Towards a socially acceptable fisheries governance : implementation of Vessel Monitoring Systems to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing conducted by Sri Lankan Multi-day boats

(1)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

Towards a socially

acceptable fisheries

governance

Implementation of Vessel Monitoring Systems to combat Illegal, Unreported

and Unregulated fishing conducted by Sri Lankan Multi-day Boats

by

Michelle Yahan Hu

Bsc. Earth Sciences and Economics

6/20/2016

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to examine to what extent the implementation of Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) is contributing to the combat against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing conducted by Sri Lankan Multiday fishing boats (MDBs). VMS is a satellite-based system which provides timely information about the location of VMS-installed vessels. It is an enforcement tool used in fisheries management for the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities. It is a newly implemented tool by the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DFAR) of Sri Lanka, in order to revoke the ban on export of fishery products imposed by the European Commission (EC). The ban was received in the first place, due to insufficient control of IUU activities conducted by the Sri Lankan MDBs. It is relevant for scientific purposes as well as for the national government to investigate to what extent IUU fishing is deterred by the implementation of VMS. However, IUU fishing has many aspects and the relevant legal framework needs to be clearly defined in order to determine what is considered as illegal, unreported and unregulated and how the implementation of VMS can contribute to the combat against IUU fishing. Therefore, legal arrangements at different levels are examined to see which applies for Sri Lanka and what are the requirements regarding the management of fisheries. Yet, the implementation of VMS also has its social aspects as the implementation directly affects the fishermen and vessel owners as well as fisheries managers. Therefore, it is also important to recognize their perceptions of this implementation by these groups, in order to measure the actual effect of the implementation.

Relevant governance theories are linked to the implementation of VMS and applied to the research findings. For the purpose of the research, fieldwork has been carried out in the fisheries district Negombo in Sri Lanka. Social research methods such as qualitative interview, surveys and participatory observations have been employed during the fieldwork in order to obtain data for answering the main research question.

The research shows that the VMS implementation has significantly increased the ability of MCS in the Sri Lankan fisheries management. The DFAR is now able to monitor fishing activities conducted by Sri Lankan high seas MDBs and incorporate the data and technology of VMS in the legal frameworks to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, as required by the EC. Furthermore, both fishers’ population and fisheries managers have a positive perception of the VMS implementation, because safety and security for the crew are more guaranteed and the ability of MCS is greatly improved.

As a major accomplishment of the DFAR, the EC has decided to lift the ban on Sri Lankan fisheries products on the 21st of April, 2016, because the EC was convinced by the improvements of fisheries management with regard to the monitoring of fishing activities on the high seas, amendment of legal frameworks and strengthened the sanctions for engaging in IUU fishing.

(6)

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several people that I would like to thank for supporting and helping me complete this research. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Joeri Scholtens for the suggestion of my research topic. It was a challenging topic because there was little literature available about VMS implementation in Sri Lanka. However, due to his contacts with key persons in Sri Lanka and knowledge about doing research in Sri Lanka, I was able to finish my research in time with satisfactory results.

Second, I would like to thank my fellow student and lovely friend Elise Hakkaart, who I spend two months in Sri Lanka with. I have experienced ups and downs during my fieldwork in Sri Lanka, but her support and presence kept me motivated and entertained in those warm and depressing moments. I would also like to thank her for proof reading my thesis.

Third, huge thanks to my Sri Lankan friends. Mr Erande Fernando, who helped me and Elise for everything in Sri Lanka. He also helped me with conducting the interviews in the harbour as a translator. Without him, I would not be able to conduct as many interviews as I have conducted now with his help. Also thanks to Mr Anton Britto Rodriguez for providing me valuable information about the ownership of multiday boats and the Sri Lankan fisheries sector, it has helped me to get an idea of the multiday boats in Sri Lanka in the beginning of the research. Fourth, special thanks to the system admin of the VMS centre Mrs Sadeera for showing me around the VMS centre, helping me with setting up my questionnaire and providing me with the needed information for my research.

