Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
- Distinction between type..
- Economic and environment..
- Certification and labeli..
- Enforcement
- Flag state liability
- Political processes
- IUU Fishing in the India..
- IUU fishing in the Medit..
- Fisheries crime
- Women Security and IUU F..
- See also
- References
- Further reading
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ( IUU) is a board term that refers to fishing without the permission of a nation state, or in contravention of its laws and regulations; unreported or misreported fishing; and fishing that is conducted in an area with no applicable conservation or management measures.
IUU is an issue around the world. The fishing industry observers believe IUU occurs in most fisheries, and accounts for up to 30% of total catches in some important fisheries.World Wildlife Fund. " Fishing problems: Illegal fishing"
Distinction between types of IUU
Unreported fishing is fishing that has been unreported or misreported to the relevant national authority or RFMO, in contravention of applicable laws and regulations.
Unregulated fishing generally refers to fishing by vessels without nationality, vessels flying the flag of a country not party to the RFMO governing that fishing area or species on the high seas, or harvesting in unregulated areas.
The drivers behind illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing are similar to those behind many other types of international environmental crime: pirate fishers have a strong economic incentive – many species of fish, particularly those that have been over-exploited and are thus in short supply, are of high financial value.
Such IUU activity may then show a high chance of success – i.e. a high rate of return – from the failure of governments to regulate adequately (e.g. inadequate coverage of international agreements), or to enforce national or international laws (e.g. because of lack of capacity, or poor levels of governance). A particular driver behind IUU fishing is the failure of a number of flag states to exercise effective regulation over ships on their registers – which in turn creates an incentive for ships to register under these flags of convenience.
The Chinese commercial fishing fleet is responsible for more IUU fishing than that of any other nation.
Economic and environmental impacts of IUU fishing
The environmental effects of IUU fishing
Illegal fishing methods usually damage the seabed and the marine flora: fishing gears, chemicals, and explosions, can affect organisms' growthJennings, S., & Kaiser, M. J. (n.d.). The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems. and cause sediment transport, which blocks or reduces light, endangering the growth and settlement of oysters and scallop. Fishing gears and fishing methods in prohibited areas often damage the habitat, leading to environmental damage and fish detriment.International Maritime Organization (2024). Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing
The impact on fish stock is an effect of overfishing and Overexploitation, which can damage the ecosystem biodiversity and can create an imbalance in the food chain, thus affecting predators, Forage fish species, and marine mammals. In addition, the catch of high market valued species, such as tuna and sharks, contribute to the depletion of fish stocks, causing both environmental effects, and food security. Bycatch further exacerbates fish depletion and ecosystem damage, because the catch is often left in the ocean, contributing to ocean pollution, harming marine life, and impacting the honest fishermen' economy, who cannot sell that fish if they catch it.
Cargados Carajos Shoals (Mauritius)
The main island, Mauritius, is situated 800 km east of Madagascar, has a land area of 2040 km2 and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 2.3 million square kilometres which is impossible to patrol and control, given its resources. This leads to massive Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by foreign fishing fleets including the Taiwanese fleet which has the biggest fleet based in Port Louis and is documented as flouting the law, including human rights, worldwide multiple times on record.
Mauritian fishing cooperatives also allegedly engage in Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and are sometimes apprehended but their movements are impossible to track.
West Africa has been consistently identified as the global epicentre of IUU fishing, with estimates indicating that up to 37% of fish caught in the region are unreported or illegal. Evidence of foreign industrial fleets exploit enforcement gaps, weak governance, and limited maritime capacity to extract significant marine resources, often undermining the livelihoods of artisanal fishing communities. While West Africa has received growing scholarly and policy attention, the South Atlantic remains relatively underexplored in academic literature despite facing similar vulnerabilities. As one of the most heavily exploited marine zones in the Atlantic, West Africa's coastal waters represent a frontline in the global struggle against IUU fishing. The region's vast Exclusive Economic Zones, rich biodiversity, and relatively limited enforcement infrastructure have made it particularly susceptible to incursions by foreign industrial fleets. Despite the existence of global governance instruments such as UNCLOS and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which call for the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources, West Africa remains a hotspot of IUU activity, pointing to the disconnect between legal frameworks and practical enforcement.
