Anda di halaman 1dari 36

http://nasional.kontan.co.

id/news/kerugian-akibat-pencurian-ikan-senilai-us-10miliar-hingga-us-23-miliar

Nasional
HOME | HUKUM |

Senin, 05 Desember 2011 | 21:35 oleh Handoyo PENCURIAN IKAN Kerugian akibat pencurian ikan senilai US$ 10 miliar hingga US$ 23 miliar JAKARTA. Kerugian akibat praktek illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing mencapai US$ 10-US$ 23 miliar per tahun. Karena itu pemerintah anggota ASEAN memberlakukan sertifikasi sebelum melakukan ekspor. "Di Eropa sudah memberlakukan sertifikasi, mereka akan menolak jika ikan yang dikirim tidak memiliki data yang jelas," ujar Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Sharuf C. Sutardjo, Senin (5/12). Sharif mengatakan, mata rantai pelaku IUU Fishing dan pemasaran hasil curian yang terorganisir dengan rapi merupakan ciri kejahatan yang terorganisir. Dia mengusulkan IUU fishing sebagai bagian dari trans national organized crime. Bagi Indonesia, selain mengancam ketahanan pangan dalam negeri, praktek IUU fishing memiliki dampak ekonomi, sosial, dan lingkungan serta berpotensi mengancam pencapaian visi pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan.

http://jaringnews.com/politik-peristiwa/umum/6237/kejahatan-pencurian-ikanancam-ketahanan-pangan-dalam-negeri

Senin, 5 Desember 2011 17:42 WIB

Kejahatan Pencurian Ikan Ancam Ketahanan Pangan Dalam Negeri


Nikky Sirait IUU Fishing hendaknya dimasukkan sebagai bagian dari penanganan Transnational Organized Crime.

JAKARTA, Jaringnews.com - Pencurian ikan merupakan kejahatan yang terkait erat dengan berbagai kejahatan terorganisir antar negara lainnya, seperti penyelundupan narkoba, penyelundupan dan perdagangan manusia, kejahatan ekonomi, serta pelanggaran batas negara. Tampaknya, hal ini perlu diperangi serta mendapatkan perhatian yang serius dari masyarakat dunia, terutama mengenai Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. Mata rantai pelaku IUU Fishing, dan pemasaran hasil curian dengan rapi merupakan ciri kejahatan yang terorganisir. Tak hanya itu, IUU Fishing bisa mengancam ketahanan pangan dalam negeri. Catatan lainnya, akibat praktik IUU Fishing ini, potensi kerugian secara internasional mencapi Rp 30 triliun. Terkait hal ini, Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Sharif Tjitjip Sutardjo mengatakan, selama ini IUU Fishing tidak menjadi perhatian banyak pihak di dunia. "Lemahnya informasi, koordinasi dan keterpaduan dengan berbagai pihak membuat kejahatan IUU fishing seolah-olah hanya merupakan kejahatan biasa. Padahal praktekpraktek IUU, sudah terbukti melibatkan banyak pihak serta modal yang sangat besar," ujarnya saat membuka forum bertajuk Expert Consulatation on Effective Surveillance and Law Enforcement to Combat IUU Fishing, Jakarta, Senin (5/12). Sharif menambahkan, Indonesia menanggapi secara serius kejahatan IUU Fishing dengan melakukan berbagai inisiatif untuk membahas kaitan industri perikanan khususnya IUU Fishing dengan Transnational Organized Crime. "Untuk itu sangat relevan agar IUU Fishing dimasukkan sebagai bagian dari penanganan Transnational Organized Crime," pungkasnya.
http://bataviase.co.id/node/896794

Pencurian Ikan Berpotensi Rugikan Negara Rp30 Triliun


06 Dec 2011 Harian Ekonomi Neraca Industri

Jakarta - Maraknya pencurian ikan di perairan laut Indonesia masih menjadi ancaman. Pencurian ikan tak ada bedanya dengan kejahatan terorganisir antar negara lainnya, seperti penyelundupan narkoba, penyelundupan dan perdagangan manusia, kejahatan ekonomi, serta pelanggaran batas negara sehingga perlu diperangi serta mendapatkan perhatian yang serius dari masyarakat dunia. Akibatnya, menurut data Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) berpotensi kerugian secara internasional mencapai Rp30 triliun. neraca Menurut Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan, Sharif C. Sutardjo selama ini Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) Fishing tidak menjadi perhatian banyak pihak di dunia. Padahal praktek-

praktek IUU, sudah terbukti melibatkan banyak pihak serta modal yang sangat besar. "Lemahnya informasi, koordinasi dan keterpaduan dengan berbagai pihak membuat kejahatan IUU fishing seolah-olah hanya merupakan kejahatan biasa,," ujarnya saat membuka forum bertajuk Expert Consulatation on Effective Surveillance and Law Enforcement to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, di lakarta, kemarin (5/12). M.K.i i.nu.ti pelaku Kill Fishing dan pemasaran hasil curian yang terorganisir dengan rapih merupakan ciri kejahatan yang terorganisir. Sharif menekankan, bahwa Indonesia menanggapi secara serius kejahatan IUU Fishing dengan melakukan berbagai inisiatif untuk membahas kaitan industri perikanan khususnya IUU Fishing dengan Trans National Organized Crime. "Untuk itu sangat re-lavan agar IUU Fishing dimasukan sebagai bagian dari penanganan Trans National Organized Crime," tegasnya Sharif mengatakan, selain mengancam ketahanan pangan dalam negeri, praktek IUU fishing memiliki dampak ekonomi, so-sial, dan lingkungan serta berpotensi mengancam pencapaian visi pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan Upaya dalam memberantas dan memerangi IUU Fishing merupakan inisiaiil Indonesia, "pentingnya menjaga keberlanjutan penyediaan ikan sebagai upaya menciptakan ketahanan pangan tidak hanya bagi Indonesia, namun juga untuk masyarakat ASEAN, serta untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pangan dunia, lanjutnya Sepeni diketahui, sumber bahan pangan dunia dihasilkan hanya dari 3 sumber, yaitu pertanian, peternakan, dan perikanan, yang sangat signifikan perannya dalam mendukung sistem ketahanan pangan dunia. Laju pertumbuhan penduduk dunia yang pesat yang saat ini mencapai 7 milyar jiwa, secara langsung meningkatkan kebutuhan masyarakat dunia akan pangan, termasuk kebutuhan akan protein bersumber dari ikan dan produk perikanan. Industri Perikanan Saat ini Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) sedang melakukan evaluasi guna meningkatkan kualitas dalam upayamelindungi pelaku usaha perikanan dalam negeri, sekaligus memenuhi kebutuhan pasokan bahan baku ikan untuk industri perikanan nasional. "Saal mi semuanya sedang didata ulang seeara komprehensif, terkait kebutuhan baku industri pengolahan baik industri skala mikro, kecil, menengah dan besar," kaum.i Sharif. Sharif menjelaskan evaluasi ini diperlukan untuk mengukur kemampuan produksi perikanan nasio nal dalam memenuhi bahan baku industri. Selain itu juga demi meningkatkan tranparansi dan akuntabilitas setiap pihak yang terlibat dalam pengembangan industri perikanan. "Namun prinsipnya impor menjadi pilihan paling terakhir bila bahan baku di dalam negeri tak mencukupi," ujarnya. KKP akan memperketat pengawasan proses impor produk perikanan baik produk hidup maupun olahan hingga ke tingkat distribusi. Tujuan pengaturan impor ini untuk melindungi komoditas dan produk lokal yang dihasilkan para nelayan, pembudidaya dan industri pengolahan. "Pengaturan importasi ikan yang ketat dilakukan untuk melindungi komoditasdan produk yang dihasilkan para pelaku usaha perikanan nasional, terutama nelayan, pembudidaya, dan industri pengolahan --kala usaha mikro kecil, ungkap sharif.sh.mi menjelaskan, s.i,ii nn KKP telah memiliki dua kebijakan pengaturan impor produk perikanan. yakni Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Nomor 15 Tahun 2011 tentang Pengendalian Mutu dan kr.un.in.in 11.im! kanan yang Masuk kr I la I.un Wilayah Republik Indonesia dan Keputusan Dirjen Pengolahan dan Permasaran Hasil Perikanan KKP Nomor 231/2011 tentang Pengaturan )enis-lenis Ikan yang Dapat Diimpor. "Pelaksanaan impor ikan diawasi secara ketat. Misalnya dengan cara pembatasan pelabuhan yang diperbolehkan untuk mengimpor ikan," tegasnya. Menurut Cicip, dengan pengetatan proses impor diharapkan dapat memacu para pelaku usaha perikanan lokal memasok industri perikanan dalam negeri dan ekspor. "Indonesia memilik

potensi sumber daya sangat besar, pemerintah sebisa mungkin mendorong peningkatan produksi perikanan nasional," jelasnya.* nmi Dapus : http://economy.okezone.com/read/2011/03/22/320/437702/potensi-kerugian-ilegalfishing-capai-rp20-t