Furthermore, huge thanks to Prof Oscar Amarasinghe for providing the required contacts for my research so I could reach the key persons easily, and Dr Nilantha De Silva for helping me with the registration both in the Netherlands and at the university of Ruhuna. I would also like to thank Nilantha for her hospitality for inviting me and Elise to her house in Galle. Further, special thanks to Mrs Dilanthi Koralagama for helping me with the approval to do research in Negombo Harbour, without her help; I would not have been able to ask for permission to do research in the harbour. Finally, I want to thank my family, the climate babes (Flavia, Claire, Joanna and Anne Luz), my friends and Jeroen for their emotional support throughout my master study.

(7)

6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Organizational structure of the MFAR

Appendix 2 Verification of VMS information with Fishing Logbook Data Appendix 3.1 Boat departure form side 1

Appendix 3.2 Boat departure form side 2 Appendix 4 Questionnaire

(8)

7

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

Figure 1 Characteristics of good governance Figure 2 Illustration of different scales and levels

Figure 3 Schematic illustration of cross-level, cross-scale interactions in ocean governance Figure 4 Zones of national jurisdiction according to the UNCLOS 1982

Figure 5 RFMOs that manage fish stocks by region

Figure 6 RFMOs that manage highly migratory fish species, mainly tuna Figure 7 Principle of VMS

Figure 8 Conceptual Scheme Figure 9 District Map of Sri Lanka Figure 10 Sri Lankan EEZ Map Figure 11 Sri Lankan MDB

Figure 12 EEZ’s of countries in the Indian Ocean and the areas of operation of Sri Lankan MDBs

Figure 13 The functional structure of the MFAR

Figure 14 Locations of High seas fishing units in Sri Lanka Figure 15 Radio Communication centre in Negombo Harbour Figure 16 Unloading the catch

Figure 17 Crewmembers cleaning the boat

Figure 18 Number of operating multiday boats per district in Sri Lanka Figure 19 High seas fisheries unit in Negombo harbour

Figure 20 List of active high seas fishing vessels operating from Negombo Harbour Figure 21 Vessel Monitoring Centre in Colombo

Figure 22 Reporting flow of the system

Figure 23 Organizational structure of the VMS centre Figure 24 VMS device funded by the SEASL

Figure 25 VMS device installed by the DFAR Figure 26 Notebook of VMS active codes Figure 27 Fishing logbook information sheet Figure 28 Log sheet of daily catch data

Figure 29 Employment and function of the respondents Figure 30 Perceptions of VMS by function

Figure 31 Reason why respondents think that VMS implementation is good Figure 32 Proposed tracking system by the VMS project manager

Figure 33 Cruise map of Vindana 03 Figure 34 Vindana 03

Tables

Table 1 Definition of illegal fishing, unreported fishing and unregulated fishing

Table 2 Units of analysis

Table 3 International, regional and national institutions for the governance of marine resources

Table 4 Area of Operation by Sri Lankan MDBs Table 5 Knowledge about VMS by function Table 6 Knowledge about the operation of VMS

Table 7 Participation to the training organized by DFAR

(9)

8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AD Assistant Director

CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCBSP Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea

CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

CCSBT Commission for Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna CPR Common Pool Resources

DFAR Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DG Director General

EC European Commission

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ENRC Environmental and Natural Resource Crime

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FI Fisheries Inspectors

FMC Fisheries Monitoring Centre

GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean GPS Global Positioning System

HSFU High Seas Fishing Unit

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas IMBLs International Maritime Boundary Lines

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA-IUU International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing

IPSEC Internet Protocol Security IUU

Fishing

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MDBs Multiday Boats

MEA Marine Engineering Assistant

MFAR Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAFSO National Fisheries Solidarity Movement

NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPOA-IUU National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing

PSMA Port State Measures Agreement QCD Quality Control Department

RFMOs Regional Fisheries Management Organizations SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization SEASL Seafood Exporters Association Sri Lanka SIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement SLT Sri Lanka Telecom

SPRFM South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organizations SSB Short Wave Radio Communication System

(10)

9 UN United Nations

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System

VPN Virtual Private Network

(11)

10

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing can be described as illegal fishing operations which ignore international fishing rules. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), those who are engaged in IUU fishing activities gain unproportioned/unfair advantages over those who do comply with the rules (FAO, 2002). Therefore, IUU fishing is a threat to the current fish stock, marine biodiversity and marine habitat. Covering 70.8% of Earth’s surface (Pidwirny, 2006), oceans are producing valuable renewable resources and sustaining a large portion of biodiversity. Oceans play a vital role in the functionality and productivity of ecosystems, and it also ensures the resilience of marine habitats to environmental change. Fish, as one of the most important and basic source of nutritious food are being over-exploited by humans, the balance between the ocean and its species becomes unstable. Not only the sustainability of the marine environment is affected, but also the management systems, social welfare and economic developments are undermined (Le Gallic, 2007). It is unknown how much fish are exactly caught illegally, unregulated and/or unreported. Yet, according to the FAO, IUU catches accounts for a large percentage of total catches in some important fisheries (FAO, 2002).