In addition to its socioeconomic impacts, IUU fishing in West Africa has severe environmental consequences. Illegal vessels frequently use destructive fishing techniques, such as bottom trawling and the use of fine-mesh or prohibited gear, which lead to seabed degradation, habitat destruction, and the bycatch of juvenile and non-target species. These practices contribute to the collapse of fish stocks, disrupt marine food webs, and threaten the long-term sustainability of marine biodiversity in the region. The lack of adequate monitoring means that endangered species, such as sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals, are often caught unintentionally and discarded at sea, contributing to biodiversity loss. Furthermore, IUU fishing contributes to unsustainable levels of fishing pressure on critical species such as sardinella, horse mackerel, and hake, many of which are essential for both ecological balance and food security.
Climate change is compounding these effects. Warmer sea temperatures and shifting fish distributions make stocks more vulnerable to IUU exploitation, particularly in upwelling zones such as the Canary and Benguela Currents. In such regions, depleted fish stocks recover more slowly due to changes in ocean productivity and nutrient flows, magnifying the long-term ecological toll of illegal fishing.
America
The main environmental effects in America involve the depletion of Fish stocks, the extermination of fish populations and the devastation of local ecosystems. In Ecuador, shark finning has led to the decline in size of shark catch, and overfishing and IUU fishing is leading to a depletion of the resources; in Guyana, bycatch is endangering turtles' survival; in Chile, Seaweed farming is destroying the marine ecosystem, and in Costa Rica, the use of dynamite as a fishing method is reducing fishing species, destroying the food chain and damaging the habitat. IUU in Cuba is leading to a decrease in lobster stocks, decreasing the fish population, and thus endangering the marine food chain, causing food insecurity for the population in the area. Illegal fishing during spawning season is destroying the fishing reproduction and restoration in Panama. In California, bycatch is endangering many species of vaquita.
IUU fishing makes the global economy lose between $10 billion and $23 billion annually, and is valued up to $23.5 billion, placing it among the most profitable natural resource crimes.Collyns, D. (2022). Illegal fishing spurs billions in losses for developing countries, study says. The Guardian
The major economic impacts of IUU fishing are unfair competition, job losses, declining revenues for legal fishers, tax revenue losses for governments, poverty and Food security for artisanal fishers and fishing communities, price distortion and overexploitation of fish stock.
Unfair competition and subsequent job losses happen when legal and illegal catches are both sold on the same markets: the abundance of illegal catches drives the prices down, forcing legitimate and honest fishermen to sell the product at a lower price and bear the for conservation and management measures, ultimately endangering their profits and generally leading to Deficit spending. Furthermore, because illegal fish in the market often lacks , this latter can compromise the overall brand perception, and thus impact honest sellers by devaluating the product. Illegal fishing activities within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of by unauthorized vessels can lead to serious economic losses for both the affected coastal State and its industries, and local fishermen lose potential opportunity of catching and selling the fish in the market. Another economic impact concerns the loss of government revenue from Fishing license, as well as sales and Tariff: IUU vessels evade these fees and taxes, sometimes by transporting fish through various countries to avoid taxation, or by transferring catches to other vessels while on the high sea, thus reducing export earnings for the government, and resulting in losses for the transport industries as well.
Food insecurity is another effect of IUU fishing. Illegal fishing undermines the economy and human security of coastal communities, impacting the stock assessment by distorting the record of catches in that area, thus leading to wrong calculus on the fish exploitation. By un-reporting, IUU fishing often makes the countries set higher catching levels than the one necessary to guarantee the replenishment of fish population, which leads to food security and dangers for the survival of the species. As fish stock diminishes, fishermen struggle to meet the needs of their families and their community, resulting in economic losses and food insecurity for the coastal population, which relies on it as a primary source of protein. Consequently, countries are compelled to import fish for domestic consumption, resulting in additional economic losses.
The impacts of IUU are interconnected: as stocks decrease, the value of catch rises, thereby increasing the likelihood of overfishing, and illegal fishing.
Illegal fishing by Indian fishermen in Sri Lankan waters in large numbers have led to several confutations including several deaths reported among Indian fishermen and Sri Lanka Navy that regularly intercept Indian fishing boats under the "Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No 2 of 1996".