Potensi Kerugian Ilegal Fishing Capai Rp20 T


Selasa, 22 Maret 2011 17:06 wib 0 0 Email0

Ikan Tuna JAKARTA - Maraknya kegiatan illegal fishing semakin meresahkan kalangan pengusaha sektor kelautan dan perikanan. Pasalnya, tindakan yang melanggar hukum itu mengakibatkan kerugian hingga mencapai Rp10-20 triliun per tahun. Wakil Ketua Umum (WKU) Kamar dagang dan industri (Kadin) Indonesia Bidang Kelautan dan Perikanan Yugi Prayanto mengatakan, komoditas perikanan laut adalah salah satu sumber daya alam yang menjadi primadona kegiatan ekonomi kelautan. Sayangnya, kata dia, komoditas ini kerap menjadi santapan nelayan asing melalui illegal fishing. Yugi mengatakan bahwa para pelaku usaha sektor kelautan dan perikanan menderita kerugian akibat tidak optimalnya hasil tangkapan ikan. Kita perlu meningkatkan kemampuan Angkatan Laut kita untuk mencegah dan menangkap para nelayan asing yang melakukan illegal fishing di Indonesia, tegas Yugi di Jakarta, Selasa (22/3/2011). Lebih lanjut Yugi menambahkan, potensi kelautan Indonesia sangat besar hingga

menarik perhatian negara-negara lain untuk turut mengekploitasi. Luasnya cakupan wilayah kelautan Indonesia memang menyulitkan pemerintah untuk melakukan pengawasan terhadap kegiatan illegal fishing. Kita (pelaku usaha) mengerti bahwa wilayah laut Indonesia sangat luas sehingga sulit diawasi, oleh karena itu Kadin mendukung TNI AL untuk terus meningkatkan kemampuan pertahanan wilayah perairan dan kelautan kita sehingga potensi ekonomi kelautan kita bisa dinikmati lebih optimal oleh nelayan dan pelaku usaha dalam negeri,imbuh Yugi. Kepala Staf Angkatan Laut (Kasal) Laksamana TNI Soeparno mengatakan, pemerintah akan terus berupaya untuk menyelamatkan potensi kelautan dan perikanan Indonesia kendati luasnya medan dan keterbatasan peralatan yang hingga kini masih menjadi kendala. Untuk itu, kata dia, TNI AL menanggapi positif dukungan kalangan pengusaha melalui Kadin terhadap upaya peningkatan kemampuan pertahanan perairan dan kelautan. Soeparno menuturkan, pihaknya juga mendukung program-program Kadin yang bertujuan turut membantu menjaga stabilitas keamanan perairan dan kegiatan illegal fishing. Yugi menjelaskan, peluang-peluang usaha sektor kelautan dan perikanan di daerah belum dimanfaatkan secara optimal. Adanya data dan informasi yang lengkap mengenai potensi kelautan dan perikanan di masing-masing daerah, menurut Yugi, akan sangat membantu upaya pembangunan ekonomi daerah. (Sandra Karina/Koran SI/wdi)

Dapus : http://koran-jakarta.com/index.php/detail/view01/77711 Bagikan8 Kerugian "Illegal Fishing" Tinggi

dok JAKARTA - Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) mengakui tindakan illegal fishing atau unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU), di perairan dunia mencapai 30 miliar dolar. "Nilai kerugian illegal fishing di dunia sekitar 35-30 persen atau 30 miliar dolar dari total perdagangan perikanan dunia sebesar 120 miliar dolar. Untuk Indonesia belum kita ketahui data pasti berapa kerugianya sampai tahun ini, kita masih melengkapi data-data tersebut," kata Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Sharif Cicip Sutardjo di Jakarta, Senin (5/12). Tindakan perang melawan illegal fishing, kata Cicip, perlu dilakukan serius karena selama ini perhatian negara lain masih lemah, kondisi tersebut karena lemahnya informasi dan kerjasama antar negara. Sedangkan di saat bersamaan pelaku illegal fishing sudah teroganisir. Cicip berharap kedepan, nilai kerugian illegal fishing bisa dikurangi dengan cara melakukan koordinasi lintas negara anggota Asean dan memperbaiki sistim perizinan dan perbaikan managemen pelabuhan, sehingga asal muasal ikan hasil perdagangan illegal bisa diketahui. Berdasarkan data Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, semenjak 2005-2011, jumlah pelaku IUU Fishing mencapai 1.162 kapal perikanan yang telah ditangkap dan diproses. Dan Sepanjang bulan November lalu, telah ditangkap 103 kapal. aan/E-12

Dapus : http://www.mediaindonesia.com/read/2010/08/22/163877/21/2/AkibatIllegal-Fishing-Negara-Rugi-Rp80-Triliun-per-Tahun Akibat Illegal Fishing, Negara Rugi Rp80 Triliun per Tahun Penulis : Akhmad Mustain

Minggu, 22 Agustus 2010 22:49 WIB


Komentar: 0

ANTARA/Feri/al JAKARTA--MI: Sekretaris Jenderal Koalisi Rakyat untuk Keadilan Perikanan (Kiara) M Riza Damanik menyatakan, potensi kerugian akibat praktik pencurian ikan dan penangkapan ikan ilegal setiap tahun ditaksir mencapai Rp80 triliun. Kerugian tersebut terdiri dari potensi ikan yan hilang mencapai Rp 30 triliun dan kehilangan penerimaan negara bukan pajak (PNBP) sebesar Rp 50 triliun setiap tahun. "Potensi kehilangan kita dari praktik illegal fishing tiap tahunnya mencapai Rp 80 triliun," ungakap Riza kepada Media Indonesia di Jakarta, Minggu (22/8). Ia memaparkan, proteksi terhadap sumber kekayaan laut indonesia masih tidak optimal dilakukan oleh pemerintah, dalam hal ini Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan. Ia menegaskan, persoalan pencurian ikan bukan lagi atas nama perusahaan dan pribadi, namun sudah melibatkan pemerintahan. Maraknya pencurian ikan di laut indonesia juga menunjukkan kalau diplomasi Indonesia masih lemah. "Kalau dulu mungkin sepeti itu (pribadi). Tapi sekarang, para pencuri ikan didukung oleh pemerintahnya, contohnya yang baru-baru ini Malaysia. Pemerintah harusnya bisa melakukan diplomasi dengan negara tetangga untuk tegas menindak oknum pelaku illegal fishing," tukasnya. Pencurian ikan yang semakin marak, ujar Riza, yang diproyeksi merugikan negara mencapai Rp30 triliun dari potensi ikan dan potensi kehilangan penerimaan negara bukan pajak (PNBP) sebesar Rp50 triliun setiap tahun, juga mengancam ketahanan pangan nasional. Riza menyebutkan setiap tahun, sekitar 2,8 juta ton ikan dipasok oleh nelayan kecil untuk kebutuhan nasional. Kerugian dari praktik illegal fishing tersebut juga disampaikan oleh Direktur Jendral

