Talking ASEAN. Developing ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries Management: Tackling IUU Fishing in the Region. Presentation and Discussion Report

Transcription

1 Talking ASEAN Developing ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries Management: Tackling IUU Fishing in the Region Presentation and Discussion Report Thursday, 27 February 2014 at The Habibie Center Building Jl. Kemang Selatan no. 98, Jakarta 12560

2 DISCUSSION REPORT Talking ASEAN: Developing ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries Management: Tackling IUU Fishing in the Region Introduction The Habibie Center, Jakarta, Thursday, February 27, 2014 On Thursday, February 27, 2014, The Habibie Center held a Talking ASEAN public discussion entitled Developing ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries Management: Tackling IUU Fishing in the Region at The Habibie Center Building in Jakarta. This sixth edition of Talking ASEAN featured Ms. Ida Kusuma Wardanigsih (Executive Secretary, Directorate General of Surveillance for Marine and Fisheries Resources, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries RI), Prof. Akhmad Fauzi (Department of Resource and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Bogor Agricultural University) and Mr. Philippe Courrouyan (CLS ASEAN Director, Collecte, Localisation, Satellites) as resource persons with Ms. Rahimah Abdulrahim (Executive Director, The Habibie Center) as the moderator. The objectives of this Talking ASEAN dialogue were as follows: (a) to review the current state of affairs regarding fisheries management, especially in dealing with IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing problems within the ASEAN region, (b) to consider the implications of IUU fishing problems on fishing communities, the public as consumers of fishing products, national governments through loss taxation and even on the marine ecosystem, (c) to identify ASEAN s efforts to develop regional cooperation on fisheries management that deal with the problem of IUU fishing in the region, (d) to analyse whether ASEAN s efforts on regional cooperation in fisheries management are effective in dealing with IUU fishing problems in the region, and (e) to discuss what are the challenges and difficulties currently faced by ASEAN and its member-states in developing a regional cooperation on fisheries management in the region, and suggest what lessons can be drawn from other examples in the world. This discussion report summarizes the key points of each speaker as well as the question and answer session that followed. Ms. Ida Kusuma Wardanigsih (Executive Secretary, Directorate General of Surveillance for Marine and Fisheries Resources, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries - RI) As the first speaker, Ms. Ida Kusuma Wardanigsih began her presentation by noting that the theme of Developing ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries Management: Tackling IUU Fishing in 1

3 the Region was very relevant to the mandate of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries RI (KKP-RI) in promoting sustainable fisheries. Ms. Ida described fisheries as a natural living resource which provided a high quality source of protein, created jobs, and created to the economy among others. She went on to recall that IUU fishing was not only a national problem for Indonesia but also a regional and global problem as well. As such it was essential for IUU fishing to be combated through a coordinated and collaborated approach. Ms. Ida also stated that in the case of Indonesia, IUU fishing tended to be tied to other forms of criminal activities. As such she welcomed The Habibie Center s choice of IUU fishing as a topic for discussion and described the sixth Talking ASEAN as an important event for KKP-RI to work hand in hand with organizations such as The Habibie Center to spell out more loudly the importance of tackling IUU fishing in a more proper way. Ms. Ida then went on to define the terms of IUU fishing which she had taken from the International Plan of Action to Promote Responsible Fishing Practices including Combating IUU Fishing which had been adopted by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) in Illegal fishing, Ms. Ida noted, referred to activities conducted by national or foreign fishing vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a state, without the permission or in contravention of the state s laws and regulations. She added that illegal fishing also referred to activities conducted by vessels flying the flag of states that are parties to a relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) but operated in contravention of the conservation and management measures (CMM) adopted by the organization and by which states were bound by as well as provisions found in international law. Meanwhile, unreported fishing referred to activities which: (a) had not been reported, or were misreported, to relevant national authorities, in contravention of national laws and regulations or (b) undertaken in the area of an RFMO and were not report or were misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of the RFMO. Lastly, Ms. Ida explained that unregulated fishing referred to activities that were not consistent with or in contravention of the CMM of an RFMO. These could be carried out by fishing vessels without a nationality or flying the flag of a state not party to an RFMO or by other types of fishing entities. In areas where there were no applicable CMM in place, Ms. Ida added that unregulated fishing referred to activities that were conducted in a manner inconsistent with the state s responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law. Having defined the terms of illegal fishing, unreported fishing and unregulated fishing, Ms. Ida moved on to identify who were the actors of IUU fishing that existed in Indonesia and where they were taking place. Ms. Ida noted that IUU fishing was being conducted by all levels of fisheries, ranging from small-scale fishing vessels to large-scale fishing vessels, from transport vessels to cabin vessels, and from national fishing vessels to foreign fishing vessels operating in Indonesian waters. As such, she presented a graphic to the audience that showed the types of fishing vessels conducting IUU fishing 1 as well as the location they were conducted. 2 It was noted that from KKP-RI s surveillance, foreign fishing vessels had been spotted operating inside 1 The categories covered: small scale Indonesian fishing fleets, (non-small scale) Indonesian fishing fleets, foreign fishing fleets, and foreign fishing fleets flying Indonesian flags. 2 The categories covered: archipelagic waters, territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone, and High Seas. 2

