Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

Illegal fishing takes place when vessels or harvesters operate in violation of the laws of a fishery. This can apply to fisheries that are under the jurisdiction of a coastal state or to high seas fisheries regulated by regional fisheries management organisations (RFMO). According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, illegal fishing has caused losses estimated at US$23 billion per year. Unreported fishing is fishing that has been unreported or misreported to the relevant national authority or RFMO, in contravention of applicable laws and regulations. Unregulated fishing generally refers to fishing by vessels without nationality, vessels flying the flag of a country not party to the RFMO governing that fishing area or species on the high seas, or harvesting in unregulated areas. The drivers behind illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing are similar to those behind many other types of international environmental crime: pirate fishers have a strong economic incentive – many species of fish, particularly those that have been over-exploited and are thus in short supply, are of high financial value. Such IUU activity may then show a high chance of success – i.e. a high rate of return – from the failure of governments to regulate adequately (e.g. inadequate coverage of international agreements), or to enforce national or international laws (e.g. because of lack of capacity, or poor levels of governance). A particular driver behind IUU fishing is the failure of a number of flag states to exercise effective regulation over ships on their registers – which in turn creates an incentive for ships to register under these flags of convenience. The Chinese commercial fishing fleet is responsible for more IUU fishing than that of any other nation. ==Economic and environmental impacts of IUU fishing==

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing poses a global challenge and has significant economic and environmental repercussions. The impact of IUU fishing includes economic losses, job losses, scarcity, price distortion, food insecurity and unfair competition, together with the depletion of fish populations and damages to the marine habitat. The most affected areas by this phenomenon are Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The environmental effects of IUU fishing The environmental effects of IUU fishing include biodiversity loss, and damages to the marine flora and ecosystem, and are generally caused by illegal fishing methods, overfishing and bycatch. Illegal fishing methods usually damage the seabed and the marine flora: fishing gears, chemicals, and explosions, can affect organisms' growth and cause sediment transport, which blocks or reduces light, endangering the growth and settlement of oysters and scallop. Examples include the use of bottom trawling, which destroys sponges that take decades to regrow, and the use of fishing gears like beach seines and dynamite fishing, which highly damage the reef ecosystems and can kill up to 80% of the coral reef in the target areas. The impact on fish stock is an effect of overfishing and overharvesting, which can damage the ecosystem biodiversity and can create an imbalance in the food chain, thus affecting predators, forage species, and marine mammals. In addition, the catch of high market valued species, such as tuna and sharks, contribute to the depletion of fish stocks, causing both environmental effects, and food scarcity. which has the biggest fleet based in Port Louis and is documented as flouting the law, including human rights, worldwide multiple times on record. Mauritian fishing cooperatives also allegedly engage in Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and are sometimes apprehended but their movements are impossible to track. West Africa has been consistently identified as the global epicentre of IUU fishing, with estimates indicating that up to 37% of fish caught in the region are unreported or illegal. Evidence of foreign industrial fleets exploit enforcement gaps, weak governance, and limited maritime capacity to extract significant marine resources, often undermining the livelihoods of artisanal fishing communities. While West Africa has received growing scholarly and policy attention, the South Atlantic remains relatively underexplored in academic literature despite facing similar vulnerabilities. These practices contribute to the collapse of fish stocks, disrupt marine food webs, and threaten the long-term sustainability of marine biodiversity in the region. The lack of adequate monitoring means that endangered species, such as sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals, are often caught unintentionally and discarded at sea, contributing to biodiversity loss. Furthermore, IUU fishing contributes to unsustainable levels of fishing pressure on critical species such as sardinella, horse mackerel, and hake, many of which are essential for both ecological balance and food security. The overfishing of these species has cascading ecological effects, reducing prey availability for larger marine predators and altering the structure of marine ecosystems. In many parts of the South Atlantic, particularly in Angola and Namibia, IUU fishing has also been associated with increased levels of pollution and discarded fishing gear, which exacerbate marine plastic waste and further damage fragile ocean habitats. Climate change is compounding these effects. Warmer sea temperatures and shifting fish distributions make stocks more vulnerable to IUU exploitation, particularly in upwelling zones such as the Canary and Benguela Currents. In such regions, depleted fish stocks recover more slowly due to changes in ocean productivity and nutrient flows, magnifying the long-term ecological toll of illegal fishing. Asia-Pacific