(Dirjen) Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Sumber Daya Kelautan dan Perikanan Pangkalan Adjie Sularso. Namun, menurut Adjie, potensi kerugian akibat pencurian ikan hanya sekitar Rp20 triliun di tahun 2010. "Ya sekitar Rp20 triliun per tahun," ungkapnya. Ia menyebutkan, selama tahun 2009 ada 14 kasus kapal ikan Malaysia yang melakukan pelanggaran di perairan Natuna, Selat Malaka, dan perairan Kepri, dan hampir semuanya diputuskan kapal dirampas untuk negara. Sementara di tahun 2010, terdapat 10 kasus pelanggaran yang dalam proses hukum di perairan yang sama. Untuk keseluruhan, hingga Juni 2010, ada 120 kapal ikan ilegal yang ditangkap dan berasal dari Vietnam, Thailand, Filipina, China, dan Malaysia. Kapal-kapal itu rata-rata berbobot mati lebih dari 70 ton dan bisa menghadapi gelombang tinggi. Adjie mengungkapkan, salah satu faktor yang membuat masih maraknya pencurian ikan, disebabkan karena KKP masih sedikit memliki kapal patroli. Pemerintahan RI hanya memiliki 23 kapal patroli yang berukuran 28 m x 36 m. Setiap kapal tersebut diawaki oleh 15 anak buah kapal (ABK). Sementara itu, jumlah Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PPNS) di KKP masih berjumlah 900 orang. "Idealnya dengan daerah perairan indonesia, kita punya 70 kapal patroli. Tapi tergantung dari APBN, supaya kita lebih mengefisiensikan kapal dan surveilence udara," ujar Ajie. Di samping itu, Sementara itu, anggaran pengawasan perairan tahun ini diturunkan dari 180 hari menjadi 100 hari dengan kapal patroli 22 unit. Keterbatasan itu menyebabkan kapal patroli hanya mampu menangkap 25 persen dari kapal pencuri ikan. Anggaran pengawasan tahun 2010 semula dipatok Rp 320 miliar, tetapi Rp 40 miliar dialihkan untuk perikanan budidaya pada April. Dari sisa anggaran pengawasan Rp 280 miliar, sebesar 70 persen dikelola oleh pemerintah pusat. "Hari operasi pengawasan menurun 40 persen sehingga patroli berkurang. Akibatnya, pencurian ikan semakin merajalela," ujar Adjie. Dengan menurunnya waktu pengawasan dan semakin maraknya pencurian ikan, kerugian negara ditaksir meningkat 40 persen, meliputi kerugian akibat hilangnya komoditas perikanan sebesar Rp 11-12 triliun dan penambahan kerugian PNBP sebesar Rp20 triliun. Ia juga mengatakan, bahwa target penerimaan negara dari sektor perikanan juga diturunkan. Ia mengatakan, penurunan itu potensi ikan disebabkan karena adanya aturan mengenai kapal-kapal manapun bisa melakukan penangkapan, selam mempunyai ijin dan memenuhi persyaratan. "Semua kapal boleh menangkap ikan di perairan Indonesia, tetapi kapal itu harus berbendera indonesia dulu (punya izin dan memenuhi syarat," tukasnya. Dalam target Penerimaan Perikanan dalam RAPBN 2011 driencanakan mencapai Rp100 miliar, turunsebesar Rp50,0 miliar atau 33,3% bila dibandingkan dengan target APBN-P 2010 sebesar Rp 150 triliun. "Memang aturan baru itu menurunkan potensi penangkapan ikan oleh nelayan dalam negeri. Tetapi dari PNBP tetap, karena ekspor juga besar," tukasnya. (ST/OL-3)

Dapus : http://www.stopillegalfishing.com/sifnews_article.php?ID=72

The Antillas Reefer - a new Fisheries Patrol vessel for Mozambique

It was a special day, when on the 5th of July 2011, the Antillas Reefer sailed into Maputo harbour painted red and white and bearing the name "Fiscalizacao Da Pesca" - Fisheries Patrol Vessel. It is over three years since the arrest of the vessel, for illegally fishing shark in Mozambique waters, an arrest that eventually lead to the successful confiscation of the vessel, its cargo and the imposition of a fine for four million US dollars on the master and ships' owners. The fine has yet to be paid, but Mozambique does not intend to give up, they are committed to take legal and diplomatic action to secure the payment. Mozambique puts great emphasis into monitoring control and surveillance of the fishery resources, but up until now has had limited capacity to patrol the fishing grounds of the important tuna fishery. The fishery consists of foreign vessels that target yellow-fin, big-eye and albacore tuna. The fishery is valued at 30 million USD and generates roughly 3 million USD per year of much needed hard currency from sale of fishing licenses and the new patrol vessel Antillas Reefer will prove a great asset for patrolling the off-shore fishing grounds. The story of the Antillas Reefer is now infamous, and it demonstrates well the improved governance systems in Mozambique and how these are working in the fisheries sector. The company that owned Antillas Reefer in 2008 was Ompala Fishing Pty Ltd a joint venture between Mabenal SA, a Uruguayan company (100% subsidiary of Vidal Armadores SA) with headquarters in Spain and Gongala Fishing Pty Ltd, a Namibian company. Ompala Fishing, working through the Mozambican company Sabpal Pescas SA, applied to the Fisheries Administration (ADNAP) for a tuna fishing licence for the Antillas Reefer on 18 April 2008. While the application was being processed, on 23 June 2008, the Ministry of Fisheries received information from the fishing fleet that an unknown vessel, the Antillas Reefer, had been identified fishing within Mozambican waters. Recognizing the limited capacity to enter into a chase, but aware that the vessel was fishing illegally, the authorities requested the vessel representative to bring Antillas Reefer into port for a pre-licence briefing. After some delay, the Namibian operators ordered the vessel to Maputo port. It arrived on the 5 July claiming engine problems had caused the delay. The patrol vessel escorted the vessel to anchor in the harbour, three days later it berthed at the jetty. Fisheries inspectors performed an inspection of the vessel: the logbook revealed that the vessel had indeed been fishing in Mozambican waters for 50 days. The vessel had onboard; 43 tonnes of shark meat, 4 tonnes of shark fin, 1.8 tonnes of shark tail, 11.3 tonnes of shark liver, 20 tonnes of shark oil, 65 tonnes of bait and illegal fishing gear, including long lines of up to two kilometres in length. All indicating targeted kitefin shark fishing an illegal activity in Mozambique. Following this, an inter-agency group was established to strategize on how to approach the case. The Ministry of Fisheries made inspections and transferred the fish products to freezer facilities. The Navy held the vessel in custody and controlled the movement of people and goods on and off the vessel. Immigration was tasked to grant the evacuation of the 37 crew members (excluding the master and the chief engineer) in order to ensure minimal costs and to reduce any interference. An in-depth investigation revealed that electronic navigation records had been tampered with and records from telephone calls (mainly to Spain) had been deleted. It is suspected that these

manipulations were made, either, during the delay into port in late June 2008 or while the vessel waited in harbour prior to docking. The master, a Spanish national, Francisco Fernandez Oliveira (whose master's license had expired) initially understated the amount of shark catch onboard but later, as the evidence grew, admitted to the targeting of shark without a fishing license. On 18 August 2008, a fine of four and a half million US dollars was imposed on the master and ships' owners and the vessel was confiscated along with its contents (equipment, fishing gear and fish products). The penalty was appealed to the Administrative Tribunal the final ruling of the appeal was announced in August 2010, concluding the long process and ruling in favour of the Minister's decision on the confiscation and a fine of four million US dollars. Source: Image courtesy of Ministry of Fisheries Mozambique

http://andhikaprima.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/mengenal-iuu-fishing/

Mengenal IUU Fishing


15 09 2009

Pengertian Illegal, Unreported dan Unregulated (IUU) Fishing secara harfiah dapat diartikan sebagai Kegiatan perikanan yang tidak sah, Kegiatan perikanan yang tidak diatur oleh peraturan yang ada, atau Aktivitasnya tidak dilaporkan kepada suatu institusi atau lembaga pengelola perikanan yang tersedia. IUU Fishing dapat terjadi disemua kegiatan perikanan tangkap tanpa tergantung pada lokasi, target spesies, alat tangkap yang digunakan serta intensitas exploitasi. Dapat muncul di semua tipe perikanan baik skala kecil dan industri, perikanan di zona juridiksi nasional maupun internasional seperti high seas. Illegal Fishing yaitu kegiatan penangkapan ikan : 1. Yang dilakukan oleh orang atau kapal asing pada suatu perairan yang menjadi yurisdiksi suatu negara tanpa izin dari negara tersebut atau bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku; 2. Yang bertentangan dengan peraturan nasional yang berlaku atau kewajiban internasional; 3. Yang dilakukan oleh kapal yang mengibarkan bendera suatu negara yang menjadi anggota organisasi pengelolaan perikanan regional tetapi beroperasi tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan pelestarian dan pengelolaan yang diterapkan oleh organisasi tersebut atau ketentuan hukum internasional yang berlaku. Kegiatan Illegal Fishing yang umum terjadi di perairan Indonesia adalah : a) b) c) d) penangkapan ikan tanpa izin; penangkapan ikan dengan mengunakan izin palsu; Penangkapan Ikan dengan menggunakan alat tangkap terlarang; Penangkapan Ikan dengan jenis (spesies) yang tidak sesuai dengan Izin.
1. Meningkat dan tingginya permintaan ikan (DN/LN) 2. Berkurang/Habisnya SDI di negara lain 3. Lemahnya armada perikanan nasional 4. Izin/dokumen pendukung dikeluarkan lebih dari satu instansi 5. Lemahnya pengawasan dan penegakan hukum di laut 6. Lemahnya delik tuntutan dan putusan pengadilan

Penyebab Illegal Fishing

7. Belum ada visi yang sama aparat penegak hukum 8. Lemahnya peraturan perundangan dan ketentuan pidana

Unreported Fishing yaitu kegiatan penangkapan ikan : 1. Yang tidak pernah dilaporkan atau dilaporkan secara tidak benar kepada instansi yang berwenang, tidak sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan nasional; 2. Yang dilakukan di area yang menjadi kompetensi organisasi pengelolaan perikanan regional, namun tidak pernah dilaporkan atau dilaporkan secara tidak benar, tidak sesuai dengan prosedur pelaporan dari organisasi tersebut. Kegiatan Unreported Fishing yang umum terjadi di Indonesia: a) penangkapan ikan yang tidak melaporkan hasil tangkapan yang sesungguhnya atau pemalsuan data tangkapan; b) penangkapan ikan yang langsung dibawa ke negara lain (transhipment di tengah laut)
1. Lemahnya peraturan perundangan 2. Belum sempurnanya sistem pengumpulan data hasil tangkapan/ angkutan ikan 3. Belum ada kesadaran pengusaha terhadap pentingnya menyampaikan data hasil tangkapan/angkutan ikan 4. Hasil Tangkapan dan Fishing Ground dianggap rahasia dan tidak untuk diketahui pihak lain (saingan) 5. Lemahnya Ketentuan Sanksi dan Pidana 6. Wilayah kepulauan menyebabkan banyak tempat pendaratan ikan yang sebagian besar tidak termonitor dan terkontrol 7. Unit penangkapan di bawah < 6 GT tidak diwajibkan memiliki IUP dan SIPI (unregulated), sehingga tidak diwajibkan melaporkan data produksinya. 8. Sebagian besar perusahaan yang memiliki armada penangkapan memiliki pelabuhan / tangkahan tersendiri. 9. Laporan produksi yang diberikan oleh pengurus perusahaan kepada dinas terkait cenderung lebih rendah dari sebenarnya. Menurut petugas retribusi laporan produksi umumnya tidak pernah mencapai 20% dari produksi yang sebenarnya.