IUU fishing occurs everywhere, not only on the high seas but also in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) (wherein states have exclusive rights to exploit the marine resources) and inland fisheries. At the international level, legal developments such as the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing (IPOA-IUU) has been adopted for combating IUU fishing since 2001 (Palma, 2009). However, national, regional and local actions are also needed to eliminate IUU fishing. Since IUU fishers usually operate in areas where Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) is poor (FAO, 2002), the improvement of MCS is seen as one of the most effective approaches in the combat against IUU fishing.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), as one of the instruments in MCS, can greatly improve the ability of MCS in deterring IUU fishing (FAO, 2002). It is a cost-effective tool that provides accurate and timely information about the location and the activity of the vessels (FAO, 2016a). Sri Lanka was one of the biggest exporters of high-value fishery products (e.g. swordfish, tuna) to the (Fioretti, 2014) and was even the second-largest non-EU supplier of fresh tuna to the European Union (EU) (CBI,2015). Therefore, the fisheries sector plays an important role in the Sri Lankan economy as well as social life; it is not only a major source of income for the fishery communities, but their fishery products are also important and affordable sources of animal protein for the population (FAO, 2006). However, due to insufficient control of illegal fishing activities and weak implementation of control measures, the European Commission (EC) has imposed a ban on imports of fisheries products from Sri Lanka in 2014 (EC, 2014) and the ban came into force in 2015. According to the EC, the global value of illegal catches reaches up to 10 billion euros per year (EC, 2015a) and the EU has been working on closing the loopholes that allow IUU fishing, including operators that profits from it (EC, 2010).

The EC has set a number of requirements that the Sri Lankan government needs to fulfill by the end of 2015 in order to be delisted. One of the main requirements was the installation of VMS. Therefore, in April 2015, the Sri Lankan government has taken action to install VMS devices on 1500 multi-day fishing boats (MDB) (DFAR, 2015). As Sri Lanka has successfully improved their fisheries governance system by amending its legal framework, increased the penalties and strengthened fleet control, EU has lifted the ban on the 21st of April, 2016 (European Commission, 2016).

(12)

11 This research aims to examine the ability of VMS to deter IUU fishing by Sri Lankan MDBs by investigating the governance processes that were involved in the VMS implementation in order to revoke the EU ban, as well as looking at the perception of VMS implementation by the fishers’ population and fisheries managers.

1.1 Lay-Out of the Thesis

This thesis is divided into six chapters. The first chapter is an introductory chapter about the research, wherein the research question will be introduced. Problem statement and justification will be also provided in the first chapter of the thesis. The second chapter is the chapter about the theoretical frameworks of the thesis topic. In this chapter the theoretical background and relevant scientific frameworks will be described in the context of the topic. Followed by the methodology chapter wherein the research questions and sub-questions, research methodology, required data and information and research ethics will all be comprehensively described. The fourth chapter is the chapter is regarding the background of the study area. In the fifth chapter, the proposed methods will be carried out in practice and the analysis will be represented. Finally, the conclusion will be provided in the last chapter with a short summary of the answers of the sub-questions.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

VMS is a relatively new tool to the national government of Sri Lanka as well as to the local offshore fishermen. Therefore, the research problem can be derived from the problem that it is still unknown to what extent VMS is able to deter IUU fishing conducted by Sri Lankan MDBs. This is a problem that has been developed from the EU ban on Sri Lankan fishery products and has been transformed into a national problem of implementing a requirement that has been set by an external actor (i.e. EC) and proving its ability in deterring IUU fishing. The initial problem (the EU ban) has possessed pressure on the Sri Lankan government to take actions but is also felt by the local fishermen, which could have the potential to cause socioeconomic implications. The action that the Sri Lankan government has taken as a response to the EU ban is primarily affecting the fisheries communities. However, its impact on the current fisheries management regime and perception of this newly implemented tool by local fishermen are yet to be examined.