The challenges facing Brazil's coastal fisheries, particularly within its largest Marine Protected Area (MPA), compounding this issue is the economic incentive structure driving overexploitation. The high market value of species such as green and red lobsters, worth as much as US$32/kg on the international market, has created a boom in extraction, often illegal, which has contributed to stock collapse. Lobster populations in Brazil are now at just 18% of their natural biomass. Despite an official lobster fleet of 2,900 boats, illegal catches are widespread, and in 2019 alone, over 6,000 tons were exported, generating more than US$92.5 million, regardless of legality. As the country pursues formal regulatory recognition of this trade, external demand continues to exert pressure on fragile stocks
The use of certification or catch document schemes is encouraged in the FAO's International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing. Several RFMOs include them, including CCAMLR's Catch Documentation Scheme for Toothfish, CCSBT's Trade Information Scheme for Southern Bluefin Tuna and ICCAT's Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Programme. Similar systems are applied at a national level, including the USA's Certification of Origin of Tuna and Tuna Tracking and Verification Systems, Japan's reporting requirements (including area of capture) for all imports or transportation of tunas into Japan by boat, and the EU's labelling of all fish products (including area of capture).
To achieve certification as sustainable a fishery must meet a standard based on three principles:
Fisheries that meet the MSC standard for a sustainable fishery can use the blue MSC ecolabel on their seafood products.
The second element of the program is a certification for seafood traceability. This is called MSC Chain of Custody. From the fishery, every company in the supply chain that handles the certified fish is checked to ensure the MSC label is only applied to fish products that come from a certified fishery. This requires effective record-keeping and storage procedures. This traceability element of the program helps to keep illegally fished seafood out of the supply chain by linking seafood sold in shops and restaurants to a certified sustainable fishery.
The MSC eco-label enables consumers to identify sustainable seafood when shopping or dining out. As of June 2014, there are over 14,000 MSC-labelled seafood products sold in over 90 countries around the world. The MSC website lists outlets selling MSC-certified seafood.
The six MSC-certified Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic toothfish fisheries (which are the South Georgia, Ross Sea, Heard Island, Macquarie Island, Kerguelen Islands and Falkland Islands fisheries) provide an example of how good fisheries management can reverse the trend of illegal fishing. These fisheries took, among others, the following steps to exclude illegal vessels from their waters:
Seafish offers regulatory guidance and services to all parts of the seafood industry in the UK, including catching and aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood, as well as restaurants and retailers. Seafish is funded by a levy on the first sale of seafood landed in the UK. Its services are intended to support and improve the environmental sustainability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the industry, as well as promoting responsibly-sourced seafood.
There are obvious problems with enforcing fisheries regulations on the , including locating and apprehending the pirate ships, but solutions are available, chiefly through improved monitoring and surveillance systems.
Many fishermen are getting away with IUU ocean fishing due to the difficulty of monitoring every single fishing boat. This will begin to change with new technology that is able to watch and follow each boat from space consistently. This will be done through radio beacons, which all boats in the ocean are required to have. By implementing this new monitoring system, it will be impossible for fishermen to get away with IUU fishing in the future. MSC systems are similarly of value within exclusive economic zones, including, for example, offshore patrols and licensing schemes.
The aggressive efforts of the Indonesian government to curtail illegal fishing has "reduced total fishing effort by at least 25%, ... potentially generate a 14% increase in catch and a 12% increase in profit." Therefore, the authors concluded that "many nations can recover their fisheries while avoiding these short-term costs by sharply addressing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing."
In December 2022, the United States Secretary of the Treasury issued sanctions on Pingtan Marine Enterprise and related individuals over human rights abuses tied to China-based illegal fishing.
Brazil has made some institutional strides, most notably through the implementation of the National Program for Tracking Fishing Vessels by Satellite (PREPS). This Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) was intended to serve as a spatial fleet management tool to promote orderly fishing practices. However there is still some scrutiny around the effectiveness of such enforecement: many vessels remain untracked or falsify AIS data, and as Nunes et al. note, "PREPS... does not effectively cover all fishing vessels, particularly those not officially registered or those using AIS transponders improperly".