Penyebab Unreported Fishing

Unregulated Fishing yaitu kegiatan penangkapan ikan : 1. pada suatu area atau stok ikan yang belum diterapkan ketentuan pelestarian dan pengelolaan dan kegiatan penangkapan tersebut dilaksanakan dengan cara yang tidak sesuai dengan tanggung-jawab negara untuk pelestarian dan pengelolaan sumberdaya ikan sesuai hukum internasional; 2. pada area yang menjadi kewenangan organisasi pengelolaan perikanan regional, yang dilakukan oleh kapal tanpa kewarganegaraan, atau yang mengibarkan bendera suatu negara yang tidak menjadi anggota organisasi tersebut, dengan cara yang tidak sesuai atau bertentangan dengan ketentuan pelestarian dan pengelolaan dari organisasi tersebut. Kegiatan Unregulated Fishing di perairan Indonesi, antara lain masih belum diaturnya: a) mekanisme pencatatan data hasil tangkapan dari seluruh kegiatan penangkapan ikan yang ada; b) wilayah perairan-perairan yang diperbolehkan dan dilarang;

c) pengaturan aktifitas sport fishing; kegiatan-kegiatan penangkapan ikan menggunakan modifikasi dari alat tangkap ikan yang dilarang. Penyebab Unregulated Fishing
1. Potensi SDI di perairan Indonesia masih dianggap memadai dan belum membahayakan 2. Sibuk mengatur yang ada karena banyak masalah 3. Orientasi jangka pendek 4. Beragamnya kondisi daerah perairan dan SDI 5. Belum masuknya Indonesia menjadi anggota organisasi perikanan internasional

Kerugian Akibat IUU FISHING v v Subsidi BBM dinikmati oleh kapal-kapal yang tidak berhak; Pengurangan Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak (PNBP);

v Peluang kerja nelayan Indonesia (lokal) berkurang, karena kapal-kapal illegal adalah kapal-kapal asing yang menggunakan ABK asing; v Hasil tangkapan umumnya dibawa langsung ke luar negeri (negara asal kapal), sehingga mengakibatkan: (a) hilangnya sebagian devisa negara dan (b) berkurangnya peluang nilai tambah dari industri pengolahan; v Ancaman terhadap kelestarian sumberdaya ikan karena hasil tangkapan tidak terdeteksi, baik jenis, ukuran maupun jumlahnya; v Merusak citra Indonesia pada kancah International karena IUU fishing yang dilakukan oleh kapal asing berbendera Indonesia maupun kapal milik warga negara Indonesia. Hal ini juga dapat berdampak ancaman embargo terhadap hasil perikanan Indonesia yang dipasarkan di luar negeri. Sebagian Kerugian Ekonomi karena IUU Fishing
1. Pungutan Perikanan yang dibayarkan dengan tariff kapal Indonesia. 2. Subsidi BBM yang dinikmati oleh kapal asing yang tidak berhak. 3. Produksi ikan yang dicuri (Volume dan Nilai)

Rincian

Pukat Ikan

Pukat Ikan

Pukat Udang

Pulat Cincin Pelagis Besar

Rawai Tuna

L. Arafura S. Malaka
Ukuran Kapal (GT) Kekuatan Mesin (HP) Produksi (Ton/kpl/th) Rugi Pungutan Perik

202 540 847 193

240 960 864 232

138 279 152 170

134 336 269 267

178 750 107 78

Rp.Juta/Kapal/Th

Rugi Subsidi BBM

112

221

64

77

173

Rp.Juta/Kapal/Th
Rugi Produksi Ikan

3.559

1.733

3.160

1.101

801

Rp.Juta/Kapal/Th
Total Kerugian

3.864

2.187

3.395

1.446

1.052

Rp.Juta/Kapal/Th Pengawasan Sumber Daya Kelautan dan Perikanan Kendari : http://www.p2sdkpkendari.com Versi Online : http://www.p2sdkpkendari.com/?pilih=lihat&id=218
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/u-s-and-europeans-unite-against-illegalfishing/

September 7, 2011, 11:53 am

U.S. and Europeans Unite Against Illegal Fishing


By DAVID JOLLY

A bluefin tuna cage trawling the Mediterranean. Regulators are supposed to ensure that countries do not exceed fishing quotas in their waters, but a thriving black market in illegally fished bluefin persists.

The United States and the European Union announced a bilateral agreement on Wednesday on combating illegal fishing, saying that the practice deprives legitimate fishermen and coastal communities of billions of dollars of revenue each year. Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and Maria Damanaki, the European Unions commissioner for maritime affairs and fisheries, announced the deal in Washington. The pact calls for cooperation on adopting effective management measures in regional and international organizations to combat illegal fishing and promoting tools that prevent illegal fishing operators from benefiting economically from their activities. The United States and the European Union will also share information on illegal fisheries and promote the sustainable use of fisheries resources while preserving marine biodiversity, the two sides said. Policymakers argue that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing known as I.U.U. fishing or pirate fishing makes a mockery of national and international laws meant to ensure fish stocks are managed in a sustainable manner. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is one of the most serious threats to American fishing jobs and fishing communities, as well as to the health of the worlds oceans, Dr. Lubchenco said in a statement. International cooperation across oceans will help us maintain a level playing field for our fishermen by strengthening enforcement and preventing illegal fishing. According to NOAA, the European Union and the United States rank first and third as the worlds top seafood importers, with Japan ranked second. The Obama administration puts the global cost of illegal fishing to legal fishermen and coastal communities at up to $23 billion of seafood and seafood products annually. Such numbers are but guesses. As the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization notes, no one knows exactly how much illegal fishing there is because of its very nature. We do know, the F.A.O. says, that for some important fisheries, I.U.U. fishing accounts for a large percentage of total catches. Even more troubling is that the amount of I.U.U. fishing worldwide appears to be increasing, as I.U.U. fishers try to avoid stricter fishing rules that are being created to deal with downturns (that is, declining catches) in a growing number of fish stocks. Environmentalists welcomed the news. Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said in a statement that it could represent a major turning point for the health of the oceans, communities that depend on fish and the majority of fishermen who play by the rules. Because closing the net on pirate fishing in one area often results in criminals simply moving to another, we look forward to working with the EU and the U.S. to build a global fisheries enforcement system the only way to truly stop these crimes on a broad scale, he said. One particularly well-documented example of an out-of-control fishery was described in a 2010 report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. It said that a $4 billion black market in bluefin tuna has able to function partly because of official neglect in European fishing countries.

The United States and the European Union have already taken various measures measures against illegal fishing, the two sides noted, including the formers High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and European Union rules that block illegal seafood imports without the required certifications. Education is also considered a major tool in fighting illegal fishing. Groups like the Friends of the Sea offer information about the problem at their Web sites, and the Marine Stewardship Council tries to help reduce illegal fishing by certifying legitimate fisheries and educating consumers about the most sustainably caught seafood.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y3554E/y3554e01.htm

Stopping Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing


Background Responsibilities of all Countries Responsibilities of Flag Countries Responsibilities of Coastal Countries Responsibilities of Port Countries Market Measures Using Regional Fishery Organizations Special Needs of Developing Countries National Plans of Action What will FAO do?