Region Overfishing and bycatching in the Asia-Pacific region are destroying coral reefs and are depleting endangering the species by non-respecting the safe biological quota for fish replenishment. Moreover, the destructive fishing practices in the region involve the use of cyanide to poison reef fish: as a consequence, 56% of coral reefs in Southeast Asia are at risk, especially in the Paracel Islands, Indonesia, Taiwan, Philippines, and Malaysia. Oceania In Australia, IUU fishing is affecting biodiversity, and is leading to a decrease of legal fish traps in favor of the illegal ones. Illegal fishing is endangering the species of sea cucumber and oysters, leading to fish depletion, and damages to the ecosystem. Bycatch is extremely frequent, endangering species like dogfish and dolphins, while trawling is damaging seagrass beds and endangering endemic species like sponges, white sharks, and stingrays. IUU fishing makes the global economy lose between $10 billion and $23 billion annually, and is valued up to $23.5 billion, placing it among the most profitable natural resource crimes. According to some studies, annual global losses due to IUU fishing account between $25 and $50 billion, tax revenues losses for countries are up to $4 billion. The major economic impacts of IUU fishing are unfair competition, job losses, declining revenues for legal fishers, tax revenue losses for governments, poverty and food insecurity for artisanal fishers and fishing communities, price distortion and overexploitation of fish stock. Oceania In many Oceanian countries, fish highly contributes to GDP, and impacts the livelihood of domestic populations: Indonesia and Papua New Guinea highly suffer from economic consequences of IUU fishing. Illegal fishing presents a serious challenge to Oceanians countries, because it creates a high fish stock depletion, and endangers marine environment. Despite an official lobster fleet of 2,900 boats, illegal catches are widespread, and in 2019 alone, over 6,000 tons were exported, generating more than US$92.5 million, regardless of legality. As the country pursues formal regulatory recognition of this trade, external demand continues to exert pressure on fragile stocks Europe In the Mediterranean Sea, 50% of tuna and swordfish catch come from IUU fishing, while in the North Sea 50% of cod and 60% of all catch comes from IUU fishing. In the Baltic Sea, 40% of cod comes from illegal fishing, and in the Iberian coast 40% of tuna, leading to an overexploitation of the resources and loss of catch for the local and legal fisheries. In Europe, countries lost up to €10 billion from IUU fishing, €8 billion for stock value, and more than 27 000 people lost their jobs. ==Certification and labeling==

Mandatory product certification and catch documentation are increasingly part of fishery monitoring and enforcement, and to exclude IUU products from consumer markets. Certification is also used for timber and for diamonds, which have analogous enforcement problems. Labels can reward harvesters and supply chains which honor regulations. Labeling may also provide accountability for adaptive management planning, as well-managed fisheries may provide higher quality products and more stable economics for producers. The use of certification or catch document schemes is encouraged in the FAO's International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing. Several RFMOs include them, including CCAMLR's Catch Documentation Scheme for Toothfish, CCSBT's Trade Information Scheme for Southern Bluefin Tuna and ICCAT's Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Programme. Similar systems are applied at a national level, including the USA's Certification of Origin of Tuna and Tuna Tracking and Verification Systems, Japan's reporting requirements (including area of capture) for all imports or transportation of tunas into Japan by boat, and the EU's labelling of all fish products (including area of capture). Marine Stewardship Council The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an international non-profit organization that runs a certification and ecolabelling program for traceable, sustainable seafood. To achieve certification as sustainable a fishery must meet a standard based on three principles: • ensuring healthy fish stocks • minimal impact on the marine ecosystem • effective management (which includes ensuring the fishery operates within national and international laws). Fisheries that meet the MSC standard for a sustainable fishery can use the blue MSC ecolabel on their seafood products. The second element of the program is a certification for seafood traceability. This is called MSC Chain of Custody. From the fishery, every company in the supply chain that handles the certified fish is checked to ensure the MSC label is only applied to fish products that come from a certified fishery. This requires effective record-keeping and storage procedures. This traceability element of the program helps to keep illegally fished seafood out of the supply chain by linking seafood sold in shops and restaurants to a certified sustainable fishery. The MSC eco-label enables consumers to identify sustainable seafood when shopping or dining out. As of June 2014, there are over 14,000 MSC-labelled seafood products sold in over 90 countries around the world. The MSC website lists outlets selling MSC-certified seafood. The six MSC-certified Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic toothfish fisheries (which are the South Georgia, Ross Sea, Heard Island, Macquarie Island, Kerguelen Islands and Falkland Islands fisheries) provide an example of how good fisheries management can reverse the trend of illegal fishing. These fisheries took, among others, the following steps to exclude illegal vessels from their waters: • strict vessel licensing systems are rigorously