While it is also to rembember the importance of binding international instruments such as UNCLOS, the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), and the FAO Code of Conduct, some scholars critiqued their enforcement in weak governance contexts. Importantly, they highlight the role of technological innovations such as satellite-based AIS and VMS systems, DNA forensics, and blockchain traceability as means to improve surveillance and supply chain transparency. While acknowledging the utility of these tools, the article warns of false positives, data manipulation, and surveillance fatigue, especially where data-sharing protocols are weak or voluntary.
Therefore, in order to stop these illegal practices, there needs to be an enhancement of a more holistic approach to IUU fishing, implying a direct effort between state and non-state actors, together, to establish long-term solutions; whilst holding a stronger accountability for the non-compliance of the international legal bindings and incentivize their cooperation.
TMT's (Trygg Mat Tracking) Combined IUU Vessel List maintains the best available, up-to-date information on all fishing and related vessels that appear on the illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing vessel lists published by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and other related organisations."
In March 2013 the issue of
A number of states and international organizations also made submissions adopting a range positions with respect to the four questions above. It was held by some states that the Tribunal lacked the advisory jurisdiction to respond to these questions. Both the government of Spain, a major contributor to the problem of IUU fishing, as well as the United Kingdom adopted such a view. A number of other states took the position that flag state responsibility for IUU fishing should take the form of a general responsibility to perform due diligence with respect to vessels and their activities, rather than an obligation to assist in prosecutions or another more substantive requirement.
In its Advisory Opinion issued on 2 April 2015, the Tribunal adopted the "due diligence" approach. The Tribunal found that flag states are under only a general obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure that their nationals and vessels flying their flag are not engaged in IUU fishing activities. This obligation may be satisfied by adhering to generally accepted international norms of fishing vessel regulation and complying with international treaties that indicate best practices. At the same time, the Tribunal found that in coastal waters the coastal state bears primary responsibility for preventing IUU fishing and not the flag state.
At the EU level, more responsibility will be requested with regard to member state nationals acting under a flag of convenience. Moreover, market measures concerning fisheries products caught in violation of the international agreements will be adopted. In addition, information actions addressed to the fishing industry, consumers, and the public will be launched to raise their awareness.
In the framework of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, control and inspection plans would be adopted as well as specific conservation and management measures. In addition IUU vessels would be identified and monitored and their catches would be quantified.
At the international level, concepts like genuine link would be defined, and a number of rights and obligations of the port state would be established. Moreover, the exchange of information on IUU activities and the international co-operation would be strengthened.
In partnership with developing countries, the necessary means would be provided to enable them to effectively control fishing activities undertaken in waters under their jurisdiction.
European Commission sanctions against states operating open ship registries and flags of convenience for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing have been effective in pressuring states to reform or limit their open ship registries to fishing vessels, or at least in severely curtailing registrations under that jurisdiction. These sanctions generally limit or ban access to the European Common Market for fisheries products produced by vessels of a certain state.
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.
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.http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=topic&fid=2940
Most legal instruments build on the foundation established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was agreed in 1982 and entered into force in 1992.
The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which entered into force in 2001, sets out principles for the conservation and management of fish stocks and establishes that such management must be based on the precautionary approach and the best available scientific information. The Agreement provides a framework for cooperation on conservation and management, but since only about a third of the parties to the Law of the Sea Convention have ratified it, its impact is inevitably limited.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) carries out much of the technical work on international fisheries management, and provides a forum for the negotiation of agreements and codes of conduct. In 1995 the FAO agreed its Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to promote long-term sustainable management.
In 2001, the FAO adopted the International Plan of Action (IPOA) on IUU Fishing. The aim of this voluntary instrument is to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by providing all states with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures by which to act, including through appropriate regional fisheries management organisations established in accordance with international law.
The FAO Compliance Agreement, which entered into force in 2003, is designed to close a major loophole in international fisheries management, that of the circumvention of fisheries regulations by 're-flagging' vessels under the flags of states that are unable or unwilling to enforce such measures.
In 2009, the FAO brokered the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which entered into force in 2016. The agreement closes ports to vessels suspected of illegal fishing. The treaty requires that fishing vessels request permission to dock and inform the port of the details of its fishing operations. Permission to dock can be denied if unregulated fishing was occurring. The measure is intended to 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 their own flags, they may choose to do so under the agreement.