Fisheries provide an important source of food, employment, income and recreation for people throughout the world. Millions of people depend upon fish for their livelihoods. If there is to be enough fish for current and future generations, everyone involved in fishing must help conserve and manage the worlds fisheries. With this situation in mind, more than 17O Members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) adopted the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. The Code is voluntary rather than mandatory, and aimed at everyone working in, and involved with, fisheries. Despite the adoption of the Code and the progress it has brought about, not all fishing activity is being conducted in a responsible manner. Some fishers do not respect fishing rules, including the rules that are found in the Code and in other international instruments. For example, some fishers do not respect rules concerning fishing gear and fishing areas. Others fail to report (or misreport) their catches. Some vessel owners reflag their vessels (that is, change the flag of their vessels) in countries that are unable or unwilling to control fishing activity adequately. Irresponsible fishing activities such as these directly undermine efforts to manage fisheries properly. The term illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing - or IUU fishing - has emerged to describe a wide range of such irresponsible activity. In 2001, after more than two years of

great effort, the Members of FAO developed an International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPOA-IUU) to address this problem. Like the Code of Conduct, the IPOA-IUU is voluntary. It is conceived of as a toolbox - that is, a set of tools for use in dealing with IUU fishing in its many forms. Not all tools in the toolbox are appropriate for use in all situations. The choice of tools will depend on the particular circumstances in a fishery. This booklet is intended to:
help familiarize FAO Members and others with the tools; suggest which tools to use in particular circumstances; and provide guidance on how to use the tools effectively.

For those people who would like to know more about the IPOA-IUU and to obtain a copy of the text, visit the FAO Fisheries Department Website on the Internet. The FAO Fisheries Department has also produced detailed Technical Guidelines to help governments and others implement the IPOA-IUU. The address of the Website relating to the IPOA-IUU is as follows:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6729e/X6729e00.HTM If you do not have access to the Internet, please contact: The Service Chief, FIPL/Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, for a copy. Please be sure to specify whether you want the IPOA-IUU in Arabic, Chinese, English, French or Spanish.

Background
IUU fishing occurs in virtually all fisheries, causing problems for people who are trying to manage fisheries properly and for people who depend on fisheries for food and jobs. IUU fishing can cause an entire fishery to collapse. Those who conduct IUU fishing do not behave responsibly. By ignoring fishing rules, they gain an unfair advantage over responsible fishers - that is, those fishers who fish in accordance with the rules. Nobody knows exactly how much IUU fishing is taking place. We do know that, for some important fisheries, IUU fishing accounts for a large percentage of total catches. Even more troubling is that the amount of IUU fishing worldwide appears to be increasing, as IUU fishers try to avoid stricter fishing rules that are being created to deal with downturns (that is, declining catches) in a growing number of fish stocks. The IPOA-IUU offers many tools for countries to use to combat IUU fishing, individually and in collaboration with other countries. Some of these tools are designed for use by all countries. Others tools are tailored for use by:
flag countries (countries that register fishing vessels and authorize vessels to fly their flags); coastal countries (countries that border ocean areas); and port countries (countries to whose ports fishing vessels come).

The IPOA-IUU also calls for the use of internationally agreed market-related measures. These are tools designed to keep fish that have been harvested by IUU fishers from being sold or traded. The following sections of this booklet describe these different tools.

Responsibilities of all Countries


The first responsibility of all countries is to follow the rules for regulating fishing that are found in recent international documents. Many of those rules are in the Code of Conduct. Others appear in other voluntary instruments and in a number of treaties (agreements between countries that have the force of law). Countries that have not yet agreed to be bound to the treaties should do so as soon as possible. The acceptance of these agreements will improve the conservation and management of fisheries around the world. Many ocean fisheries are regulated by regional fishery organizations. Countries whose vessels take part in such fisheries should become members of those organizations, or, at least make their vessels fish in such a way that they do not undermine the rules created by those organizations. As a matter of priority, each country should review its own fishing laws and practices to see if they enable the use of all relevant tools in the IPOA-IUU. The review should consider such questions as:
is any additional legal authority needed to do what the IPOA-IUU recommends? are existing penalties for IUU fishing strong enough? do your laws and practices make it possible to control the fishing activities of your vessels? if your nationals (citizens and companies) own fishing vessels that are registered in other countries, or serve as captains on foreign fishing vessels, do your laws and practices allow you to take action against them for IUU fishing? if you allow foreign vessels to fish in your waters, do the agreements allowing such fishing need to be strengthened to deal with IUU fishing problems? if you allow foreign vessels to land or transship fish in your ports, do your laws and practices allow you to control such activities, for example through inspections?

IUU fishers try to avoid detection. They often operate in areas where monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of fisheries is poor. The IPOA-IUU describes a wide range of MCS tools for use against IUU fishing, including:
vessel monitoring systems (VMS); observer programmes; catch documentation schemes; inspections of vessels in port and at sea; denial of port access or privileges to suspected IUU vessels; etc.

VMS is a tool that can greatly improve MCS. Countries can easily track the location of vessels that are using VMS. Vessels can also use VMS to send basic fishing information to fisheries administrations quickly and inexpensively, and to ask for help if a vessel is in danger at sea. A growing number of countries have started to make their vessels - and foreign vessels fishing in their waters - use VMS. The costs of VMS have gone down a lot in recent years. All countries should strongly consider introducing or expanding their use of VMS. To help, FAO has published technical guidelines on VMS, which are available on the FAO website or from FAO offices.

Governments can encourage fishers to comply with fishing rules through positive actions, including:
community education and other outreach to fishers; ensuring that stakeholders participate in the development of fishery rules; fostering peer pressure in favour of compliance, and creating systems for collecting information that are easy for fishers to use.

Those fishers who break the rules should face tough penalties. Governments should improve their ability to inspect fishing vessels, investigate when they believe that IUU fishing is taking place and prosecute violators successfully. Countries should also consider participating in the International Network for the Cooperation and Coordination of Fisheries-Related Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Activities. This network is coordinating international MCS activities so that countries can have quick access to certain types of information. To learn more about this Network, go to its website:
http://swr.ucsd.edu/enf/mcs/mcs.htm User name: mcs Password: mcsnet

Responsibilities of Flag Countries


Flag countries have the primary responsibility to control the fishing activities of their vessels, both fishing vessels and fishing support vessels (such as transport vessels that receive the catch of fishing vessels and supply vessels that bring fuel and provisions to fishing vessels). To help flag countries strengthen control over their vessels, the IPOA-IUU offers an extensive assortment of tools. For these tools to work, the governments of the flag countries must have the political will to make them work. Unfortunately, a number of countries continue to register fishing vessels without taking any of the basic steps to control their fishing activities. The situation must change if problems of IUU fishing are to be addressed successfully and if fisheries conservation and management is to be improved. Fishing Vessel Registration. Before a country allows a fishing vessel to be registered and before it allows a vessel to fly the countrys flag, the country should make sure that it has the ability to control the fishing activities of the vessel. Many countries do not require registration of small fishing vessels at all. However, in light of the growth of IUU fishing, including such fishing by small vessels, governments are encouraged to require registration of as many fishing vessels as possible, preferably all of them, and to enter all of them on its record of fishing vessels, which is discussed below. Although it is difficult to predict that a vessel will engage in IUU fishing, the chance that it might do so is greater if the vessel has done so before. Countries should thus avoid registering vessels with a history of IUU fishing. Experience has shown that the same vessels are often involved in IUU fishing, despite changes in name and registration. A government should make a vessel owner seeking to register a fishing vessel specify all previous countries in which the vessel has been registered, including registration under any other names. Should a pattern of possible flag hopping (that is, frequent changes of flag) emerge, it is possible that the vessel has been used for IUU fishing. The government should, at a minimum, require the vessel owner to explain any frequent changes in registration. Record of Fishing Vessels. Each country should maintain a record of its fishing vessels. The information in the record should relate to the physical characteristics of vessels and their past fishing history, and should include:
name of fishing vessel, registration number, previous names (if known), and port of registry; previous flag (if any); International Radio Call Sign (if any); where and when built; type of vessel;

type of fishing method or methods; gross register tonnage; power of main engine or engines; length; moulded depth; beam; where appropriate, a photograph showing a side profile view of the vessel taken at the time of registration or after any more recent structural changes; name, address and nationality of the person(s) or company in whose name the vessel is registered; name, address and nationality of the person(s) or company responsible for managing the operations of the vessel; name, address and nationality of the person(s) or company with beneficial ownership of the vessel, and ownership history of the vessel, and, where known, history of any IUU fishing by the vessel.

Where possible, the record should indicate whether each vessel listed is actively fishing. Authorization to Fish. Flag countries should prohibit their vessels from fishing in any ocean area unless the vessels receive express authorization from the government to engage in fishing. A flag country should issue such authorizations only to vessels properly registered in its territory and entered in its record of fishing vessels. Vessels should receive authorizations to fish only if the owners or operators agree to fish in accordance with conditions written into the authorization that allow the flag country to maintain control over the fishing activities. These conditions should set forth, for example:
what species can be caught; what gear can be used, and where and when the vessels may operate.

