Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Arctic explained

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) in the Arctic (see discussion of the Arctic boundaries) is an under researched scientific field.[1] The most recent academic articles about IUU in the Arctic mainly concerns the mid-2000s.[2] [3]

The research of IUU fishing in the Arctic and elsewhere in the world is complex and a multidisciplinary effort. Scholars researching IUU in the Arctic include political scientists, jurists, biologists, data scientists, risk analysts.[4] [5] [2] [6] The complexity of the issue, the remoteness of the region and the vast expenditures needed to conduct research in the Arctic are likely causes for this lack of knowledge.

Extent

The shady nature of IUU fishing makes it difficult for scholars and governments alike to get an overall view of the total amount of the IUU fishing in the Arctic. Scholars dealing with IUU in the Arctic often investigates a few subsets of species such as cod and haddock[2] or the king crab.[6] Thus, an overall view of IUU fishing of all commercially caught species in the Arctic is not available.

Arctic Cod
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has estimated the amount of the unreported arctic cod for in the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) subarea 1 and 2 (The Barents Sea and parts of the Norwegian Sea). ICES estimate that in 1990–1994 and 2002–2008 between 3.2% and 25.2% of the total catch of arctic cod was unreported.[7] Although there is no knowledge about IUU fishing outside those periods ICES believes that by 2018 IUU fishing of arctic cod is close to zero.[8]

Haddock
Between 2002 and 2008 ICES estimates that between 3.7% and 25.4% of the landing of haddocks from the Russian and Norwegian parts of the Barents Sea was unreported. In 2018 they estimated that the IUU catches of haddock is close to zero.[9]

King Crab
A major decrease in the Russian king crab stock of the Barents Sea was observed between 2007 and 2008. Researchers mainly attribute the decline of king crabs to IUU fishing.[10] The decrease of king crabs eventually led to a moratorium of fishing of the king crabs in the waters off the coast of the Kola Peninsula. This has resulted in an increased abundance of king crabs.[11]

IUU fishing contributes significantly to the decline of fish stocks, with estimates indicating that at least 20% of fish caught globally are from IUU activities, costing coastal nations between $10 billion and $23 billion annually.[12]

The United States' 2023 Report to Congress identified seven nations and entities involved in IUU fishing, highlighting the global nature of the problem and the need for international cooperation to address it.[13] [14]

Regulation of Arctic fisheries

The management of Arctic fisheries is regulated by at least three layers of legislation. The global United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), agreements related to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO's) or bilateral agreements and national legislation.

United Nations' Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)

The UNCLOS serve as the underlying legal framework for the governance of the world's oceans.[15] Article 56 gives States sovereign rights for the exploitation and management of living resources within states' exclusive economic zone (EEZ).[16] However States should ensure:Furthermore, States should cooperate in global, regional or subregional organizations to further this goal. States have the same obligations for the conservation of living resources on the high seas.[17]
Several scholars do not consider the UNCLOS as adequate to secure fisheries in the Arctic high seas from IUU.[18] [19] [20] Instead scholars recommend the establishment of an effective RFMO's to regulate the high's seas of the Arctic.[21] [22] [23] [24]

Regional Fishery Management Organizations and Bilateral Agreements

A patchwork of RFMO's and bilateral fishery agreements regulate fisheries in the Arctic. RFMO's have different regulatory competences such as geographical scope, type of species. Thus, no RFMO or bilateral fishery agreement claim competence of the whole of the Arctic or all commercially fished species in the Arctic. For some RFMO's the Arctic is only a minor part of the RFMO's area of competence. For example, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) covers the whole Atlantic Ocean including adjacent seas and regulate the capture of tuna species.[25] Other agreements cover only small parts of the Arctic. This apply for example for the bilateral Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission which regulates fisheries in the Barents Sea and parts of the Norwegian Sea[26] and the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean regulates the Central Arctic Ocean.[27] The Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean came into force in June 2021.[28]

To diminish IUU fishing in the Arctic some RFMO's have established Port State Control measures and blacklisted vessels known for not observing national and international law.[29] [30] [31] [32]

Denmark

In Greenlandic waters the Royal Danish Navy is responsible for the enforcement of fishery law and fishery agreements beyond 3 nautical miles off the baseline (sea). Within 3 nautical miles off the baseline Greenland's Fishery License Control (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisarsinnaanermut Akuersissutinik Nakkutilliisoqarfiup) monitor fisheries.[33]

United States

In US Arctic it is the United States Coast Guard is the responsible service for fishery law enforcement and thereby the preventing IUU fishing in the US Arctic waters.[34]

Norway

The Norwegian Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing the rules regarding IUU fishing together with the Directorate of Fisheries.[35] According to the Norwegian Government, the Coast Guard's monitoring of fisheries in the Norwegian EEZ and the protection zones around Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago are one of the highest priorities of the Coast Guard.[36]

Russia

In Russia the Federal Agency for Fishery (Rosrybolovstvo) enforces fishery legislation in Russian waters as well as in international waters where Russia has signed RFMO agreements.[37] [38]

Notes and References

  1. Richard Barnes (2011):

    International Regulation of Fisheries Management in Arctic Waters, 54 German Y.B. Int'lL. 193; p.195