4 the territorial and even archipelagic waters of Indonesia. Ms. Ida described this as a very serious issue that needed tackling. On the other hand, Ms. Ida also noted that 95% of the (statistical) population on IUU fishing was made up of Indonesian small-scale Indonesian fishing vessels and moreover there were a number of instances where Indonesian vessels conducted fishing in the high seas but had failed to report their activities properly. The issue of foreign fishing vessels flying Indonesian flags was also cited by Ms. Ida. It was made known that since 2005 or 2006, licenses were no longer granted to foreign fishing vessels who responded by selling their ships to local companies. However in some cases it was not clear if their status had been totally transferred. This made it easier for such vessels to operate both beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) but also return to conduct fishing within territorial waters. Ms. Ida then emphasized that the cases of IUU fishing conducted in the different locations be it within territorial waters the EEZ or the High Seas had its own sets of specific problem and issue that needed to be addressed separately and appropriately. The presentation then turned to highlighting the three main areas where IUU fishing took place in Indonesia. Here, Ms. Ida identified the Arafura Sea, the Natuna Sea and the Celebes Sea. She noted that according to data from KKP-RI, foreign fishing vessels from China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam were found to be conducting IUU fishing in the Natuna Sea. Meanwhile, fishing vessels from China and the Philippines were responsible for IUU fishing in Celebes Sea whereas in the Arafura Seas the main culprits were from China, Taiwan and Thailand. For Ms. Ida, these data demonstrated the fact that IUU fishing could not be tackled alone by Indonesia but required cooperation with her neighbouring states. As a result of IUU practices within Indonesian waters, the state of Indonesian fisheries were characterized by: (1) overfishing and overcapacity; (2) IUU fishing practices, both by foreign and local fishing vessels; (3) marine environment degradation, especially since IUU fishing applied unauthorized fishing gears and techniques; (4) poverty of fisher folks and (5) underutilization of national fishing industries at only 30-40%. The presentation then proceeded to examine the various modes of IUU fishing. Ms. Ida identified six modes based on KKP-RI s experience of conducting surveillance that included: fishing without legal permit and/or illegal entry into Indonesian waters; use of unauthorized fishing gears in unauthorized fishing ground; use of fake documents especially regarding the transfer of foreign vessels, which in some cases were not entirely clear; trans-shipment at sea without reporting to the relevant fishing ports; double flagging or sailing under Indonesian flags in Indonesian waters to avoid detection by Indonesian authorities; and use of fictitious company address or forgery of documents issued by other institutions. As a result of these various modes of IUU fishing, Ms. Ida observed that there had been an estimated economic loss of USD 40 billion. However she argued that this value was debatable as it did not include the cost of environmental damage caused by IUU fishing, which was not easy to attach an economic valuation to. Further negative impacts of IUU fishing encompassed: depletion of fish stocks, declining catch per-unit effort (CPUE), uncompetitive fishery businesses 3