Commitments made by the FAO have seen an increase in international participation in anti IUU fishing practices. The UN Committee On Fisheries produced a report concerning the status of anti IUU fishing strategies implemented by UN member states during the 34th COFI conference. Additions to the COFI plan include the creation of a Global Record of Fishing beginning in 2017. COFI recommends that each vessel's Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) number be uploaded to the registry. Of the various member states, the COFI report recognizes that the utilization of the record is not yet prevalent in Asia, while European, North American, and Latin American nations have added the most vessels to the record. Further recommendations by COFI mandate that the FAO continue to provide support to fisheries pursuing subsidies from the World Trade Organization. The committee also called for the establishment of on transshipment, targeted to combat the practice of transferring illegal catch between vessels, making it more difficult to track illegal fishing operations. COFI developed a series of Voluntary Guidelines for Catch Documentation Schemes (VGCDS) in 2017 in order to prevent the sale of products suspected of being attained through IUU fishing. COFI has facilitated two international workshops to assist in the implementation of these guidelines. Annexes 1-3 of the report detail the recommendations that each member state has taken to measure international progress. The 34th UN Committee on Fisheries (COFI) report on Illegal, unreported and unregistered fishing concluded that further study must be conducted on the impact of IUU fishing. The report recommended the creation of a series of volumes including previous estimates of IUU impact and a set of for fielding further study.
IUU fishing emerged as a regional issue in the early 1990s, following the collapse of state institutions in coastal states such as Somalia. The absences of governance in Somali waters invited foreign fleets to operate illegally, harvesting high-value species like Tuna without regulation. This contributed to grievances that catalysed piracy off Somalia2. Historically, Illicit fishing in the region has been driven by overcapacity in foreign fleets, weak enforcement capacity in coastal nations, and high demand for seafood in global markets3.
Technological tools are increasingly used to improve surveillance. Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking allow authorities to monitor fishing vessels remotely in real time. In addition, satellite-based AIS tracking is increasingly being deployed to detect suspicious activity9. Some countries are also adopting electronic observer cameras on fishing vessels to supplement or replace human observers, improving compliance monitoring at sea. These advancements make it harder for IUU vessels to operate undetected over the vast ocean. The Eye in the Sky program and regional frameworks like "FISH-i Africa" have improved intelligence-sharing. Yet, sovereignty sensitivities and limited funding continue to hamper joint operations1011.
Overall, eliminating IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean will require a combination of better enforcement, greater transparency, and regional collaboration. Strengthening international agreements, deploying new monitoring technologies (from satellite surveillance to electronic reporting), and building the capacity of coastal states are all seen as vital steps toward protecting marine resources and ensuring sustainable fisheries in the region.
----1 Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. (2021). IUU Fishing Index 2021. https://iuufishingindex.net/
2 Bueger, C. & Edmunds, T. (2022). "Blue crime: transnational organised crime at sea". Marine Policy (138), pp. 104983 .
3 Raymond, C. Z. (2009). "Piracy and Armed Robbery in the Malacca Strait". In A. Forbes 8Ed.) "Australian Maritime Issues 2007", pp. 47–64). Sea Power Centre – Australia.
4 Global Fishing Watch & Trygg Mat Tracking. (2020). ''Illegal Fishing Hotspot Identified in Northwest Indian Ocean''.
5 Djama, M. A. (2011). "Illegal Fishing and the Challenges of Maritime Security in Somalia's EEZ". UN Nippon Foundation Fellowship Programme.
6 Maritime India (2021). "Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in Palk Bay: Issues and Challenges".
7 Zaman et al. (2021). "IUU Fishing and Maritime Disputes in South Asia". Journal of Maritime Affairs, 3(1), pp. 41–57.
8 UNDOC (2024). "Maritime Crime Threat Assessmant – Indian Ocean Region". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
9 Liang et al. (2024). "PiracyAnalyzer: Spatial-Temporal patterns analysis of Global piracy incidents". Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety (243), pp. 109877.
10 Pulungan, R. W. (2009). "Enhancing Maritme Security in the Malacca Strait: Cooperation Agains Piracy and Maritime Terrorism". Indonesian Journal of International Law 7(2), pp. 300–325.