  2. Aanes, Sondre, Kjell Nedreaas & Sigbjørn Ulvatn (2011) "Estimation of Total Retained Catch Based on Frequency of Fishing Trips at Sea, Transshipment and VMS Data". ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(8) 1598–1605
  3. Dvoretsky, Alexander G. & Vladimir G. Dvoretsky (2013) "Population dynamics of the invasive lithodid crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, in a typical bay of the Barents Sea". ICES Journal of Marine Science 70(6), 1255–1262
  4. Østhagen, Andreas (2016) "High North, Low Politics – Maritime Cooperation with Russia in the Arctic", Arctic Review on Law and Politics. Vol. 7, No, 2016, pp. 83–100
  5. Barnes, Richard (2011) "International Regulation of Fisheries Management in Arctic Waters" German Yearbook of International Law, 54, 2011, 193–230
  6. Dvoretsky, Alexander G. & Vladimir G. Dvoretsky (2013) "Population dynamics of the invasive lithodid crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, in a typical bay of the Barents Sea" ICES Journal of Marine Science 70(6), 1255–1262
  7. ICES (2018) Ices Afwg Report 2018 Ices Advisory Committee Ices Cm 2018/ACOM:06 “Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) 18–24 April 2018 Ispra, Italy, p. 134”
  8. ICES (2018), p. 121
  9. ICES (2018), p. 205
  10. Dvoretsky, Alexander G. & Vladimir G. Dvoretsky (2013) “Population dynamics of the invasive lithodid crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, in a typical bay of the Barents Sea”. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70(6), p.1260
  11. Dvoretsky, Alexander G. & Vladimir G. Dvoretsky (2018) "Red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) fisheries in Russian waters: historical review and present status”, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (2018) 28:, p.347
  12. Web site:
  13. Web site:
  14. Web site:
  15. Richard Barnes (2011): International Regulation of Fisheries Management in Arctic Waters, 54 German Y.B. Int'lL. 193; p.205
  16. Web site: Part V – Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56 . Law of the Sea . United Nations . 21 May 2019.
  17. Web site: Part VII Section 2 – Conservation and Management of the Living Resources of the High Seas, Article 116 & 117 . Law of the Sea . United Nations . 21 May 2019.
  18. Liu, Nengye, (2017) "The European Union's Potential Contribution to the Governance of High Sea Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean" in The European Union and the Arctic (edt.) Nengye Liu, Elizabeth A. Kirk, Tore Henriksen, p. 278
  19. Muir, Magdalena A.K. (2010) "Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the Circumpolar Arctic" InfoNorth Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep 2010).
  20. Richard Barnes (2011): International Regulation of Fisheries Management in Arctic Waters, 54 German Y.B. Int'lL. 193, p. 206-208
  21. Liu, Nengye, (2017) "The European Union's Potential Contribution to the Governance of High Sea Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean" in The European Union and the Arctic (edt.) Nengye Liu, Elizabeth A. Kirk, Tore Henriksen, p. 288
  22. Muir, Magdalena A.K. (2010) "Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the Circumpolar Arctic" InfoNorth Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep 2010), p.377.
  23. Aanes, Sondre, Kjell Nedreaas & Sigbjørn Ulvatn (2011) "Estimation of Total Retained Catch Based on Frequency of Fishing Trips at Sea, Transshipment and VMS Data". ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(8), p.1598-1599
  24. Richard Barnes (2011): International Regulation of Fisheries Management in Arctic Waters, 54 German Y.B. Int'lL. 193;
  25. Web site: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 21 May 2019.
  26. Web site: About the website. The Fisheries Commission. The Joint Russian-Norweagian Fisheries Commission. 21 May 2019.
  27. Web site: Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean. Interinstitutional File. The European Union (EU). 21 May 2019.
  28. Web site: Quinn . Eilís . Central Arctic Ocean fishing moratorium comes into effect . thebarentsobserver.com . 8 July 2021.
  29. Web site: NEAFC IUU B List. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. 24 May 2019.
  30. Web site: Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing. Chapter VIII of the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures refer to IUU activities and the establishment of an IUU List.. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 24 May 2019.
  31. Web site: Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2019. Chapter VII Port State Control.. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 24 May 2019.
  32. Web site: About Port-State Control. Illegal Fishing. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. 24 May 2019.
  33. Web site: GFLK Årsrapport 2014. Kapitel 1. Grønlands Fiskerilicenskontrol. 24 May 2019.
  34. Web site: 6 U.S. Code § 468. Preserving Coast Guard mission performance. Definitions (1) (D). Cornell University. 24 May 2019.
  35. Web site: Norwegian fisheries management our approach on discard of fish. Control and Enforcement. Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. 24 May 2019.
  36. Web site: Norwegian fisheries management. Norwegian Fisheries Authorities, p. 16-17. Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. 24 May 2019.
  37. Web site: Federal Agency for Fishery. Description. The Russian Government. 26 May 2019.
  38. Web site: Federal Agency for Fishery. Protection of aquatic bioresources and their habitats. The Russian Government. 26 May 2019.