5 especially national fishing industries, and affecting the traditional livelihood of fisher folks that continue to suffer from poverty due to unfair competition from bigger foreign vessels. Next, Ms. Ida explained to the audience the efforts taken by Indonesia to combat the issue of IUU fishing based on both national and international legal frameworks. She revealed that there were two approaches adopted by KKP-RI to tackle IUU fishing: soft structures and hard structures. Soft structures mentioned here included: (1) strengthen and develop Surveillance Technical Implementing Units; (2) review and revitalize Fisheries Acts; (3) capacity building for fisheries inspectors and investigators; (4) regional cooperation such as by joining RFMOs like the IOTC 3, CCSBT 4 and WCPCF 5 and by establishing a Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to promote responsible fishing practices; (5) being actively involved in the Regional and International Forum, including joining the International Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (IMCS) Network; and (6) implementing the European Commission regulation, and considering to ratify Post State Measures Agreement (PSMA) Meanwhile, for hard structures Indonesia had implemented Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) which enabled it to monitor the hourly movement of every fishing vessel of up to 30 gross tonnages. Ms. Ida explained that VMS enable authorities to analyse the activities of fishing vessels and to determine if they were carrying out transhipment or trawling which were both forbidden. Ms. Ida also highlighted an observer program, logbook, and port inspections as other examples of hard structures. The KKP-RI was also carrying out efforts to enhance the effectiveness of its monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) at the stages of before fishing, while fishing, during landing and post landing. However, she noted that for VMS, it could only track cooperating vessels that kept their transmitters on. In the case of fishing vessels carrying out IUU fishing, it was often the case that they would switch off their transmitters so that they could not be monitored via VMS. As such, patrol vessels on the high seas were still needed. Other obstacles highlighted by Ms. Ida focused on internal problems at KKP-RI especially regarding the lack of capacity and capability. Underlining the importance of fisheries management, Ms. Ida noted the linkages between fisheries resources, fisheries management, sustainable fisheries and food security. Describing MCS as the tool for fisheries management, she illustrated how Indonesia had now set up a National Plan of Action (as enshrined by KEPMEN No 50/2012 tentang NPOA) to implement MCS not only through KKP-RI but also with the cooperation of other national institutions. However, this had created certain challenges. Quoting the FAO-MCS technical guidelines, Ms. Ida remarked that it had been recommended that the fisheries department be provided with the lead role and ultimate authority for ocean sector MCS activities, in consultation with other interested departments and ministries. However in reality, Indonesia had many institutions 3 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 4 Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 5 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 4

6 tasked with implementing the laws of the seas with no obvious ultimate authority to coordinate them. In this sense, Ms. Ida argued that political will and commitment were essential. The last part of Ms. Ida s presentation focused on the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to Promote Responsible Fishing Practices Including Combating IUU Fishing. She noted that Indonesia s Minister for Marine Resources and Fisheries had served as the RPOA s secretary for the last seven years to enhance and strengthen the overall level of fisheries management in the region and promote responsible fishing practices. The goal of the RPOA was to sustain fisheries resources and marine environment while its actions would be to manage fishing capacity. On the question of why an RPOA was needed, Ms. Ida suggested because the RPOA drew it main core principles from international fisheries instruments and that it was a cooperative approach to enhance and strengthen the overall level of fisheries management in the region of the South China Sea, Sulu-Sulawesi Seas and Arafura-Timor Seas. Moreover, Ms. Ida noted that the RPOA help highlight the responsibilities of all states in addressing problems related to IUU fishing and had promoted each participating country to produce or establish their own plan of action at the national level. Meeting annually, the RPOA drew the eleven participating countries to evaluate its efforts for the past year and to discuss and set up its work plan for the coming year. More importantly the RPOA promoted data exchange which Ms. Ida called very important. She highlighted the benefits of information exchanges with Australia, Malaysia and Singapore, for example, to help investigate several fishing vessels. Through these exchanges, it was possible for RPOA countries to inspect fishing vessels in their own ports or in the ports of other RPOA countries. Furthermore there was the possibility of the RPOA developing linkages with the aforementioned IMCSN. Indeed Ms. Ida noted that the RPOA already had links with advisory bodies such as FAO APFIC 6, SEAFDEC 7, Worldfish Centre, and InfoFish. She went on to describe the dream of an integrated surveillance system (ISS) but stated that KKP-RI did not intend to purchase surveillance aircrafts and so wished to work together with the national police and military to assist their inspectors in carrying out surveillance In concluding her presentation, Ms. Ida restated that: (1) IUU fishing was a global, regional and national problem that threatened food security; (2) combating IUU fishing effectively takes a collaborative approach, and (3) that strengthening MCS capacity and capability, both in hard and soft structure, was urgently required. Prof. Akhmad Fauzi (Department of Resource and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Bogor Agricultural University) The second speaker was Prof. Akhmad Fauzi who outlined his intention to first start with a global overview of the economic aspect of fisheries, before moving down to regional and national. He explained that he wished to present from a scientific/university perspective, 6 FAO Asia Pacific Fishery Commission. 7 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center 5