Paragraph 47 of the IPOA-IUU suggests a broad range of such conditions, not all of which will be applicable in all situations. Before a coastal country permits a foreign vessel to fish in its waters, it should verify that the vessel has received from its flag country a specific authorization to fish in waters beyond the jurisdiction of that country. Other Control Measures. The registration of fishing vessels, the creation of a record of fishing vessels and the proper use of fishing authorizations give a flag country the formal (or legal) basis to control the fishing activities of its vessels. To achieve actual control over its vessels, a flag country should choose from a variety of practical tools described in the IPOAIUU. For example, a flag country should know where its vessels are located, if not at each moment, then at least at regular and frequent intervals, for example, every week. Typical tools for tracking vessels include mandatory position reporting by radio and mandatory maintenance of logbooks with frequent recording of vessel position. Acceptance of these requirements by vessel operators should be necessary before issuing an authorization to fish. Unfortunately, while responsible vessel operators may comply with these requirements, IUU fishers often do not. A flag country should therefore have some other way to verify the

location of its vessels at sea. As discussed above, VMS is one option. Another way is to place independent observers on board vessels, who can monitor vessel positions and observe fishing operations. Flag countries should also increase their ability to patrol at sea in areas where their vessels are known to fish. To receive an authorization to fish, each vessel should be properly marked in accordance with internationally recognized standards, such as the FAO Standard Specification and Guidelines for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels. Fishing gear should also be marked in ways that permit easy identification and tracing. A flag country must have some way to know what each of its fishing vessels is catching. Accordingly, flag countries should require their vessels to report on their fishing activities at regular intervals. VMS, radio and fax methods all provide convenient and time-sensitive means for such reporting. Mandatory reporting of catch data through logbooks is also common. Other methods are also available. Although the data to be reported will vary from fishery to fishery, flag countries should require their fishing vessels at a minimum to report timely, complete and accurate information concerning fisheries activities at the time of harvest including:
vessel identification (radio call sign, port and number of registry); vessel position; vessel course; fishing effort (fishing location, date and time of place fished); catch composition (target and non target species by nominal weight (live weight equivalent of landings); zone entry/exit (including closed areas entry/exit) notifications, and port entry notifications

Flag countries should be able to verify the accuracy of reported data and should penalize the failure to report and the misreporting of data. Approaches include routine inspections in port and the use of independent observers on-board vessels. As discussed above, flag countries should make sure that penalties imposed for IUU fishing are of sufficiently tough. For serious offences, such sanctions should include withdrawal or suspension of the vessels authorization to fish. Sanctions applicable in respect of masters and other officers of fishing vessels should include withdrawal or suspension of their authorizations to serve in those capacities. Tough penalties are required to discourage fishers from engaging in IUU fishing.

Responsibilities of Coastal Countries


More than 90 percent of the world-wide fish catch is taken in waters under the control of coastal countries. A good deal of IUU fishing also occurs in those waters as well. Much of that IUU fishing is conducted by vessels registered in the coastal countries themselves, particularly in the form of underreporting or misreporting of catch. In other cases, foreign vessels fish without permission of the coastal country (that is, poaching or stealing) or fish in violation of the terms of access granted to them by the coastal country. IUU fishing in these waters primarily harms the coastal countries in question and the responsible fishers who operate there. Coastal countries should therefore do all they can to stop IUU fishing in their waters, as they will reap the benefits most directly, now and in the future.

If the vessels conducting IUU fishing are registered in the coastal country, that country is also the flag country and should use the tools described in the preceding section to deal with those vessels. If the vessels conducting IUU fishing are registered in a foreign country, the coastal country has a number of additional tools at its disposal. Those tools include:
keeping a record of foreign vessels authorized to fish in its waters; requiring foreign vessels to use VMS, such that the coastal country has real-time or near real-time access to vessel positions and receives regular data reports by VMS, and requiring foreign vessels, or a certain percentage of them, to carry independent observers.

Just as flag countries should avoid registering vessels with a history of IUU fishing, coastal countries should avoid granting access to those vessels as well. In practical terms, the coastal State should request the flag State to guarantee that its vessels being licensed do not have a history of IUU fishing before licenses are issued by the coastal State. A coastal country should seek a formal agreement with any flag country whose vessels wish to fish in its waters. The agreement can make clear the continuing responsibilities of the flag country with respect to the fishing activities conducted by its vessels that are granted access. At a minimum, the agreement should commit the flag country to penalize its vessels that have violated the terms and conditions of access. The agreement might also commit the flag country to assist in MCS efforts undertaken by the coastal country. Because it is difficult to monitor transshipments at sea, IUU fishers usually prefer to transship their catch at sea rather than in port. Coastal countries should consider requiring that all transshipments take place in port or, at a minimum, require that transshipment at sea is done is accordance with proper controls and at locations where inspectors can be present to check the details of the fish being transshipped.

Responsibilities of Port Countries


IUU fishers must eventually get their catch to port for landing or transshipment. Some countries, knowingly or not, allow their ports to be used for this purpose. Other countries, on their own and in co-operation with others, have begun to limit and regulate access to their ports to control IUU fishing. A country has full sovereignty over its ports. Generally speaking, a country may:
deny foreign vessels access to its ports (except in cases of emergency or distress);

prohibit foreign vessels from landing or transshipping fish in its ports; require vessels seeking port access to provide information on their identity and fishing activities, and inspect vessels that are voluntarily in its ports. Countries should require foreign fishing vessels seeking permission to come into their ports to provide: reasonable advance notice of their entry into port; a copy of their authorization to fish; details of the fishing trip, and quantities of fish on board.

A port country should also require other foreign vessels involved in fishing-related activities, such as transport vessels, to provide similar information before entering a port. A country should only grant foreign fishing vessels access to its ports where it can conduct inspections to verify the nature of the vessels fishing activities. During such inspections, a port country should collect at least the following information, which it should provide to the flag country and to any appropriate regional fishery organization:
the flag country of the vessel and identification details; name, nationality, and qualifications of the master and the fishing master; fishing gear; catch on board, including origin, species, form, and quantity; where appropriate, other information required by a regional fishery organization or international agreement, and total landed and transshipped catch.

If a port country has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a vessel in its port has engaged in IUU fishing, the port country should:
not to allow the vessel to land or transship fish in its port; immediately report the matter to the flag country, and if the suspected IUU fishing may have taken place in another countrys waters or in waters regulated by a regional fishery organization, immediately report the matter to that country or organization.

A port country may also take additional action against the vessel and its operators with the consent of, or at the request of, the flag country.

Market Measures
International trade in fish has increased dramatically in recent decades. Nobody know precisely how much of the fish traded internationally are the result of IUU fishing. However, a number of valuable fish species that are traded most often, including tunas and swordfish, are also species known to be targeted by IUU fishers. Some co-operative efforts are already underway to restrict international trade in fish harvested through IUU fishing. The IPOA-IUU calls upon countries to develop additional agreed market-related measures to stop IUU fishing that are consistent with rules governing international trade. The goal is to prevent international trade in fish harvested through IUU fishing while not creating unnecessary barriers to trade in other fish. Market-related measures cover several types of controls on the importation and exportation of goods, including:
catch certification and trade documentation requirements, and import and export restrictions and prohibitions.

Regional fishery organizations will have a primary role to play in co-ordinating the creation and use of market-related measures.

Using Regional Fishery Organizations


Regional fishery organizations have a central role to play in stopping IUU fishing. Many of the worlds most valuable stocks of fish, and a large number of those stocks most subject to IUU fishing, are regulated by regional fishery organizations. Regional fishery organizations are therefore uniquely positioned to promote and coordinate efforts to implement the IPOAIUU. Among things that regional fishery organizations can do are to:
collect and disseminate information relating to IUU fishing; identify vessels that are engaging in IUU fishing and coordinate measures against them; identify countries whose vessels are engaging in IUU fishing and can urge identified countries to correct such behaviour; call on their members to take action against vessels without nationality that are fishing in the relevant region; adopt rules to ensure that vessel chartering arrangements do not lead to IUU fishing;

adopt port inspection schemes, restrictions on transshipment at sea and schemes creating a presumption that fish harvested by non-member vessels in the relevant region should not be permitted to be landed in ports of members; adopt catch certification and/or trade documentation schemes, and adopt other market-related measures to combat IUU fishing.

Special Needs of Developing Countries


Developing countries, particularly small island developing countries and other developing coastal countries, are among those that suffer the most from IUU fishing. Many developing countries lack the resources and infrastructure to monitor and enforce fishery rules effectively. As a result, IUU fishers often conduct their operations in waters of developing countries, using vessels registered in the developing countries themselves (fishing without licenses or in violation of license restrictions) and vessels registered in other countries (poaching or fishing in violation of access restrictions). The IPOA-IUU calls upon countries, with the support of FAO and relevant international financial institutions and mechanisms, where appropriate, to support training and capacity building and to consider providing financial, technical and other assistance to developing countries so that they can more fully meet their commitments under the IPOA-IUU. Such assistance should be directed in particular to help developing countries in the development and implementation of national plans of action, discussed below.