11 Liss, C. (2016). "Piracy in Southeast Asia: Trends, Hot Spots and Responses" In Raymond, V. (Ed.), Piracy in Southeast Asia, pp. 15–27. Routledge.
12 EU IUU Coalition (2022). "Policy Brief: Ensuring effective compliance and traceability along the value chain"
13 World Bank (2022). "Africa Program for Fisheries (SWIOFish)".
IUU fishing (illegal, unreported, unregulated) is a complex threat that causes environmental and economic damage and therefore requires an effort by all states in the region to combat this exploitation. Indeed, these criminal activities endanger the Mediterranean's biodiversity, home to between 4% and 18% of all known marine species.
Under the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries the IUU fishing in the Mediterranean is a worrying problem. To raise awareness of the seriousness of the issue, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) proposed June 5 as the international day in the fight against IUU fishing. The GFCM of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) has a position of prominence in dealing with IUU fishing in the Mediterranean Sea.
The activities linked to IUU threaten management of fish stocks, impoverishes those fishermen who work following the law and harms the maintenance of marine resources. The global scale of the problem is exacerbated in the Mediterranean region, where three quarters of fish stocks are exploited, meaning that 75% of fish stocks are overfished.
Many living species are damaged by IUU fishing in the Mediterranean. According to data collected in Italy, Morocco and Turkey among the most heavily damaged species are albacore, red mullet, sea bream, little tunny, sparid fish, shrimps, octopus, swordfish, mullet. In July 2020 the WWF revealed that the illegal fishing of several species of sharks and rays in the Mediterranean has put their survival in serious danger. The citizen scientist initiative MECO (Mediterranean Elasmobranch Citizen Observations) project used social media to share photos taken in 11 Mediterranean countries of illegal fishing activities such as illegal landings of giant devil rays in Spain and the sale of mako and white sharks in Italy and France. The aim of the MECO project is to use social media to develop the knowledge regarding the elasmobranch species (of which sharks and rays are part) and thus determine appropriate protection strategies
The GFCM evaluated that the situation could be recovered after the elimination of IUU activities, even though a complete solution to the problem seems difficult. The GFCM aims to develop an international surveillance system involving the collaboration of actors in the Mediterranean to guarantee adherence to fisheries rules. Among the measures taken under the GFCM are frequent inspections carried out by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) with the support of Algeria, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Libya and Tunisia. Already in 2004 the GFCM worked together with the FAO in a first workshop concerning the issue of IUU fishing in the Mediterranean, proposing a clarification of positive and negative vessels as a first step in the fight against criminals.
Despite the efforts of the GFCM and the FAO still remains a general lack of political will in addressing the issue. Fisheries management in the Mediterranean has harmonization problems in a heterogeneous political framework. Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Malta, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain are EU member states and must adapt to European policies. Since 2010 the European Union has imposed to its members to import in the markets only from legal sources. Other Mediterranean countries follow their own regulations. All of them remain under the authority of the GFCM, as the organization that can address IUU fishing in the Mediterranean as a whole. In 2006 the EU established a ban on trawling under the European Regulation on Mediterranean fishing in those Natura 2000 areas dedicated to the protection of habitats threatened by bottom fishing, such as seagrass beds and coralligenous habitats. However still today the sites are not fully protected, and the ban is not properly implemented in the Mediterranean.
Since January 2010 came into force the EU Regulation to prevent and deter IUU fishing, followed by the 2014 Common Fisheries Policy for a sustainable fishing and aquaculture, but these measures have failed in their purpose, allowing illegal activities to continue. According to the Head of Ocean Policy at WWF European Policy Office, Antonia Leroy, the misapplication of European policies leads to tragic consequences for the entire ecosystem.
Thanks to the online platform Global Fishing Watch and its analysis of vessels' activities, the international advocacy organization Oceana was able to locate illegal bottom trawlers in the Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) accepted by all Mediterranean countries for the protection of specific marine species. The majority of the criminal actions took place in the Sicily Channel where all activities in the seabed are forbidden to not endanger the hake population, already heavily overfished. Oceana reported to the European Commission that many Italian trawlers did not comply with the obligations reserved to the protected areas, totalling 13000 hours of illicit activities. Oceana identified Italy as the biggest offender, turning a blind eye to IUU fishing.