enforced, • each vessel must have at least 1 CCAMLR approved Government observer on board its vessel to verify catch data, • each vessel must have port-to-port monitoring of its movements via two tamper-proof Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) units on board, • all toothfish product that is transported must be accompanied by a CCAMLR Dissostichus Catch Document (DCD), with details of where and when that fish was caught Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard (RFVS) The Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard is a UK based, vessel certification scheme launched in 2016 by Seafish (formally the Sea Fish Industry Authority) an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the UK's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. The scheme recognizes fishing vessels that demonstrate best practice in fishing operations and crew welfare. Seafish offers regulatory guidance and services to all parts of the seafood industry in the UK, including catching and aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood, as well as restaurants and retailers. Seafish is funded by a levy on the first sale of seafood landed in the UK. Its services are intended to support and improve the environmental sustainability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the industry, as well as promoting responsibly-sourced seafood. ==Enforcement==

Illegal and unreported fishing (two of the three components of IUU fishing) essentially arise from a failure to adequately enforce existing national and international laws. There are, however, many factors underlying enforcement failure, including, notably, poor levels of national governance. There are obvious problems with enforcing fisheries regulations on the high seas, including locating and apprehending the pirate ships, but solutions are available, chiefly through improved monitoring and surveillance systems. Many fishermen are getting away with IUU ocean fishing due to the difficulty of monitoring every single fishing boat. This will begin to change with new technology that is able to watch and follow each boat from space consistently. This will be done through radio beacons, which all boats in the ocean are required to have. By implementing this new monitoring system, it will be impossible for fishermen to get away with IUU fishing in the future. MSC systems are similarly of value within exclusive economic zones, including, for example, offshore patrols and licensing schemes. The aggressive efforts of the Indonesian government to curtail illegal fishing has "reduced total fishing effort by at least 25%, ... [potentially] generate a 14% increase in catch and a 12% increase in profit." Therefore, the authors concluded that "many nations can recover their fisheries while avoiding these short-term costs by sharply addressing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing." Brazil has made some institutional strides, most notably through the implementation of the National Program for Tracking Fishing Vessels by Satellite (PREPS). This Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) was intended to serve as a spatial fleet management tool to promote orderly fishing practices. However there is still some scrutiny around the effectiveness of such enforecement: While it is also to rembember the importance of binding international instruments such as UNCLOS, the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), and the FAO Code of Conduct, some scholars critiqued their enforcement in weak governance contexts. Importantly, they highlight the role of technological innovations such as satellite-based AIS and VMS systems, DNA forensics, and blockchain traceability as means to improve surveillance and supply chain transparency. While acknowledging the utility of these tools, the article warns of false positives, data manipulation, and surveillance fatigue, especially where data-sharing protocols are weak or voluntary. Therefore, in order to stop these illegal practices, there needs to be an enhancement of a more holistic approach to IUU fishing, implying a direct effort between state and non-state actors, together, to establish long-term solutions; whilst holding a stronger accountability for the non-compliance of the international legal bindings and incentivize their cooperation. TMT's (Trygg Mat Tracking) Combined IUU Vessel List maintains the best available, up-to-date information on all fishing and related vessels that appear on the illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing vessel lists published by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and other related organisations." ==Flag state liability==

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states bear responsibility for the vessels (including fishing vessels) that fly their flag. While it is uncontroversial that individuals engaged in IUU fishing may be subject to legal sanctions, the extent to which flag states may be held liable under international law for the IUU fishing activities of their vessels is less clearly defined. In March 2013 the issue of flag state liability for IUU fishing was brought before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) of West Africa. The SRFC asked the Tribunal to advise on the following four questions: • What are the obligations of the flag State in cases where illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities are conducted within the Exclusive Economic Zone of third party States? • To what extent shall the flag State be held liable for IUU fishing activities conducted by vessels sailing under its flag? • Where a fishing license is issued to a vessel within the framework of an international agreement with the flag State or with an international agency, shall the State or international agency be held liable for the violation of the fisheries