The problem definition is thus inconsistent amongst the different actors (EU, Sri Lankan government, fisheries managers, vessel owners and fishermen) due to differences in interests and concerns.

The EU wants to ensure that no illegally caught fisheries products end up on the EU market. Therefore, since 2010, the EU has begun to adopt the regulations proposed by the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU). The regulations are aimed at curbing IUU fishing by stopping the imports of illegal catch (EJF, Oceana, Pew and WWF, 2016b). According to the EU regulations, all landings should have a certification of the origin and legality of the fish; hence, third-countries need to comply with these rules in order to land their fish into the EU market. Countries that do not address the problems or comply with the rules will be identified and labelled as “non-cooperating” which will result in a ban for all fisheries products (EC, 2015b).

Hence, in order to revoke the ban, it is important for the Sri Lankan government to take actions for meeting EC’s requirements. Yet, for the fishermen that have never been engaged in IUU fishing activities, their main concern is that their daily fishing routine would be affected due to the installation of VMS (while their level of income and livelihoods have already been negatively affected by the EU ban (Wilkinson, 2015)). Nevertheless, the application of VMS is also being

(13)

12 sought by many legitimate fishing companies because it would ensure their commercial and safety (Agnew, 2000). On the other hand, IUU fishers are likely to avoid detection (FAO, 2002) and thus will define the problem differently due to their illegal position in the whole debate.

1.3 Purpose and Relevance of the Study

According to existing literature (FAO, 1999), the use of VMS has significantly increased the ability of fisheries managers for monitoring and controlling the fishing activities and it has proven to be an effective and integral tool of MCS in several developed countries (e.g. U.S.A, Australia, New Zealand, EU and Canada) (Matthews, 1999). Yet, scientific literature about the ability of VMS to deter IUU fishing is very limited. Hence, the ability of this tool in deterring IUU fishing is yet to be assessed, especially in the case of Sri Lanka as VMS is newly introduced in this country. This research is aimed at examining to what extent the implementation of VMS (as one of the requirements set by the EC) is contributing to the combat against IUU fishing, focusing on the national governance mechanisms related to VMS implementation and perceptions of VMS by the fishers’ population and fisheries managers.

(14)

13

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, the main theories about managing and governing fisheries will be synthesized following the conceptual scheme in paragraph 2.5 which illustrates the main concepts at international, national and local levels.

2.1 Multilevel Ocean Governance

Governance refers to structures and processes of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented, involving not only the government but also other actors such as associations, cooperatives, NGOs and other different actors (Sheng, 2009). The concept of “Good governance” has eight major characteristics: participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, effective and efficient and follows the rule of law (Sheng, 2009). The concept of good governance will be shortly discussed in the following sub-paragraph.

2.1.1 Good Governance

The term “good governance” has been used by the UN to

conceptualize how

governance should be in order to ensure sustainable human development. However, achieving good governance is not a simple task, very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance (Sheng, 2009). Yet, it is useful as a conceptual

framework for assessing how close certain governance is to achieve good governance. In the processes of decision-making, good governance enables equitable participation rights to different actors. Participation in decision-making processes does not necessary have to be direct, it could also go through legitimate institutions or representatives (Sheng, 2009). Accordingly, the concern of the most vulnerable groups in society needs to be considered whether through direct or indirect participation. Moreover, since there are many interests and point of view in a given society, it is necessary to consider different interests with a view to reaching a consensus to achieve the best interests of the whole community within a reasonable timeframe (Sheng, 2009). Decision-making processes should be efficient and effective with the view of protecting the environment and sustainable use of resources. Furthermore, actors in good governance should be accountable to the public and the stakeholders (Sheng, 2009). Yet, accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. Transparency in good governance means that the decisions and the associated enforcement are following the rules and regulations. Information is complete and freely available and accessible to those are involved in easily understandable forms (Sheng, 2009). In addition, the transparency cannot be achieved without the existence of the rule of law, neither does good governance. The rule of law refers to a

(15)

14 principle of governance in which all persons, including the state, are accountable to laws that are equally enforced and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards (UN, 2011). Fair legal frameworks are required for good governance, in particular for minority groups.