7 basing his statistics from those found in academic journals and other researches which hopefully could provide lessons for everyone. Beginning with the global perspective, Prof. Akhmad revealed that fishing was a massive business and that for every USD 1 received from fisheries, nearly USD 3 would be generated into the global economy. In other words the multiplier impact of the fisheries sector was around 2.6 meaning USD 1 invested delivered USD 2.6 to economics. In global scales, Prof. Akhmad revealed that the fishing sector s USD 80 billion generated USD 240 billion to the global economy. Interestingly, 57% of fishing came from Asia, with a significant proportion sources from Southeast Asia. Zooming in on the Southeast Asian region, Prof. Akhmad stated that all ASEAN nations shared the same four major problems when it came to the fisheries sector, namely: poverty, imbalanced extraction, overfishing/overcapacity, and IUU fishing. These were described as classic problems which for the last 30 years had not been appropriately tackled. Prof. Akhmad then went on to cite 2013 data from Japanese scholar, Komatsu which showed a dramatic rise in the contribution of marine capture fisheries to the overall fisheries production of ASEAN countries over the last years. Indeed Prof. Akhmad stated that according to data from the 2011 State of Fisheries and Agriculture (SOFA) report, Southeast Asia contributed almost 32 million metric ton (20%) to the global catch of which 15 million metric ton was drawn from marine capture. The major fishing players in ASEAN were also identified as Indonesia (33.8%), the Philippines (16.3%) and Vietnam (15%). Here, Prof. Akhmad highlighted developments in Vietnam which was witnessing a significant increase in university students being sent abroad to study fishing economics. This was described as a major shift from the usual focus on agriculture studies, coffee production or rice productions and Prof. Akhmad warned Vietnam may one day overtake Indonesia as the major fishing player in ASEAN. However, despite ASEAN s contribution to fisheries, Prof. Akhmad noted that there was also a gloomy side. Almost every scientific paper/journal agreed that there was a tendency towards overfishing in ASEAN which was leading to declining fish stocks. To illustrate the two sides of fisheries, Prof. Akhmad highlighted the case of Indonesia. On the one hand, the fisheries sector had contributed to the nation s GDP and created job opportunities. On the other hand it also led to welfare problems and environmental degradation. He added that according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), the NTN index 8 showed that if an Indonesian fisherman spent 100 rupiah to buy inputs for fishing, he would only receive back 105 rupiah from his fishing. Similarly the output multiplier from the fisheries sector was between 1 and 2, meaning a spending of 1 rupiah would generate approximately 2 rupiah to the economy. This however did not take into account on the environmental impact with reports showing that 70% of mangroves had been degraded and 705 of coral reefs had been degraded in Indonesian waters. On the issue of economic loss, Prof. Akhmad presented two values: USD 2 billion and USD 5 billion. Prof. Akhmad stressed however that these values underestimated the deeper problem of fisheries management. Describing fisheries as a renewable resource that was very vulnerable, 8 Nilai Tukar Nelayan or Fishermen Exchange Rate 6