legislation of the coastal State by the vessel in question? • What are the rights and obligations of the coastal State in ensuring the sustainable management of shared stocks and stocks of common interest, especially the small pelagic species and tuna? In its submissions to the Tribunal, the SRFC emphasized the severity of the IUU fishing problem in West Africa and the need for a clear regime of flag state responsibilities with respect to vessels engaged in this trade. The SRFC argued that its member states had been unable to mount successful prosecutions against IUU fishers following boardings due to a lack of support and cooperation from flag states. A number of states and international organizations also made submissions adopting a range positions with respect to the four questions above. It was held by some states that the Tribunal lacked the advisory jurisdiction to respond to these questions. Both the government of Spain, a major contributor to the problem of IUU fishing, as well as the United Kingdom adopted such a view. A number of other states took the position that flag state responsibility for IUU fishing should take the form of a general responsibility to perform due diligence with respect to vessels and their activities, rather than an obligation to assist in prosecutions or another more substantive requirement. In its Advisory Opinion issued on 2 April 2015, the Tribunal adopted the "due diligence" approach. The Tribunal found that flag states are under only a general obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure that their nationals and vessels flying their flag are not engaged in IUU fishing activities. This obligation may be satisfied by adhering to generally accepted international norms of fishing vessel regulation and complying with international treaties that indicate best practices. At the same time, the Tribunal found that in coastal waters the coastal state bears primary responsibility for preventing IUU fishing and not the flag state. ==Political processes==

EU action plan The EU helped draw up FAO's international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, endorsed by the FAO Council in June 2001. The EU then developed its own plan to implement the commitments agreed at international level, and the European Commission's action plan for the eradication of IUU fishing was published in May 2002. It is intended to be implemented at four levels: At the EU level, more responsibility will be requested with regard to member state nationals acting under a flag of convenience. Moreover, market measures concerning fisheries products caught in violation of the international agreements will be adopted. In addition, information actions addressed to the fishing industry, consumers, and the public will be launched to raise their awareness. In the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, control and inspection plans would be adopted as well as specific conservation and management measures. In addition IUU vessels would be identified and monitored and their catches would be quantified. At the international level, concepts like genuine link would be defined, and a number of rights and obligations of the port state would be established. Moreover, the exchange of information on IUU activities and the international co-operation would be strengthened. In partnership with developing countries, the necessary means would be provided to enable them to effectively control fishing activities undertaken in waters under their jurisdiction. European Commission sanctions against states operating open ship registries and flags of convenience for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing have been effective in pressuring states to reform or limit their open ship registries to fishing vessels, or at least in severely curtailing registrations under that jurisdiction. These sanctions generally limit or ban access to the European Common Market for fisheries products produced by vessels of a certain state. High Seas Task Force The High Seas Task Force comprises a group of fisheries ministers and international NGOs working together to develop an action plan designed to combat IUU fishing on the high seas. Launched in 2003, the Task Force includes fisheries ministers from Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand and the UK, together with the Earth Institute, IUCN-World Conservation Union, WWF International and the Marine Stewardship Council. The goal of the Task Force is to set priorities among a series of practical proposals for confronting the challenge of IUU fishing on the high seas. A series of expert panels have been convened to identify the legal, economic, scientific and enforcement factors that permit IUU activity to thrive, and then determine key points of leverage that can brought to bear at national, regional, and global levels to minimise the incentives to carry out IUU fishing on the high seas. The completed action plan, published on 3 March 2006, will be placed by ministerial members of the Task Force directly in the hands of other ministers. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are affiliations of nations that co-ordinate efforts to manage fisheries in a particular region. RFMOs may focus on certain species of fish (e.g. the Commission for the Conservation of Southern bluefin tuna) or have a wider remit related to living marine resources in general within a region (e.g. the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)). This wide diversity of mandates and areas of application, and also effective implementation of regulations, opens up opportunities for IUU vessels. UN high seas processes The present system of high seas governance has evolved over a period of several hundred years, the result being a patchwork quilt of measures in the form of binding and non-binding instruments with different geographical and legal reaches and different levels of participation. Most legal instruments build on the foundation established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was agreed in 1982 and entered into force in 1992. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which entered into force in 2001, sets out principles for the conservation and management of fish stocks and establishes that such management must be based on the precautionary approach and the best available scientific information. The Agreement provides a framework for cooperation on conservation and management, but since only about a third of the parties to the Law of the Sea Convention have ratified it, its impact is inevitably limited. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) carries out much of the technical work on international fisheries management, and provides a forum for the negotiation of agreements and codes of conduct. In 1995 the FAO agreed its Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to promote long-term sustainable management. In 2001, the FAO adopted the International Plan of Action (IPOA) on IUU Fishing. The aim of this voluntary instrument is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by providing all states with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures by which to act, including through appropriate regional fisheries management organisations established in accordance with international law. The FAO Compliance Agreement, which entered into force in 2003, is designed to close a major loophole in international fisheries management, that of the circumvention of fisheries regulations by 're-flagging' vessels under the flags of states that are unable or unwilling to enforce such measures. In 2009, the FAO brokered the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which entered into force in 2016. The agreement closes ports to vessels suspected of illegal fishing. Commitments made by the FAO have seen an increase in international participation in anti IUU fishing practices. The UN Committee On Fisheries produced a report concerning the status of anti IUU fishing strategies implemented by UN member states during the 34th COFI conference. Global goals The Sustainable Development Goal 14 has a target to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as follows: "By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics." This target has one indicator: Indicator 14.4.1 is "the proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels". This indicator aims to measure the proportion of global fish stocks which are "overexploited", "fully exploited" and "not fully exploited". A report at the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in 2021 stated that: "Sustainable fisheries accounted for approximately 0.1 per cent of global GDP in 2017". == IUU Fishing in the Indian Ocean ==

IUU in the Indian Ocean is a significant problem One Index shows that the Western and Eastern Indian Ocean basins are continuously in the top three of worst scores, regarding IUU fishing, making it a significant issue in the region[1]. IUU fishing emerged as a regional issue in the early 1990s, following the collapse of state institutions in coastal states such as Somalia. The absences of governance in Somali waters invited foreign fleets to operate illegally, harvesting high-value species like Tuna without regulation. This contributed to grievances that catalysed piracy off Somalia[2]. Historically, Illicit fishing in the region has been driven by overcapacity in foreign fleets, weak enforcement capacity in coastal nations, and high demand for seafood in global markets[3]. Notable hotspots Somali coast and Northwest Indian Ocean After Somalia's government collapse in 1991, foreign IUU fishing surged in its EEZ. Local grievances over this plunder contributed to Somali piracy in the 2000s. In recent years, satellite monitoring has revealed the scale of illegal fishing in Somali waters. Analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data in 2019–2020 documented a fleet of roughly 200 Iranian-linked fishing vessels operating unlawfully in Somali waters[4]. These vessels primarily used drifting gillnets to catch tuna – a practice banned on the high seas – and were described as one of the largest illegal fishing operations in the world. Some Pakistani, Indian, and Sri Lankan vessels have also been detected fishing without permission in the same area. Somali authorities, with international partners, are attempting to curb these incursions[5]. Palk Bay (India–Sri Lanka) The Palk Bay, between India and Sri Lanka, is another IUU hotspot. Indian trawlers regularly poach fish in Sri Lankan waters, depleting stocks and fueling conflict; Sri Lanka's Navy frequently detains the intruding fishermen. The disoute has become a diplomatice and ecological crisis, leading to frequent arrests and rising tensions[6]. Despite bilateral talks and proposed solutions, the Palk Bay dispute persists – driven by livelihood pressures on one side and conservation concerns on the other. These incidents in the Palk Bay illustrate how resource pressure can fuel persistent cross-border IUU fishing[7]. Seychelles and Southwest Indian Ocean The island nations of the southwestern Indian Ocean have vast exclusive economic zones and limited naval resources, making them attractive targets for IUU fishing. The Seychelles, for instance, has a 1.3 million km² EEZ that is difficult to fully patrol. Foreign vessels – from small artisanal dhows to large industrial ships – have been caught fishing illegally in Seychelles waters. In 2024, a Seychelles Coast Guard operation intercepted 18 foreign fishing vessels engaged in illegal fishing in Seychelles' EEZ. Many of these boats were crewed by fishers from neighbouring Madagascar, highlighting the transboundary nature of IUU fishing in the