2.1.2 Multi-Level Governance

Hooghe and Marks (2001) were the first ones that came up with the concept of multi-level governance. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001). They define multi-level governance as follows: “actors

participate in diverse policy networks and this may involve subnational actors – interest groups and subnational governments – dealing directly with supranational actors”. The term multi-level

governance is now widely applied to the concept of the EU, the wherein authority would be spliced into multiple, functionally-specific, policy regimes with overlapping memberships (Hooghe & Marks, 2003).

Crucially, governing the natural resources in a globalized world requires stronger responses at the global, regional, national and local level involving various actors (UNEP, 2015). Yet, to address problems of globalization it is inevitable to involve institutions that link social and political organizations from local to the global level (Berkes, 2007). In a globalized world, the respond of communities to the influences from outside pressures and the linkages between communities and other levels of governance need to be studied and understood (Berkes, 2007). In order to understand this, it is necessary to look at the definitions of levels and scales and how the governance processes interact between different levels and across different scales. The level is defined as the unit of analysis that are located at different positions on a scale, whereas scale is defined as the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions that are used for measuring and studying a phenomenon (Cash et al., 2006). Cash et al. (2006) have illustrated the scales and levels that are important for understanding the interactions between human and environment. Problems arise when there is a mismatch between human actions and ecological systems, these problems are typical “scale problems” wherein the authority or jurisdiction of the management institution is not covering the same spatial area as that of the problem (Cash et al., 2006, Gibson et al., 2000 & Young, 2003). Hence, the choice of scale and level has a significant impact on the approach to the problem and also the choice of policy instruments.

(16)

15 2.1.3 Governing Marine Commons

Common pool resources (CPRs) are the resources whereby exclusion or control of access potential users is difficult and whereby each user is capable of subtracting the resource at the expense of the welfare of other potential users (Feeny et al. 1990). In this context, excludability refers to the ability to exclude people from outside the defined group of members (Berkes, 2006). Yet, due to population growth, technology advancement and economic transformation, it becomes more difficult to exclude potential users. Furthermore, the existence of open access regime by external forces such as colonialism and globalization hampers control measures for exclusion (Berkes, 2006).

Some fisheries have been an example of “tragedy of the commons” which was a simplistic model that deals with small-scale, community-based systems and ultimately result in self-organization and self-governance according to Ostrom (1990). Using this model as a base, scientific literature has been dealing with more complex governance systems of multiple resources and user groups and regional and global commons (Berkes, 2006, Ostrom et al. 2002, Dietz et al. 2003, Dolsak and Ostrom 2003). Nevertheless, according to the research of Berkes (2006), which has shown that community-based management is vulnerable to external drivers (e.g. colonialism and globalization) and is hence insufficient by itself to deal with for example migratory marine resources? However, it is crucial to consider the choice of scales and levels before approaching for governance systems for regulating the commons. For example, dealing with marine resources as global commons requires a different approach and consideration from dealing with marine resources as regional commons.

Commons theory provides some insights into the solution of regional and global commons problems with considerations of the possibility that these problems could be caused by ignorance of the interaction between scales and levels, mismatch between scales and levels in human-environment interactions and recognizing the plurality in the characterization of scales and levels (Cash et al., 2006).

Traditionally, marine ecosystems are viewed as depletable and renewable CPRs (Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 1999) by national governments and are hence open to all nationals and license holders (Berkes, 2006). As abovementioned, CPRs are difficult to govern due to issues regarding excludability and subtractablity, as these creates challenges to establishing appropriate governance mechanisms (Fidelman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the prevalence of IUU fishing in developing countries has been hampering governance mechanisms at national, regional and global level. Local and even national institutions are inadequate against growing pressures from international migrant fishing fleets (Fidelman et al., 2012).

Governing marine commons is not only challenging because of the issues regarding excludability and subtractablilty but also due to many factors that make marine resources more difficult to govern than other resources. First, marine ecosystems are complex adaptive systems (Fidelman et al., 2012); it is often unable to estimate the mobility of marine resources, the storage capacity of the ocean and the renewability of marine ecosystems. Moreover, the absence of physical boundaries in the oceans and the inability to fence off individual fish (e.g. migratory species) makes it even more difficult for national governments to exert sovereign control over fisheries (Campling & Havice, 2014). Many marine species are highly mobile over large distances, moving

(17)

16 within and beyond EEZs. Tuna-like species are examples of highly migratory species which spend parts of their life cycles in multiple EEZs as well as international waters (Fidelman et al., 2012). Abovementioned attributes increase the complexity of fisheries governance, because they make it more difficult to understand resource dynamics and to monitor fish stocks (Fidelman et al., 2012).