8 Prof. Akhmad introduced the term transitional gain trap. This referred to trend of catching less and less fish with each fishing expedition which he saw as a disturbing trend. Moreover, Prof. Akhmad argued that transitional gain trap was a bigger problem in tropics regions when compared to sub-tropics regions. Prof. Akhmad then proceeded to explore the drivers and patterns of IUU fishing in ASEAN region. He took the view that IUU fishing was simply human nature s response. Where fishing resources were declining, it was natural for fisher folks to try to fish in neighbouring waters. Prof. Akhmad also cited the issue of lack of capacity as a driver for IUU fishing noting lack of fleets, budgets, and human resources as examples. Subsidies were also cited as a cause for massive IUU fishing. Prof. Akhmad explained that some countries subsidized fishing vessels to fish in other countries, calling it an unfair and disturbing practice for developing countries that could not afford to subsidize their own vessels another driver of IUU fishing was the issue of moral hazard and rent seeking/corruption. He stressed that as long as the economic benefits of IUU fishing outweighed the penalties imposed if caught, people would continue to conduct IUU fishing. An interesting pattern of IUU fishing seen across the ASEAN region, according to Prof. Akhmad, was that of networking and also Chamelioning whereby fisher folks disguised their vessels and names to adopt dual nationalities. Prof. Akhmad also highlighted the problem of scaling down. This was where fisher folks denied they were engaged in IUU fishing claiming it was impossible to do so with small vessels. However Prof. Akhmad argued that ten small vessels were the same as one large fishing vessel. Overall, he noted that at present, only 20% of Indonesian fishing vessels complied with FAO s Code of Conduct. The presentation then moved on to what was known as the fashion of fisheries management. Theses referred to the constantly changing ministers who introduced different policies on fisheries management. These poor and inconsistent fisheries management was seen to contribute to IUU fishing with Prof. Akhmad illustrating the case of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam during the 1970s, the 1980s-1990s and the 2000s. For example it was noted that during the 1970s the main fashion was that of growth with no on talking about conservation or IUU fishing. By the 1980s-1990s the fashion had turned to that of rationalization, quotas, limits and licensing. The 2000s saw the introduction of mixed policies which Prof. Akhmad described as moving forwards and moving backwards. He questioned whether Indonesia should follow the Western type of fisheries management or try to develop its own type based on its own needs and problems. Prof. Akhmad also highlighted the Thompson-Burkenroad debate over fisheries management. This referred to whether fisheries policies should focus on studying fishes or on fisher folks themselves. Prof. Akhmad argued that the priority should be on fishers not fish, as the problem of IUU fishing was that of people. He then went on to identify the challenges of tackling IUU fishing. It was noted that IUU fishing was often linked to political issues and so was often a sensitive subject. It was also noted that the complexity of institutional aspects was another challenge. There were simply too many regulations and too many institutions tackling the same 7

9 issue of fisheries management. As such, efforts to tackle IUU fishing tended to follow the low hanging fruits approach which in Prof. Akhmad s view could not offer long term solutions. A third challenge was challenge was the costs involved in following the business as usual approach. He noted that MCS and closing the net approaches required expensive equipment that needed to be purchase from overseas and required experts to maintain. A fourth challenge was the fact that current agreements such as the RPOA and NPOA may be difficult to implement due to different interests among nations. This was why there was a tendency to hold many workshops with very little implementation seen. Another challenge was the fact that fish were a fugitive resource that moved beyond national waters. Lastly, Prof. Akhmad highlighted the lacking cost of recovery aspect to fisheries management. On this point, he noted how countries such as Australia, Canada and Norway made the cost of fisheries management be derived from fisheries industries themselves. This created a sense of responsibility among those industries to ensure IUU fishing did not take place. In contrast, Indonesia only made people pay for fishing licenses but not for cost recovery. Towards the end of his presentation, Prof. Akhmad focused on the opportunities to improve fisheries managements. He questioned whether it was possible for ASEAN to adopt a shared platform like the EU s common fisheries policies to cover fisheries management, international policy, market and trade policy, and funding. Prof. Akhmad argued that if the EU could do so, there was no reason why ASEAN could not do the same, even if they could not copy the exact same platform. Prof. Akhmad also questioned how to reconcile fisheries management among ASEAN countries. Here he suggested that there was a big opportunity for ASEAN to improve its data management. It was also suggested that economic instruments be used to curb illegal fishing. He asked that efforts to tackle IUU fishing move beyond soft and hard structures and include economic structures arguing that fisher folks would be more responsive to economic incentives/disincentives. As such, Prof. Akhmad called for the use of market incentives, taxation policies, subsidies, and cost recovery to create a sense of responsibility for the players to engage and reduce IUU fishing. Similarly it was important to incorporate the benefits and cost of IUU fishing into macroeconomic indicators to convince policy makers such as parliamentarians to care more about the problem of IUU fishing. In concluding, Prof. Akhmad ended by identifying what was needed in the region. These were: (1) managing stock, efforts and people, (2) stock accounting for ASEAN countries, (3) mapping and assessing fishing capacity, (4) de-bottlenecking institutional complexity and (5) engagement in and implementation of regional and international agreements. Mr. Philippe Courrouyan (CLS ASEAN Director, Collecte, Localisation, Satellites) The last speaker to present was Mr. Philippe Courrouyan. He began by sharing with the audience an event which took place last year involving Taiwanese fishing vessels conducting IUU fishing in Filipino waters. The event saw patrol vessels from the Philippines giving chase to the Taiwanese vessels who were trying to evade capture and resulted in shots being fired and the death of Taiwanese fishermen. As a result, there was a huge national outcry in Taiwan which 8