region[8]. Monitoring and enforcement efforts Combating IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean involves national actions, regional cooperation, and global initiatives. The primary regional body is the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), which sets rules for tuna fisheries (e.g. vessel quotas and required monitoring systems). However, enforcement of IOTC measures is left to member countries, and compliance has been uneven, leaving gaps that illegal operators exploit. Many coastal states are bolstering enforcement by deploying new patrol forces and conducting joint operations; regional intelligence-sharing through "FISH-i Africa" has also helped intercept illegal vessels. International instruments are crucial to support these efforts. A key measure is the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), under which countries deny port access to vessels involved in IUU fishing, blocking illicit fish from entering markets. Most Indian Ocean nations have joined the PSMA and begun tightening port inspections to intercept illegal catches. Technological tools are increasingly used to improve surveillance. Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking allow authorities to monitor fishing vessels remotely in real time. In addition, satellite-based AIS tracking is increasingly being deployed to detect suspicious activity[9]. Some countries are also adopting electronic observer cameras on fishing vessels to supplement or replace human observers, improving compliance monitoring at sea. These advancements make it harder for IUU vessels to operate undetected over the vast ocean. The Eye in the Sky program and regional frameworks like "FISH-i Africa" have improved intelligence-sharing. Yet, sovereignty sensitivities and limited funding continue to hamper joint operations[10][11]. Future strategies International initiatives are focusing on both high-tech and community-based solutions to IUU fishing. Experts have urged adoption of catch documentation schemes to trace seafood from harvest to market, which would prevent illegally caught fish from entering the supply chain[12]. There are also calls to establish stricter harvest limits and enforcement procedures under regional agreements, to ensure sustainable fishing of vulnerable stocks (such as tuna in the Indian Ocean). At the same time, development programs are working to address the root economic causes of IUU fishing. For example, the World Bank's SWIOFish project is funding improved fisheries management and providing alternative livelihoods in East African and island nations[13]. By supporting coastal communities and strengthening governance, such efforts aim to reduce the incentives for local fishers to engage in illegal fishing. Overall, eliminating IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean will require a combination of better enforcement, greater transparency, and regional collaboration. Strengthening international agreements, deploying new monitoring technologies (from satellite surveillance to electronic reporting), and building the capacity of coastal states are all seen as vital steps toward protecting marine resources and ensuring sustainable fisheries in the region. ----[1] Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. (2021). IUU Fishing Index 2021. https://iuufishingindex.net/ [2] Bueger, C. & Edmunds, T. (2022). "Blue crime: transnational organised crime at sea". Marine Policy (138), pp. 104983. [3] Raymond, C. Z. (2009). "Piracy and Armed Robbery in the Malacca Strait". In A. Forbes 8Ed.) "Australian Maritime Issues 2007", pp. 47–64). Sea Power Centre – Australia. [4] Global Fishing Watch & Trygg Mat Tracking. (2020). Illegal Fishing Hotspot Identified in Northwest Indian Ocean. [5] Djama, M. A. (2011). "Illegal Fishing and the Challenges of Maritime Security in Somalia's EEZ". UN Nippon Foundation Fellowship Programme. [6] Maritime India (2021). "Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in Palk Bay: Issues and Challenges". [7] Zaman et al. (2021). "IUU Fishing and Maritime Disputes in South Asia". Journal of Maritime Affairs, 3(1), pp. 41–57. [8] UNDOC (2024). "Maritime Crime Threat Assessmant – Indian Ocean Region". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [9] Liang et al. (2024). "PiracyAnalyzer: Spatial-Temporal patterns analysis of Global piracy incidents". Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety (243), pp. 109877. [10] Pulungan, R. W. (2009). "Enhancing Maritime Security in the Malacca Strait: Cooperation Against Piracy and Maritime Terrorism". Indonesian Journal of International Law 7(2), pp. 300–325. [11] Liss, C. (2016). "Piracy in Southeast Asia: Trends, Hot Spots and Responses" In Raymond, V. (Ed.), Piracy in Southeast Asia, pp. 15–27. Routledge. [12] EU IUU Coalition (2022). "Policy Brief: Ensuring effective compliance and traceability along the value chain" [13] World Bank (2022). "Africa Program for Fisheries (SWIOFish)". == IUU fishing in the Mediterranean Sea ==