2.2 Legal Pluralism in the Oceans

The previous paragraph has synthesized the theories about multi-level governance and governing marine commons. According to Sander et al. (2014), governing maritime environmental resources cannot simply rely on regulatory or economic measures; there is need for efficient and effective application of law and order (Sander et al., 2014). Without institutional and legal frameworks it will be challenging to regulate activities in marine ecosystems. Yet, governing the commons is seen as a difficult task due to the issues regarding excludability and subtractablity (Fidelman et al., 2012). Good governance is described as a governance mechanism that is accountable, transparent, equitable and inclusive, responsive, consensus oriented and enables equitable participation among groups (Sheng, 2009), yet the most important among these characteristics is that good governance follows the rule of law, which refers to the principle that all persons and institutions irrespective of private or public – including the State – are accountable to laws (United Nations, 2004). Hence, it is important to recognize which laws are applicable for governing the world’s oceans and the plurality of these laws.

According to Bavinck and Gupta (2014), it is important to improve the institutional framework from global to local level, yet such an improvement has to recognize plurality of the forms of existing governance at multiple levels (Bavinck and Gupta, 2014) for a further enhancement of the effectiveness in fisheries governance (Wickramasinghe & Bavinck, 2015). Legal pluralism has been applied to the field of environmental resource management (Spiertz & Wiber, 1996), which denotes that the State is not the only actor involved in the regulation processes and that the users also have the rights and duties to create organizations for involvement in the regulation processes as well (Bavinck, 2003).

(18)

17 Figure 3 Schematic illustration of cross-level, cross-scale interactions in ocean governance. Source: Author

Legal pluralism refers to the existence of more than one law within a geographical space which is defined by the conventional boundaries (Davis, 2012). The interactions between levels and scales are illustrated in the figure above. The figure illustrates two different scales (Spatial and jurisdictional) and how the levels are allocated within the same scale. Direct and indirect influences are present as interactions between and within the scales. The plurality of laws can be applied to the different jurisdictional levels which will be enforced on the different levels within the spatial scale.

Figure 4 Zones of national jurisdiction according to the UNCLOS, 1982. Source: geography about.com

2.2.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

For ocean governance, the UNCLOS is one of the most significant and influential laws on the international waters. It is an agreement established by the UN –an intergovernmental institution – for governing all aspects of ocean space (UN, 2013). The key features of the agreement relating to fisheries activity are the following:

(19)

18  Coastal states have the sovereignty to over their territorial sea which extends to 12 nautical miles from its land territory. Foreign vessels are allowed “innocent passage” through the territorial sea.

 For the purpose of international navigation, ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed “transit passage” through straits.

 Coastal states have sovereign rights in the EEZ for exploiting marine resources for economic purposes and exercise jurisdiction for scientific research and environmental protection.

 All other States have freedom to pass through EEZs for navigation or overflight.

 Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states have the right to participate on an equitable basis in the exploitation of an appropriate part of the resources in the EEZ’s of coastal States in the same (sub-) region.

 Coastal states have sovereign rights over the continental shelf for exploration and exploitation.

 In the high seas, all states have the freedom to navigate, overflight, conduct scientific research and fishing activities. They are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other states in adopting measures to manage and conserve the marine resources.

 Coastal states share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from the high seas.

(UN, 2013)

According to UNCLOS, the high seas are defined as the waters beyond the EEZ’s and are open to all states (including land-locked states) (UN, 1982). Consequently, the high seas do not fall under the jurisdiction of any state, hence both coastal and land-locked states have the freedom to conduct fishing activities on the high seas as long as they follow the rights and duties that are covered in the UNCLOS, with regards to the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas (UN, 1982). Foreign vessels are allowed for “innocent passage” through EEZ’s. As stated in UNCLOS, the term “innocent passage” refers to a passage that is no prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state and which follows the rules of the Convention as well as other rules of international law (UNCLOS, 1982). Foreign vessels passaging the territorial sea should not engage in fishing activities or any other activity unrelated to passage (UNCLOS, 1982).