10 Mr. Philippe suggested demonstrated the story of IUU fishing in the ASEAN region. In his view, the problem of IUU fishing was both simple and complicated at the same time. Mr. Philippe also described his visit to Yangon where the Myanmar authorities decided to ban all Thai vessels from its waters. He took the view that when the topic of IUU fishing in the region is being discussed, what was actually being discussed was the fact that some ASEAN countries have huge fisheries resources (such as Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines) while others previously had huge resources before they suffered from overfishing, leaving the entire marine ecosystem ransacked. Mr. Philippe remarked that these latter countries that had suffered from overfishing still possessed large fishing fleets and were competing against countries with abundance fishing resources but small (and in some cases traditional) fleets. As such it was a matter of balance. Whilst agreeing with Prof. Akhmad s statement that for every USD 1 taken from the fisheries sector, USD 3 would be generated into the economy, Mr. Philippe suggested that in some cases the value was higher (as much as USD 10). This was because some countries in ASEAN possessed large fishing processing facilities to export fishing products to countries such as Japan. However there were other ASEAN countries that did not possess such capabilities demonstrating the unbalance situation in the region. Mr. Philippe summed up the long standing issue of IUU fishing as relating to the lack of resources in the vessel s own waters which led them to fish in other territories, and where licenses were not available to them they would simply engage in illegal practices. Mr. Philippe identified two aspects that needed to be considered with IUU fishing: (1) IUU fishing from and within ASEAN and (2) foreign IUU fishing within ASEAN. He opined that if we wished to prevent fishermen from going to neighbouring waters, it was important to better manage our own waters in a more sustainable way. As such he urged for huge education and political actions to be implemented in every country. He noted that such efforts to fix our own waters efforts that were strongly supported by the FAO were being implemented in places such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam whilst Myanmar and the Philippines were starting to implement such actions as well. Mr. Philippe also observed that there had been a significant change in the FAO since the director in charge of fisheries came from ASEAN countries citing the greater emphasis on operational solutions. In order to manage our own resources and waters to make sure fishermen did not move elsewhere, Mr. Philippe said it was time to abandon the old concept of the fisherman as a free man doing as he wished on the High Seas. In other words, Mr. Philippe argued that one way or another, fishermen needed to come under control of the state. Moving on to the notion of integrated fisheries surveillance, Mr. Philippe stated that the concept was now found in many regions of the world and that many countries had joined together to form RFMOs. He cited the example of the WCPFC which was made of many small Pacific countries possessing huge fishing resources together with the major fishing countries of China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The involvement of these major fishing countries was needed was because they often had to go 9

11 to the Pacific ocean to find fish as the waters of Japan, for example, were simply not enough to feed its market. Elaborating more on the RFMOs, Mr. Philippe stated that the major fishing countries and the small Pacific coastal countries had decided to come together and regulate their fisheries. This resulted in all fishing vessels being monitored with data sent to national centres. When fishing vessels moved from one water to another they could then be known by coastal countries who could manage the quota of fishing catches and licenses. Mr. Philippe argued that the process was simple amounting to nothing more complicated than the exchange of data and with marginal costs. He further argued that ASEAN could also introduce its own RFMO as many were already implementing MCS. It was only a matter of political will in his view. Discussing more on the possibility of an ASEAN RFMO, Mr. Philippe stated that this would first suppose that each ASEAN country had implemented regulations and systems to monitor their vessels (i.e. VMS). If this was done, an ASEAN RFMO was technically a simple process to exchange information about vessels crossing waters within ASEAN. Mr. Philippe observed that Indonesia had already started establishing a VMS since 10 years ago. Moreover he took the view that an ASEAN RFMO would solve a lot of the discussions and meetings taking place each year and ensure fishermen stayed within their own waters. However, Mr. Philippe cautioned that the second aspect of IUU fishing those that involved foreign fishing vessels was more complicated. Alluding to northern fishing nations, Mr. Philippe argued that the only way to tackle this second aspect of IUU fishing was through an Identification of Friends and Foes (IFF) approach. Friends referred to licensed vessels with a VMS installed. In contrast a Foe referred to any vessels that came within a state s water in an aggressive manner, taking huge amounts of fishes and stealing revenues and jobs that did not belong to them. Mr. Philippe stressed the effectiveness of integrated fisheries surveillance by illustrating how Australian and French authorities were able to successfully stop the IUU fishing of the Patagonian toothfish (considered one of the most expensive fish in the world) in the South Indian Ocean by installing radio antenna to spot illegal vessels. These installations had made illegal fishermen to be often and easily caught by authorities who would impose have economic punishments. Mr. Philippe reiterated that what was needed was simply to integrate the different techniques that existed already. ASEAN should thus adopt an integrated approach to monitor IUU fishing in ASEAN s EEZ explaining that some ASEAN countries had already implemented such monitoring techniques but others had not. It was noted that Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia had all installed VMS with Myanmar planning to install one by the end of the year and the Philippines possessing a VMS that could detect outer shipping. In terms of radar satellites, Indonesia and Vietnam possessed such equipment with Myanmar planning to install one next year and the Philippines employing data from external parties. Interestingly Thailand did no possess either VMS or radar satellites. 10