National Plans of Action


The IPOA-IUU calls upon all countries to develop and adopt, as soon as possible but not later than March 2004, national plans of action to further achieve the objectives of the IPOA-IUU. As noted above, the IPOA-IUU is a toolbox - a set of tools that are available for use in many different situations to combat IUU fishing. Not all tools in the toolbox will be appropriate for use by each country. Nevertheless, to the extent possible, each countrys national plan of action should at least consider how each of the basic tools could be put to use in the fisheries in which it is involved. The IPOA-IUU also requires countries to review their national plans of action at least every four years and to report to FAO on steps they have taken to implement their plans and the IPOA-IUU.

What will FAO do?


FAO will provide technical support for implementation of the IPOA-IUU and will keep the issue of IUU fishing under review. FAO will report to its members every two years on progress being made with the implementation of the IPOA-IUU. These reports will be based on information provided to FAO by its members.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/index_en.htm

Illegal fishing (IUU)


The EU rules to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

Vessel fishing illegally for Patagonian toothfish in waters south of Australia, being inspected by the Australian navy. Picture courtesy Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing depletes fish stocks, destroys marine habitats, distorts competition, puts honest fishers at an unfair disadvantage, and weakens costal communities, particularly in developing countries. The EU is working hard to close the loopholes that allow illegal operators to profit from their activities:
Under recently adopted rules only marine fisheries products validated as legal by the relevant flag state or exporting state can be imported to or exported from the EU. A European black list has been drawn up covering both IUU vessels and states that turn a blind eye to illegal fishing activities. EU operators who fish illegally anywhere in the world, under any flag, face substantial penalties proportionate to the economic value of their catch, which deprive them of any profit. The new EU regulation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Commission is working actively to inform all parties on how to apply the new rules.

Guidance documents
Queries on the IUU Regulation

Legislation and official documents


Legal base: Council regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 Implementing regulation: Commission regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1222/2011 of 28 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements with third countries on catch certificates for marine fisheries products Regulation no. 202/2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 as regards the definition of fishery products and amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as

regards prior notification templates, benchmarks for port inspections and recognised catch documentation schemes adopted by regional fisheries management organisations. Commission regulation (EU) No 86/2010 of 29 January 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 as regards the definition of fishery products and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards exchange of information on inspections of third country vessels and administrative arrangements on catch certificates Commission Regulation (EU) No 395/2010 of 7 May 2010 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative arrangements on catch certificates Commission regulation (EU) No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2011 of 25 July 2011 amending Regulation (EU) Nr 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
http://mukhtar-api.blogspot.com/2008/06/cara-penanggulangan-iuu-fishing.html

CARA PENANGGULANGAN IUU FISHING

CARA PENANGGULANGAN IUU FISHING Sebelum membahas cara penanggulangan IUU Fishing terlebih dahulu harus mengetahui kendala yang dihadapi dalam penanganan IUU Fishing adalah : 1. Lemahnya pengawasanSimpan Sekarang masih terbatasnya sarana prasarana dan fasilitas pengawasan; SDM pengawasan yang masih belum memadai terutama dari sisi kuantitas; belum lengkapnya peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perikanan, masih lemahnya koordinasi antara aparat penegak hukum baik pusat maupun daerah; belum berkembangnya lembaga pengawasan; Penerapan sistem MCS yang belum sempurna 2. Belum tertibnya perijinan Pemalsuan Ijin, penggandaan ijin 3. Lemahnya Law Enforcement Wibawa hukum menurun Ketidak adilan bagi masyarakat Maraknya pelanggaran & illegal Penanggulangan IUU Fishing 1. Sistem Pengelolaan Perumusan Kebijakan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Ikan dengan cara Pelestarian: Perlindungan, Pengawetan dan Rehabilitasi, Pengalokasian dan penataan pemanfaatan, Penyusunan Peraturan, Perijinan dan pemanfaatan Sumberdaya ikan. 2. Kebijakan dengan Visi Pengelolaan SDKP tertib dan bertanggung jawab Meningkatkan kualitas pengawasan secara sistematis dan terintegrasi agar pengelolaan SDKP berlangsung secara tertib dengan cara operasi pengawasan dan penegakan hukum. Meningkatkan apresiasi dan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pengawasan SDKP dengan cara pengembangan sistem pengawasan berbasis masyarakat seperti pembentukan kelompok apengawas masyarakat (Pokmaswas).

3. Strategi Optimalisasi Implementasi MCS (Monitoring, Controlling, Surveillancea) dalam pengawasan dengan cara Peningkatan Sarana dan Prasarana pengewasan dan Mengintegrasikan komponen MCS (VMS, Kapal Partroli, Pesawat Patroli Udara, Alat Komunikasi, Radar Satelit/Pantai, Siswasmas, Pengawas Perikanan (PPNS) dan Sistem Informasi Pengawasan dan Pengendalian SDKP) dalam satu system yang sinergis. Pembentukan Kelembagaan Pengawasan di Tingkat Daerah. Dasar Pembentukan Kelembagaan ini yaitu : Belum adanya lembaga pengawasan yang mandiri, Lambannya penanganan operasi dan penanganan perkara, Rentang kendali dan koordinasi yang panjang, Ketergantungan pada pihak lain, Tidak adanya kepastian kendali dan pasca operasi. Rancangan kebutuhan kelembagaan pengawasan yaitu Pangkalan Pengawasan 7 Unit, Stasiun Pengawas 31 Unit dan Satker Pengawas 130 Unit. Sampai saat ini baru Pangkalan 2 unit, Stasiun 3 unit dan Satker unit masih jauh dari harapan. Meningkatkan Intesitas Operasional Pengawasaan Baik Dengan Kapal Pengawas Ditjen P2SDKP secara mandiri maupun kerjasama dengan TNI AL dan Polri. Dengan Langkah ke depan : Meningkatkan frekuensi kerjasama operasi dengan TNI AL dan POLAIR Memprogramkan pengadaan Kapal Pengawas dalam jumlah yang mencukupi baik melalui APBN Murni maupun Pinjaman / Hibah Luar Negeri (PHLN). Operasional Penertiban Ketaatan Kapal Dipelabuhan. Dalam operasi tersebut dilakukan pemeriksaan : 1. Ketaatan berlabuh di pelabuhan pangkalan sesuai dengan ijin yang diberikan, 2. Ketataan Nakhoda kapal perikanan dalam melaporkan hasil tangkapan melalui pengisian Log Book Perikanan, 3. Ketaatan pengurusan ijin untuk kapal yang belum berijin dan masa berlaku ijinnya telah habis. Berdasarkan hasil pemeriksaan kapal di pelabuhan pangkalan yang tertib diterbitkan Surat Laik Operasi (SLO) Kapal Perikanan dari Pengawas Perikanan untuk mendapatkan Surat Izin Berlayar (SIB) dari Syahbandar dan bagi yang tidak tertib tidak akan dikeluarkan. Pengembangan Dan Optimalisasi Implementasi Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). 1. Mewajibkan Pemasangan Transmitter VMS Bagi Kapal berukuran 60 GT ketas. 2. Penerapan Transmitter VMS Off Line Bagi Kapal Berukuran 30 60 GT. 3. Penerapan Sanksi yang tegas sesuai ketentuan yang berlaku bagi pemilik kapal yang tidak patuh. Pengembangan Sistem Radar Pantai Yang Terintegrasi Dengan VMS. 1. Pengembangan sistem radar yang diintegrasikan dengan VMS (telah dikembangkan bersama BRKP). 2. Stasiun-stasiun radar tersebut akan ditempatkan pada titik-titik pintu masuknya kapal-kapal perikanan asing ke Indonesia (Selat Malaka, Laut Natuna dsb). Apabila konsep ini terwujud Informasi pengawasan dapat diterima lebih banyak. Hal itu akan mengurangi fungsi patroli kapal pengawas, sehingga pengadaan kapal pengawas bisa dikurangi. Koordinasi Dalam Penanganan Pelanggaran Tindak Pidana. 1. Peningkatan Peran Forum Koordinasi Penanganan Tindak Pidana Perikanan 2. Mempercepat proses penegakan hukum (penyidikan, penuntutan dan persidangan) antar lain melalui Pengadilan Khusus Perikanan