2.2.2 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs)

In line with UNCLOS Part V, Article 69 and Part VII, Section 2, Article 118 regarding the cooperation of States in the conservation and management of living resources, States shall cooperate to establish sub regional or regional fisheries organizations to ensure the conservation and management of living resources in the areas of the EEZ’s and high seas (UNCLOS, 1982). Such sub regional or regional fisheries organizations are called Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) which are international organizations formed by States with a fishing interest in an area (EC, 2016). RFMOs can be distinguished by the focus of management, some of them manage all fish stocks in an area (see figure 5), while some of them manage certain species, i.e. highly-migratory species such as tuna (see figure 6) (EC, 2016).

(20)

19 Figure 5 RFMOs that manage fish stocks by region. Source: World Ocean Review, 2013

Figure 5 shows the RFMOs in different regions which manage fish stocks regardless of the species. There are nine RFMOs for all fish stocks and these are listed below:

 North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)  Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)

 North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO)  South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO)

 South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)

 South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (SPRFMO)

 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)  General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (CCBSP)

Figure 6 RFMOs that manage highly migratory fish species, mainly tuna. Source: World Ocean Review, 2013

As illustrated in figure 6, there are five RFMOs established for the conservation and management of highly migratory species, mainly tuna. These are the following:

 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)  Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)  Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

 Commission for Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

The jurisdictions of these RFMOs are overlapping in many geographical regions in accordance with the natural habitats of the focus species.

(21)

20 Furthermore, the rules of these RFMO agreements co-exist with those of the national institution in the EEZ’s and on the high seas. Hence, even though flag states are responsible for the activities of the vessels flying their flag, the vessels are also obliged to follow the laws that were covered in the UNCLOS and RFMOs, if the flag state has ratified the agreements. This denotes the plurality of laws and governance at multiple levels in the EEZ’s and high seas because it is a condition whereby one or more legal systems co-exist and apply to identical situations and legal jurisdictions (Bavinck and Gupta, 2014).

The existence of legal pluralism could be a solution to many regulatory problems if they are affirmative, yet it could also be problematic if the rules contradict each other. Nonetheless, depending on the nature of rule systems, legal pluralism is argued to have influential implications for environmental governance (Bavinck and Gupta, 2014).

2.3 IUU Fishing as an Environmental Crime

The term IUU fishing was introduced by the FAO in 1999 at the FAO Ministerial Meeting on the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) (Bray, 2000) and has been used by intergovernmental organizations, national governments and academia’s ever since. IUU fishing is an abbreviation of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities the conditions under which the activities are carried out. The definition of IUU fishing came in 2001 when the FAO started to implement the IPOA-IUU. Thereafter the committee has urged all members of the UN to implement the IPOA-IUU effectively (FAO, 2001).

According to the FAO (2011), 57.4% of the global fish stocks assessed by the FAO were fully exploited in 2009. Nearly 30% of the fully exploited fish stocks were overexploited, which means that the yield is lower than their biological and ecological potential yields (FAO, 2011). The existence of IUU fishing jeopardizes global fish stocks and marine environment and contributes to overexploitation of fish stocks (EJF, OCEANA, The PEW Charitable Trusts and WWF, 2016a). Moreover, it is estimated that between 11 and 26 million tonnes of fish are caught illegally per year and related global losses are estimated to be up to $23.5 billion per year (EJF, OCEANA, The PEW Charitable Trusts and WWF, 2016). The global losses are equal to the loss of revenue that legitimate and legal fishers. Due to IUU fishing activities, legitimate and legal fishers suffer from reduced catch and thus loss in revenue (Bondaroff, 2015).

2.3.1 Environmental and Natural Resources Crime (ENRC)

The term Environmental and natural resources crime (ENRC) has been used to describe crimes that involve illegal wildlife trade, poaching, illegal logging and illegal fishing (Sander et al., 2014) which undermine current development goals and good governance (United Nations Environment Programme. et al., 2014). However, it is difficult to give a uniform definition of ENRCs because they involve in a range of types of crime (United Nations Environment Programme. et al., 2014) and there are variations in the way that States apply their laws to environmental crime practices (Sander et al., 2014).