The Mediterranean Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with a coastline long 46000 kilometres and in this basin many different countries meet. As an important strategic socio-economic hub, it is also one of the busiest seas and thus, illegal fishing activities tend to take a back seat. IUU fishing (illegal, unreported, unregulated) is a complex threat that causes environmental and economic damage and therefore requires an effort by all states in the region to combat this exploitation. Indeed, these criminal activities endanger the Mediterranean's biodiversity, home to between 4% and 18% of all known marine species. Under the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries the IUU fishing in the Mediterranean is a worrying problem. To raise awareness of the seriousness of the issue, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) proposed June 5 as the international day in the fight against IUU fishing. The GFCM of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) has a position of prominence in dealing with IUU fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. The activities linked to IUU threaten management of fish stocks, impoverishes those fishermen who work following the law and harms the maintenance of marine resources. The global scale of the problem is exacerbated in the Mediterranean region, where three quarters of fish stocks are exploited, Many living species are damaged by IUU fishing in the Mediterranean. According to data collected in Italy, Morocco and Turkey among the most heavily damaged species are albacore, red mullet, sea bream, little tunny, sparid fish, shrimps, octopus, swordfish, mullet. The citizen scientist initiative MECO (Mediterranean Elasmobranch Citizen Observations) project used social media to share photos taken in 11 Mediterranean countries of illegal fishing activities such as illegal landings of giant devil rays in Spain and the sale of mako and white sharks in Italy and France. The GFCM evaluated that the situation could be recovered after the elimination of IUU activities, even though a complete solution to the problem seems difficult. The GFCM aims to develop an international surveillance system involving the collaboration of actors in the Mediterranean to guarantee adherence to fisheries rules. However still today the sites are not fully protected, and the ban is not properly implemented in the Mediterranean. Since January 2010 came into force the EU Regulation to prevent and deter IUU fishing, followed by the 2014 Common Fisheries Policy for a sustainable fishing and aquaculture, The latest mechanism in the struggle against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities dates to September 2023. It is an e-learning platform called e-FishMed and its objective is to effectively train personnel for fisheries control in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic areas, through e-learning material, video tutorials, manuals and national and regional legislative systems. This project is funded by the European Union and supported by the EFCA. It represents an attempt to harmonize the control of fishing activities among Mediterranean countries, thus fostering greater collaboration for a sustainable Blue Economy. == Fisheries crime ==

Fisheries crime is a concept related to Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) but includes all criminal activity that is common along the entire value chain of the fishing sector. The concept has been adopted in several international organizations, most importantly the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Proponents of the concept argue for increased international cooperation and the application of criminal justice sanction towards fisheries crime to face the problems that the transnational nature and the increased involvement of organized crime groups in the fishing industry cause. Common crimes along the fishing value chain include fraud, corruption, tax crime, money laundering, human trafficking, labour crime, and smuggling of drugs weapons and other cargo such as fuel. IUU as a transnational organized crime The above named fisheries crimes are also defined as transnational organized crimes (TOC) which are prosecuted more vigorously, and harsher penalties are imposed for violations. Generally, IUU is deeply connected to other forms of TOCs such as human and drug trafficking, corruption and document fraud, to name a few. Nonetheless, it is not treated the same as these other TOCs. Human trafficking and firearms trafficking for example have special provisions given by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNCTOC) but the same does not exist for IUU due to the lack of definition as a transnational organized crime. In general, it is important to note that IUU is executed by a wide range of people involved. Generally, in comparison to other organized crimes, IUU presents unique challenges as it frequently intersects with legal fishing activities, making it more difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illicit practices than in cases such as drug or human trafficking. Human trafficking Human trafficking within the IUU fishing sector is emerging as an increasingly serious issue. It involves the use of force, coercion or misinformation in the recruitment of persons, with the aim of labour exploitation in relation to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing operations. This often involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals including migrant workers and those living in poverty due to their lack of legal protections and vulnerability to exploitative labour practice as a result of economic hardships and a lack of identity documents. Forced labour in relation to IUU fishing has significant physical and psychological consequences. Exposure to physical violence, threats of violence as well as lack of adequate living conditions and food and water are among some of the frequent human rights abuses that occur on these vessels. The illicit nature of these activities mean there is a lack of clear information on the numbers of human trafficking incidents on board IUU vessels, making it difficult to understand the true extent of the issue. It is significantly more difficult and costly to police illegal actives at sea than on land and with the added complication of territorial disagreements between countries at sea, it can be easy for IUU vessels to evade law enforcement, making the issue one that is difficult to tackle. Fishing in the high seas further aids vessels in going under the radar due to the remote environment and lack of centralised enforcement authority. The high seas are also more challenging to regulate and monitor than