The latest mechanism in the struggle against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities dates to September 2023. It is an e-learning platform called e-FishMed and its objective is to effectively train personnel for fisheries control in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic areas, through e-learning material, video tutorials, manuals and national and regional legislative systems. This project is funded by the European Union and supported by the EFCA. It represents an attempt to harmonize the control of fishing activities among Mediterranean countries, thus fostering greater collaboration for a sustainable Blue Economy.
Common crimes along the fishing value chain include fraud, corruption, tax crime, money laundering, human trafficking, labour crime, and smuggling of drugs weapons and other cargo such as fuel.
IUU as a transnational organized crime
The above named fisheries crimes are also defined as transnational organized crimes (TOC) which are prosecuted more vigorously, and harsher penalties are imposed for violations. Generally, IUU is deeply connected to other forms of TOCs such as human and drug trafficking, corruption and document fraud, to name a few. Nonetheless, it is not treated the same as these other TOCs. Human trafficking and firearms trafficking for example have special provisions given by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNCTOC) but the same does not exist for IUU due to the lack of definition as a transnational organized crime.
A study revealed a close connection between IUU and fisheries crime, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to treat IUU as seriously as other transnational organized crimes in order to effectively address the issue globally and bring about meaningful change. This connection was also pointed out by the UN General Assembly in 2008 that urged all members to take the close ties between IUU and other criminal activities serious and to deepen the knowledge in this area. In general, it is important to note that IUU is executed by a wide range of people involved. In addition to organized criminal groups, there are also legally operating fishermen who went corrupt for the profits since IUU makes legal and sustainable fishing less beneficial. Tackling IUU violations more harshly will thus also reduce other TOCs since it also acts as a root cause for many of these. Generally, in comparison to other organized crimes, IUU presents unique challenges as it frequently intersects with legal fishing activities, making it more difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illicit practices than in cases such as drug or human trafficking.
Human trafficking
Human trafficking within the IUU fishing sector is emerging as an increasingly serious issue. It involves the use of force, coercion or misinformation in the recruitment of persons, with the aim of labour exploitation in relation to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing operations. This often involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals including migrant workers and those living in poverty due to their lack of legal protections and vulnerability to exploitative labour practice as a result of economic hardships and a lack of identity documents. Forced labour in relation to IUU fishing has significant physical and psychological consequences. Exposure to physical violence, threats of violence as well as lack of adequate living conditions and food and water are among some of the frequent human rights abuses that occur on these vessels. The illicit nature of these activities mean there is a lack of clear information on the numbers of human trafficking incidents on board IUU vessels, making it difficult to understand the true extent of the issue.
It is significantly more difficult and costly to police illegal actives at sea than on land and with the added complication of territorial disagreements between countries at sea, it can be easy for IUU vessels to evade law enforcement, making the issue one that is difficult to tackle. Fishing in the high seas further aids vessels in going under the radar due to the remote environment and lack of centralised enforcement authority. The high seas are also more challenging to regulate and monitor than EEZs, making it much easier for human trafficking vessels to operate.
Flags of convenience can further aid human trafficking on board IUU vessels. While not illegal itself, flying another nation's flag can help ships avoid accountability for illegal activities and human rights abuses and evade local labour and human rights laws.
Population increase and food insecurity, particularly in developing countries, has overseen an increased demand for fish, which has increased competition in the fishing industry and led to an increase in illegal fishing as a means to maximise profits. This increased demand has led to a surge in fishing in the high seas, where there are more fish to meed these demands than in coastal waters and exclusive economic zones.
Human trafficking on board IUU vessels is linked with economic underdevelopment and political instability. In the Gulf of Guinea there was a surge in trafficking and smuggling prompted by a decline in economic activity and a succession of intrastate conflicts. These factors can lead to increased poverty and unemployment which can push vulnerable people towards exploitative work. Intrastate conflict often leads to a breakdown in the rule of law and creates an environment where traffickers can thrive. A significant portion of human trafficking in the Gulf of Guinea is enabled by the corruption of high-ranking officials, including but not limited to, diplomats and politicians. These factors can explain why countries with developing economies often have higher rates of human trafficking.