12 In concluding his presentation, Mr. Philippe stressed that IUU fishing within ASEAN could be tackled as long as each ASEAN country implemented control systems on their own vessels. By doing so, it could solve many of the diplomatic and economic problems related to IUU fishing. Similarly IUU fishing could be tackled as long as technical capabilities were shared. Since some countries would never be able to invest in such technologies, it was important for ASEAN s richer members to share technical capabilities. Mr. Philippe ended by saying the fight against IUU fishing could be a first step towards a more regional fish management system and resource management system in ASEAN. Question and Answer Session Ms. Rahimah Abdulrahim (moderator): One thing we have heard a lot today is the importance of political will and it was also mentioned how changes in administrations and ministers resulted in changes in policies. As we all know 2014 is a very important year for Indonesia with the General and Presidential elections coming up. We usually talk about the issue of IUU fishing in isolation from the much wider picture of what is happening in the country. It is clear we need to also discuss how to synchronize ministries, elections, political will, etc. with IUU fishing. For example we cannot talk about customs without talking about corruption. Perhaps if it wasn t for this wider picture, all the suggestions and recommendations offered today could be simply implemented already. Comment No. 1: I have three questions. First, it was mentioned that Thailand does not have VMS or satellite radars. Why is this so when we know that Thailand is a major fishing player that often comes to our territory? Second, regarding all the different RFMOs, which countries dominate these institutions and how is Indonesia s position? Lastly, how good are Indonesia s surveillance devices to carry out the function of MCS? Response: In his response, Mr. Philippe agreed that Thailand was indeed a major fishing nation, possessing huge fishing processing capacity that made a large part of Thailand s wealth. He suggested that the problem with Thailand was that there were no more fishes found within the Gulf of Thailand. This meant that Thai vessels often had to fish elsewhere. However he cautioned that when we talked about IUU fishing, we were in fact talking about a small part of the fishing industry that was misbehaving. It was therefore unfair to apply the actions of this misbehaving group to an entire nation. Mr. Philippe suggested that the reason Thailand did not implement MCS or satellite radars was simply because the number of Thai vessels in Thai waters was small. Moreover, he highlighted the strong objections from Thailand s fishing industries whenever the Thai government discussed implementing control measures. Meanwhile, Ms. Ida responded by saying Indonesia s membership of the various RFMOs was important so that it could be part of the highest decision making process. If Indonesia was not a member of these RFMOs it would not have a voice to express its positions on discussions over things such as fishing quotas. While it was not clear which countries dominated these RFMOs, Ms. Ida suggested that countries that were able to convince others of their ability to implement 11

