been renamed orreflagged.


In May 2001 the Organisation for the Promotion ofResponsible Tuna Fisheries (OPRT) had its first meeting inTokyo. This initiative of the Japanese tuna fishing industry,with the support of the Japanese Government, concludedan agreement with the Taiwanese FOC Fishing VesselsAssociation to scrap 62 japanese-built FOC longliners bythe end of 2002 and re-register 67 FOC longliners to

Taiwan by the end of 2005 without Taiwan increasing thenumber of its tuna longline vessels currently in operation.

Unfortunately, these measures have not yet been ableto halt the increase in FOC fishing vessels or IUU fishing.


european union fisheries policy

The European Commission has been looking at waysto eliminate FOC fishing activities. There has beenactive encouragement for States not to allow theflagging out of their fishing vessels to FOCs in orderto maintain effective flag state control and theCommunication on the Reform of the CommonFisheries Policy (28 May 2002, COM(2002) 181 final)outlines the EC action plan against IUU fishing. Oneof the paragraphs reads:

“The IUU Action Plan will involve initiatives to: Strengthen and complete the international legalorder with a view to eliminating both the use offlag-of-convenience vessels and the practice oflandings in ports without proper controls. Thisshould be achieved, inter alia, through the adoptionof international instruments that will define boththe notion of “genuine link” to the flag State forfishing vessels, so that such vessels are properlycontrolled by the flag States, and the rights andobligations of the port States to ensure theeffectiveness of conservation and managementmeasures.”(page 17)

In the same document the European Commissionproposes an EU diplomatic initiative to convene aninternational conference for negotiation of aninternational agreement determining conditions forimplementing Article 91 of UNCLOS for fishingvessels, and to establish objective legal criteria forensuring that an authorisation to fly the flag of aState is based on the existence of a substantive linkbetween that State and the fishing vessel concerned,as required under Article 91 of UNCLOS.

These views are reinforced by the European UnionFisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler, who statedthe following in “Illegal Fishing – a threat to ourcommon heritage”:

“The practice of flags of convenience, where ownersregister vessels in countries other than their own inorder to avoid binding regulations or controls, is aserious menace to today’s maritime world.”(http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/fischler/illfish en.htm, July 2002)

It is expressly Stated within international law that theflag State is primarily responsible for ensuringcompliance with international minimum standards.Article 94 of UNCLOS establishes the fundamentalprinciples and makes clear that having a shippingregister is not an unfettered right of a sovereign Statebut one which is qualified as a result of the obligationsimposed on the State, especially with regard to ensuringcompliance with international minimum safety, pollutionprevention and social standards. Similarly, Article 217 ofUNCLOS sets out the obligation on flags States toeffectively enforce international rules, standards andregulations, irrespective of where a violation occurs.These requirements were, inter alia, incorporated intoIMO Assembly Resolution Guidelines to Assist FlagStates in the Implementation of IMO Instruments (A.847 (20)).

Article 91 of UNCLOS provides for a “genuine link”between the ship and the flag State. Although, the“genuine link” is not expressly defined in UNCLOS otherArticles, especially Articles 94 and 217, implicitly pointto the requirement for at least an “economic link”. Thismeans that there should exist within the flag State asubstantial entity which can be made responsible forthe actions of the ship and on which penalties ofadequate severity can be levied so as to discourageviolations of applicable international minimum rules andstandards, wherever they occur.

In March 1998 the First Joint Ministerial Conference ofParis and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding on PortState Control agreed, in their joint ministerialdeclaration to, inter alia, take concerted action withinthe IMO for the adoption of comprehensive bindingquality criteria for flag State administrations and shipregisters and to apply all reasonable measures toinduce flag State administrations with a record of being

unable or unwilling to exercise adequate control overtheir ships to do so. Since this declaration others haveadded their voices to the call for binding measures toensure flag States perform adequately, among themCSD7; FAO and ICONS.

Increasingly, States and regional bodies who havebecome dissatisfied with the lack of movement in theinternational sphere (towards the institution of effectiveand binding measures for flag States) have taken theirown action to protect themselves and others against theexcesses of the flag of convenience system. TheEuropean Commission is one such regional body,although legislation still needs to be adopted.

It is clear that self regulation in the maritime andfisheries sector is a complete failure; the current systemhas led to a multiplication of FOCs offering safe havenfor ships which should be scrapped and for thoseengaged in illegal fishing. Central to the trade unionsand Greenpeace International’s diagnosis of theproblem would be the establishment of mechanisms toeliminate the flag of convenience system which is littlemore than an institutionalised system for the effectivenegation of the requirements expressly provided for ininternational law.

International law clearly provides that every State has asovereign right to establish a shipping register.However, this right is not absolute and is fettered by theduties, responsibilities and obligations which are clearlyand expressly established in customary internationallaw and international instruments. International law andUNCLOS also establish rights for port and coastal Statesand, at the same time, impose duties on such States toprotect the marine environment and the living marineresources within the zones under their jurisdiction.Therefore, there is a clear need to balance the rights of


conclusions


View of sterns of 2 reefers

Photo: Davison, Kate/Greenpeace

port and coastal States against those of the flag Statesin a more equitable manner. Throughout this brochure the State of crew of bothships and fishing vessels has not been particularlyconsidered. In the experience of the trade unions theliving and working conditions on many FOC ships andfishing vessels are appalling, with the flag Stateexercising even less control over these conditions thanthey do over the technical State of the ship. The ILO hasdetermined that there is a substantial Decent WorkDeficit in the maritime industry, and this also needs tobe addressed to improve both safety and pollution.

In consideration of the conditions necessary for asustainable maritime transport industry and asustainable fishing industry, the trade unions andGreenpeace urge the Summit to address the followingissues and to include them in the decisions of theSummit:

Agree that the application of International LabourOrganisation core labour standards is central to havinga sustainable maritime industry and a sustainablefisheries industry;

Agree that Flag of Convenience (FOC) shipping andfishing continues to defy the provisions of internationallaw; that the lack of transparency afforded by Flags ofConvenience has been a key factor in making themaritime and fishing industries unsustainable andtherefore Flags of Convenience should be eliminated;

Agree that all member States must apply the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);particularly the areas relating to flag State responsibilityand areas regarding flag State enforcement measuresfor the protection and preservation of the marineenvironment;

Invite the United Nations Department of Ocean Affairsand Law of the Sea (United Nations DOALOS) to revisethe United Nations Ship Registration Convention, inorder to develop a mandatory instrument on shipregistration giving full effect to UNCLOS;

Urge the International Maritime Organization (IMO) tofully implement the decision taken at CSD7 in 1999 todevelop measures, in binding form where appropriate,to ensure that ships of all flag States meet internationalrules and standards so as to give full and completeeffect to UNCLOS and other relevant conventions;

Urge the International Maritime Organization (IMO) tofully implement United Nations General AssemblyResolution 54/32 (Implementation of provisions relatingto straddling fish stocks) which calls upon the IMO todefine the concept of the genuine link between thefishing vessel and the flag State;

Urge all member States to implement the FAOInternational Plan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter andEliminate IUU Fishing.

recommended actions


Published by the International Transport Workers’ Federation ITF House, 49-60 Borough Road, London SE1 1DS

Tel: +44 207 403 2733 Fax: +44 207 357 7871 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.itf.org.uk

3/99

troubled waters - Greenpeace...more troubled waters 5 Qaeda assets. The terrorist organisation is...

Documents

Transcript of troubled waters - Greenpeace...more troubled waters 5 Qaeda assets. The terrorist organisation is...