EEZs, making it much easier for human trafficking vessels to operate. Flags of convenience can further aid human trafficking on board IUU vessels. While not illegal itself, flying another nation's flag can help ships avoid accountability for illegal activities and human rights abuses and evade local labour and human rights laws. Population increase and food insecurity, particularly in developing countries, has overseen an increased demand for fish, which has increased competition in the fishing industry and led to an increase in illegal fishing as a means to maximise profits. This increased demand has led to a surge in fishing in the high seas, where there are more fish to meed these demands than in coastal waters and exclusive economic zones. Human trafficking on board IUU vessels is linked with economic underdevelopment and political instability. In the Gulf of Guinea there was a surge in trafficking and smuggling prompted by a decline in economic activity and a succession of intrastate conflicts. These factors can lead to increased poverty and unemployment which can push vulnerable people towards exploitative work. Intrastate conflict often leads to a breakdown in the rule of law and creates an environment where traffickers can thrive. A significant portion of human trafficking in the Gulf of Guinea is enabled by the corruption of high-ranking officials, including but not limited to, diplomats and politicians. These factors can explain why countries with developing economies often have higher rates of human trafficking. IUU fishing is sustained by systemic vulnerabilities in vessel registration systems, port inspections, and legal frameworks across 14 West African states. There are different complex modi operandi issues including surveillance avoidance, fraudulent licensing, and transhipment at sea, often linked to other crimes such as corruption, customs fraud, human trafficking, and maritime piracy as noted previously. Therefore there is a pressing need for interdisciplinary research and enforcement, which addresses how institutional fragility manifested through corruption, limited governance and weak legal framework creates fertile ground for transnational criminal networks. In Latin America, countries such as Brazil and Argentina, both key actors in the Atlantic fishing industry, face significant challenges where illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing intersects with human trafficking and forced labor. In Brazil, the extensive coastline and relatively weak enforcement have allowed fishing vessels involved in IUU activities to exploit migrant and local fishers, many of whom work under abusive and coercive conditions Similarly, in Argentina, reports have highlighted cases where distant-water fishing fleets operating near national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) engage in labor exploitation, including forced labor, as a hidden dimension of illegal fishing operations. These vulnerabilities are compounded by limited maritime surveillance and governance gaps, which criminal networks exploit to traffic workers and evade detection. This nexus between IUU fishing and human trafficking undermines efforts toward sustainable fisheries management and violates human rights, creating serious social and economic consequences for coastal communities in the Atlantic basin. == Women Security and IUU Fishing ==

Alongside with the local communities' security at stake, it seems relevant to raise the sociological question of the labour force employed in such activities. Notably, women feature prominently in this workforce, particularly in post-harvest roles such as processing and marketing. This raises critical questions about gendered labour dynamics, the socio-economic dependencies of coastal communities, and the often-overlooked human dimension of IUU fishing. Yet, despite their substantial contributions, the roles and vulnerabilities of women, particularly the link with human trafficking, in this sector remain largely underexplored in both policy discussions and academic research. Indeed, women and girls are significantly affected by illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, particularly in coastal and remote fishing communities. In many cases, they are trafficked or coerced into labor, especially in the post-harvest sector, including fish processing and other shore-based operations. These roles often go unrecognized despite their centrality in the fisheries value chain. Reports indicate that some women engage in transactional relationships, sometimes described as "fish-for-sex" arrangements, where access to fish is negotiated through sexual relations with fishers. This practice has been linked to economic vulnerability and the lack of formal recognition of women's roles in the sector. While such relationships are sometimes simplistically associated with sex work, this framing overlooks the economic agency of women and their active participation in the fisheries economy. Gender-based discrimination further exacerbates these conditions, rendering women and girls in the fishing industry largely invisible in both traditional and industrial fisheries. International organizations, including the FAO, Despite their contributions, women are often excluded from policy discussions and official statistics, and face systemic barriers including low pay, insecure work, and poor working conditions. These gender-based disparities not only affect women's livelihoods but also undermine broader goals related to sustainability, food security, and economic development. The FAO calls for gender-responsive fisheries policies and greater inclusion of women in governance frameworks, as outlined in the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, which emphasize gender equality as a critical factor in the sustainable development of the sector. ==See also==