13 their responsibilities usually had greater bargaining power during negotiations. On the question of Indonesia s surveillance and monitoring devices, Ms. Ida said that of the 27 patrol vessels at KKP-RI s disposal, half of them were over 10 years old and needed replacing. Ms. Ida explained that the Ministry was currently constructing four large patrol vessels. However, it was noted that operating patrol vessels was very expensive (e.g. fuel costs) and so her Ministry had requested the help of Indonesia s navy and police force who unfortunately faced the same problems of high operational costs. In terms of Indonesia s VMS, Ms. Ida stated that Indonesia was able to monitor up to 15,000 vessels. However the figure stood at 4,500 as only these were the cooperative ones. She added that Indonesia also possessed long range cameras. Comment No. 2: Do those 27 patrol vessels operate 24 hours? If not, how many days in a year do they operate? How about for satellites? Response: Here Ms. Ida admitted that the number of days the patrol vessels operated in a year was in decline. She revealed that in 2011 the figure was 180 days out on patrol, dropping to 140 days in 2013, 110 days in 2013 and an expected 90 days in She noted that this was actually against national fishing laws but the issue had now become that of political will. Regarding satellites, she stated that satellites were actually expensive and so was still an ongoing process. However she reminded everybody that even if vessels could be monitored through satellite sightings, it still required patrol vessels to conduct interceptions. Comment No. 3: I did not fully agree with the statement that the Philippines-Taiwan incident mentioned before took place in Filipino waters. In fact they took place in disputed waters as the territorial waters of the Philippines and Taiwan have not yet been determined. In my view, the Filipino patrol vessel overreacted by using machine guns to unleash 56 bullets against the Taiwanese fishing vessels, causing deaths. This caused national anger with the Taiwanese demanding an official apology and threatening economic sanctions. Fortunately, Manila did apology and during later fisheries talks we requested that any future issue should first be reported to Taiwan. We (Taiwan) also used to have fishing disputes with Japan but we finally set aside out differences, engaged in talks and now have a fisheries agreement with Tokyo. I hope we can also have a similar outcome with the Philippines. Response: Mr. Philippe took the view that the issue between the Philippines and Taiwan was a grey area that could only be solved through the United Nations. He admitted that this would take a long time but also argued that a bad agreement is better than no agreement. In this sense he welcomed Taiwan s agreement with Japan which he saw as a good way for two nations to build 12

14 better relations and echoed the hope that such agreements could be extended to other countries in ASEAN. Comment No. 4: I was very shocked to know that Taiwanese vessels conducted illegal fishing in Indonesia. Our government has instructed every fishing vessel to install VMS devices and radar system. I m very happy to see the suggestion for an ASEAN RFMO which I think is a good idea but it should be remembered that Taiwan is a big fishing country that fishes everywhere. We want to follow rules but if Taiwan is not invited to attend such talks, there will be big issues that occur. Response: Mr. Philippe responded by reemphasizing the reason the WCPFC was able to work successfully was because of the involvement of both the major fishing nations (China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and the small Pacific coastal nations. He agreed that it was important for all parties to be around the negotiation table. Comment No. 5: I m very happy to hear Indonesia has plans to buy surveillance equipment like aircrafts and others for MCS. It was mentioned before that the Indonesian government does not have sustainable policies. Yet now we are facing problems such as environmental degradation and climate change. How can we make the government issue sustainable policies and not fall into the trap of different ministers introducing different policies? Also how can we integrate MCS with other surveillance of other bodies? Response: In her answer, Ms. Ida explained that there were no current plans to buy aircrafts and instead the focus was only on the aforementioned four large patrol vessels. Mr. Philippe added by saying two years Indonesia had installed software from CLS that was compatible with KKP-RI S own software. He argued that there was no need to worry about budgets as Indonesia already had the equipment to analyse radar/satellite data. He also suggested that it was easy to optimize the relationship between different agencies. Prof. Akhmad cited one of the problems in Indonesia was the abandonment of GBHN (Garis- Besar Haluan Negara or Broad Outlines of State Policy) which had previously been the bible books of development. He remarked that GBHN had previously been the basis for the Indonesia s system of performance evaluation for the country s various ministries. Comment No. 6: We are happy to see the activities carried out by KKP-RI on logbooks, VMS, MCS etc. We are on the track towards creating sustainable policies but the question now is what speed? The slow track or the fast track? We are running out of time and out fish stocks are under attack from many uncooperative fishing vessels. Therefore we should go with the fast track and we cannot keep this discussion in just an internal perspective. There is now an ongoing discussion at the UN on how to protect the biodiversity found in national jurisdiction. This is very important as sustainable fishery can support and be attached to the issue of food 13

15 security. Therefore it is not just an economic issue. The fishing business should not be for the government sector or the private sector but for the people also. We should make fisheries more fair and just. Response: In response, all the speakers agreed with the comment on the importance of sustainable fisheries. To end the sixth Talking ASEAN, Ms. Rahimah Abdulrahim thanked the three speakers and pledged to revisit the topic of IUU fishing once the new Indonesian Government was in place. She stated that the issue of IUU fishing was indeed very important and that the discussion today had only just scratched the surface. --End-- 14