IUU fishing is sustained by systemic vulnerabilities in vessel registration systems, port inspections, and legal frameworks across 14 West African states. There are different complex modi operandi issues including surveillance avoidance, fraudulent licensing, and transhipment at sea, often linked to other crimes such as corruption, customs fraud, human trafficking, and maritime piracy as noted previously. Therefore there is a pressing need for interdisciplinary research and enforcement, which addresses how institutional fragility manifested through corruption, limited governance and weak legal framework creates fertile ground for transnational criminal networks.
In Latin America, countries such as Brazil and Argentina, both key actors in the Atlantic fishing industry, face significant challenges where illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing intersects with human trafficking and forced labor. In Brazil, the extensive coastline and relatively weak enforcement have allowed fishing vessels involved in IUU activities to exploit migrant and local fishers, many of whom work under abusive and coercive conditions Similarly, in Argentina, reports have highlighted cases where distant-water fishing fleets operating near national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) engage in labor exploitation, including forced labor, as a hidden dimension of illegal fishing operations. These vulnerabilities are compounded by limited maritime surveillance and governance gaps, which criminal networks exploit to traffic workers and evade detection. This nexus between IUU fishing and human trafficking undermines efforts toward sustainable fisheries management and violates human rights, creating serious social and economic consequences for coastal communities in the Atlantic basin.
Indeed, women and girls are significantly affected by illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, particularly in coastal and remote fishing communities. In many cases, they are trafficked or coerced into labor, especially in the post-harvest sector, including fish processing and other shore-based operations. These roles often go unrecognized despite their centrality in the fisheries value chain. Reports indicate that some women engage in transactional relationships, sometimes described as "fish-for-sex" arrangements, where access to fish is negotiated through sexual relations with fishers. This practice has been linked to economic vulnerability and the lack of formal recognition of women's roles in the sector. While such relationships are sometimes simplistically associated with sex work, this framing overlooks the economic agency of women and their active participation in the fisheries economy. Gender-based discrimination further exacerbates these conditions, rendering women and girls in the fishing industry largely invisible in both traditional and industrial fisheries. International organizations, including the FAO, have acknowledged the need to address gender inequality in fisheries and aquaculture.
As cited above, According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), women comprise up to 50 percent of the global fisheries workforce when both primary and secondary sectors are considered, especially in post-harvest activities such as smoking, drying, sorting, and marketing fish. Despite their contributions, women are often excluded from policy discussions and official statistics, and face systemic barriers including low pay, insecure work, and poor working conditions. These gender-based disparities not only affect women's livelihoods but also undermine broader goals related to sustainability, food security, and economic development. The FAO calls for gender-responsive fisheries policies and greater inclusion of women in governance frameworks, as outlined in the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, which emphasize gender equality as a critical factor in the sustainable development of the sector.
/ref> Examples include the use of bottom trawling, which destroys sponges that take decades to regrow, and the use of fishing gears like Seine fishing and Blast fishing, which highly damage the reef ecosystems and can kill up to 80% of the coral reef in the target areas.Interafrican Bureau For Animal Resources (n.d.) .Economic, Social and Environmental Impact of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in Africa. African Union.Coral Reef Alliance (2005). Coral Reefs & Exploitive Fishing
/ref>
Africa
Asia-Pacific Region
Oceania
Europe
The economic effects of IUU fishing
/ref> According to some studies, annual global losses due to IUU fishing account between $25 and $50 billion, tax revenues losses for countries are up to $4 billion.Sumaila, U. R., Zeller, D., Hood, L., Palomares, M. L. D., Li, Y., & Pauly, D. (2020). llicit trade in marine fish catch and its effects on ecosystems and people worldwide
Africa
Asia Pacific Region
Oceania
America
Europe
Certification and labeling
Marine Stewardship Council
Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard (RFVS)
Enforcement
Flag state liability
"Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC)"
"Written Statement of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission"
Political processes
EU action plan
High Seas Task Force
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
UN high seas processes
Global goals
IUU Fishing in the Indian Ocean
Notable hotspots
Somali coast and Northwest Indian Ocean
Palk Bay (India–Sri Lanka)
Seychelles and Southwest Indian Ocean
Monitoring and enforcement efforts
Future strategies
IUU fishing in the Mediterranean Sea
Fisheries crime
Women Security and IUU Fishing
See also
Further reading
|
|