3. Mengantisipasi terjadinya tuntutan (Pra-peradilan, Class Action dan Tuntutan Perdata) 4. Mengamankan dan merawat barang bukti (misal: kapal, alat tangkap) agar nilai ekonominya dapat dipertahankan 5. Penanganan ABK Non Yustitia dari kapal-kapal perikanan asing illegal yang tertangkap Pelibatan Masyarakat dalam Pengawasan Sumberdaya Ikan melalui SISWASMAS 1. Pembinaan berupa peningkatan teknis pengawasan dan pemberian stimulant kepada kelompok-kelompok tersebut berupa perlengkapan pengawas (radio komunikasi, senter, mesin tik dll). 2. Sampai dengan tahun 2006 telah terbentuk 759 Pokmaswas yang tersebar di 30 Propinsi di Indonesia. 3. Evaluasi Pokmaswas tingkat Nasional untuk mendapatkan penghargaan dari Presiden RI. Pembentukan Pengadilan Khusus Perikanan. Dasar Pembentukan : 1. Perkara perikanan belum mendapat perhatian serius dibanding perkara lain 2. Mewujudkan suatu tatanan sistem peradilan penanganan perikanan yang efektif 3. Menstimulasi kinerja pengadilan negeri dalam menangani tindak pidana perikanan 4. Mengubah paradigma di kalangan aparat penegak hukum dalam menangani perkaraperkara perikanan Sampai saat ini telah dibentuk di lima tempat yaitu Jakarta Utara, Pontianak, Medan, Tual dan Bitung. Sumber Kebijakan Penaggulangan IUU Fishing Dalam Mendukung Tugas PPNS di Lapangan Oleh Direktur Jenderal P2SDKP pada Acara Coaching Clinic PPNS Perikanan Tahun 2007. Sumber : Mukhtar, A.Pi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal,_unreported_and_unregulated_fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Environmental law

Pollution control and remediation Air Hazardous substances Waste Water Resource conservation and management Fisheries Forests Historic sites Minerals Oil and gas Parks Species Water Planning, land use, and infrastructure Impact review Municipal planning Land use Transportation infrastructure Energy infrastructure Environmental justice Related topics Administrative law Bankruptcy law Energy law Insurance law International law

v d e

Illegal fishing takes place where vessels 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 organisations. Unreported fishing is fishing that has been unreported or misreported to the relevant national authority or regional organisation, in contravention of applicable laws and regulations. Unregulated fishing generally refers to fishing by vessels without nationality, or vessels flying the flag of a country not party to the regional organisation governing that fishing area or species. The drivers behind illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing are clear enough, and similar to those behind many other types of international environmental crime. Most obviously, 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 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 any effective regulation over ships on their registerswhich in turn creates an incentive for ships to register under these flags of convenience. Since no-one is reporting catches made by pirates, their level of fishing cannot be accurately quantified. However, industry observers think that IUU occurs in most fisheries, and accounts for up to 30% of total catches in some important fisheries.[1]

Contents
[hide] 1 Economic and environmental impacts 2 Certification 2.1 Marine Stewardship Council 2.1.1 The Responsible Fishing Scheme

3 Enforcement 4 Political processes 4.1 EU Action Plan 4.2 High Seas Task Force 4.3 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) 4.4 UN High Seas Processes

5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Economic and environmental impacts


The most obvious economic impact of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on developing countries is the direct loss of the value of the catches that could be taken by local

fishermen if the IUU fishing was not taking place. Available estimates place the economic loss of illegal fishing to be between $10 billion to $23 billion annually.[2] These losses include not only the loss to GNP, but revenue from landing fees, licence fees and taxes payable by legal fishing operators. In addition, there are indirect impacts in terms of loss of income and employment in related industries; any loss in income will also have impacts on the consumer demands of families working in the fishing industry. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing usually has a significant impact on the sustainability of both the targeted species and the ecosystem. Fishing generally has the capacity to damage fragile marine ecosystems and vulnerable species such as coral reefs, turtles and seabirds. In fact, all eight sea turtle species are now endangered, and illegal fishing and hunting are two major reasons for their destruction. Regulating legitimate fisheries is aimed at mitigating such impacts, but IUU fishers rarely comply with regulations. This is likely to reduce productivity and biodiversity and create imbalances in the ecosystem. This in turn may lead to reduced food security in communities heavily dependent on fish as a source of animal protein. IUU fishing can also lead to increased pressure on endangered fish species. IUU can directly affect the population of fish species by increasing the number of fish caught within the population in spite of population management efforts by the international community. Indirectly, the substitution (mislabeling) of IUU caught fish for popular, but threatened or endangered species, increases the perceived supply of these species, thus decreasing the price and increasing the demand for the fish species.

[edit] Certification
Mandatory product certification and catch documentation are increasingly used as a natural extension of normal monitoring and enforcement in fisheries, and as a means of excluding IUU products from consumer markets and therefore rewarding responsible fishing with protected markets. The concept is increasingly common in other markets, including those for timber and for diamonds. 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 EUs labelling of all fish products (including area of capture).
[edit] 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:
1. ensuring healthy fish stocks 2. minimal impact on the marine ecosystem 3. 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 ecolabel enables consumers to easily identify sustainable seafood when shopping or dining out. As of April 2010, there are nearly 4,000 MSC-labelled seafood products sold in over 60 countries around the world. The MSC website lists outlets selling MSC-certified seafood. The MSC-certified South Georgia Patagonian toothfish fishery provides a good example of how good fisheries management can reverse the trend of illegal fishing. The fishery took significant steps to exclude illegal vessels from its waters: - Strict vessel licensing system is rigorously enforced with limited landing points, controlled by the port authorities. - No transshipment is allowed. - Every pound of fish landed is monitored through tamper-proof satellite surveillance of onboard weighing scales and GPS locations of vessels. - On landing, boxed product is applied with a barcode label to ensure there is no introduction of illegal fish into the supply chain. These are only some of the measures taken by the fishery to achieve MSC certification in March 2004. Further information on the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish fishery.
[edit] The Responsible Fishing Scheme

The Responsible Fishing Scheme was launched in May 2006. It is an independent, audited assessment of the application of good practice by a vessel skipper and crew in their fishing operations. It has been developed to raise standards in the catching sector and demonstrate a vessel operates to industry good practice guidelines. The scheme helps to meet the needs of the seafood supply chain. The sector needs to provide tangible evidence and a practical demonstration of their commitment to the responsible sourcing of seafood. This scheme does just that. A vessels certification to the scheme is an assurance that the fish landed by that vessel has been caught responsibly. It will also give the vessel a tool to allow them to positively position itself in the global marketplace. Based on a Publicly Available Specification developed by Seafish in collaboration with the British Standards Institution (BSI), the Responsible Fishing Scheme is a means of recognising responsible fishing practices for individual vessels operating in a diverse range of fisheries under international agreements. It covers five key areas, namely: environmental issues, fishing practices, crew competence, vessel criteria and record maintenance. Ultimately it is designed to promote and recognise good practice. As of March 2009 the scheme boasts 585 vessels in various stages of assessment with over 300 certified.[3]

[edit] 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. MSC systems are similarly of value within exclusive economic zones, including, for example, offshore patrols and licensing schemes.

[edit] Political processes


[edit] EU Action Plan

The EU played an active role in drawing up the FAOs international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, endorsed by the FAO Council in June 2001. The EU then proceeded to develop its own plan to implement the commitments agreed at international level, and the European Commissions 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 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are affiliations of nations that coordinate 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. Learn more here.
[edit] UN High Seas Processes

The present system of high seas governance has evolved over a period of several hundred years, the end result being a patchwork quilt of measures in the form of binding and nonbinding 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 a treaty between 92 nations (The agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) that would close ports to vessels suspected of illegal fishing.[4] The treaty would require vessels request permission to dock and to inform the port details of its fishing operations. Permission to dock could be denied if unregulated fishing was occurring. The measure would help block illegally caught fish from entering the marketplace. Other measures in the treaty include inspections of equipment, paperwork, catches and ship's records. Though the treaty does not compel countries to apply these measures to ships under its own flag, they are free to include them under the agreement.[4][5]

[edit] See also


Environmental effects of fishing Game Wardens Geoff Regan List of environmental issues Overfishing Poaching

Seafood Choices Alliance Vessel monitoring system

[edit] Notes
1. ^ World Wildlife Fund: Fishing problems: Illegal fishing 2. ^ "Illegal Fishing Market Value-Havocscope Black Market". Retrieved April 17, 2010. 3. ^ "The Seafish Guide to the Responsible Fishing Scheme" Seafish Industry Authority 4. ^ a b "FAO: New treaty will leave fish pirates without safe haven". MercoPress. 2009-09-01. 5. ^ "91 countries agree to illegal fishing treaty". The Associated Press. 2009-09-01.

[edit] References
The Seafish Guide to Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing Seafish Industry Authority FAO: Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing FAO: Stopping Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Morgan, Gary; Staples, Derek and Funge-Smith, Simon (2007) Fishing capacity management and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Asia FAO RAP Publication. 2007/17. ISBN 978-92-5-005669-2 Swan, Judith (2004) International action and responses by regional fishery bodies or arrangements to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. FAO Fisheries Circular 996. ISSN 0429-9329 Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, Beddington JR and Pitcher TJ (2009) "Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing" PLoS ONE 4(2): e4570. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004570. Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.

http://www.pewenvironment.org/campaigns/combating-illegal-unreported-andunregulated-fishing/id/8589941944