The rise of ENRC is causing a crisis in the current global developments and undermining environmental governance. The EU, G8, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the

(22)

21 UN interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute recognize five broad areas of offenses that can be defined as an environmental crime. These crimes are:

1. Illegal trade of ozone-depleting substances (ODS)

2. Illegal trade of species that are listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of fauna and flora (CITES)

3. Dumping and illegal transport of hazardous waste

4. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU fishing) 5. Illegal logging and trade in timber in violation of national laws

(Banks et al., 2008).

The existence of ENRC is providing very high profits and has relatively low risk of getting caught (European Commission, 2015). Every year, billions of dollars are generated by conducting environmental crimes (UNEP. et al., 2014). This is a part due to the proliferation of international, regional and national environmental agreements which leads to more controls on commodities. For another part, it is due to criminal syndicates that have been diversifying and expanding their operations into new areas like counterfeits and environmental crimes (Banks et. al, 2008).

Illegal fishing refers to activities that are conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State without permission or contravene the laws and regulations of that State or RFMO of which the flag State is a member of. Unreported fishing is fishing activities that have not been reported or misreported to the relevant authority or RFMO. Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities that are carried out in an area wherein the flag state is not a party of the associated RFMO or conducted by stateless vessels (FAO, 2001) (see table 1 for definition).

IUU fishing can occur in any fishery, from a States EEZ or inland waters to the high seas and is a serious threat to the marine environment and food security. Its existence not only threatens the marine environment and food security but it also harms legitimate fishers and undermines the state governance, social welfare and economic developments (Le Gallic, 2007; Bondaroff, 2015). According to FAO (2001), the definition of IUU fishing can be divided into three parts: Illegal fishing, Unregulated fishing and Unreported fishing. Each type is defined by the fishing activities that violates (inter-) national laws in different ways. The definitions provided by the FAO are shown in table 1.

(23)

22

Table 1 Definition of illegal fishing, unreported fishing and unregulated fishing. Source: FAO, 2001

Illegal fishing

Fishing activities conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws and regulations

Fishing activities conducted by vessels flying the flag of States that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organization but operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted by that organization and by which the States are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable international law.

Fishing activities in violation of national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken by cooperating States to a relevant regional fisheries management organization.

Unreported fishing

Fishing activities which have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations. Fishing activities are undertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries management organization which have not been reported or have been misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of that organization.

Unregulated fishing

Fishing activities in the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organization that are conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying the flag of a State not party to that organization, or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that organization.

Fishing activities in areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law.

The IUU fishing activities can be distinguished by the location in which the fishing activities are carried out and the identity of the vessel (i.e. flag the vessel is flying). IUU fishing occurs in a States' EEZ, inland fisheries, lagoons as well as on the high seas, conducted by fishermen and/or vessels that are flying different flags from different RFMO’s and using different fishing methods. It is important for a country to distinguish what form of IUU fishing that needs to be addressed by using certain instrument/tool.

IUU fishing has long been considered a regulatory issue (Bondaroff et al, 2015). However, according to many international bodies (G8, UN, EU etc.), IUU fishing is now considered as a form of ENRC, wherein significant harm or risk are caused to the environment and human health (Bondaroff et al, 2015). Some IUU fishers are involved with various forms of political corruption (e.g. bribery) and also the violation of labour and environmental standards. Moreover, according to Bondaroff et al, there are evident connections between IUU fishing and organized crime such as human trafficking and smuggling of people, drugs and weapons (Bondaroff et al, 2015; UNEP et al., 2014).

Similarly, Sander et al (2014) argue that IUU fishing is not simply a regulatory and economic issue, but a problem that requires an efficient and effective application of law and order (Sander et al., 2014). To clarify this argument, IUU fishing has been conceptualized as a form of organized ENRC:

illegal fishing occurs when fishing activity is against the law, unreported fishing occurs where legal

(24)

23 is non-existing, and unregulated fishing takes place where legal instruments are non-existing, not applied or inadequate (Sander et al., 2014). The concept of IUU fishing is not only that it damages the marine environment and depletes the fish stock but also that it disrespects the regulations designed to protect and conserve the marine environment (Sander et al., 2014). The prevalence of IUU fishing has a significant correlation with weak governance and fishery management. Furthermore, it is generally difficult to distinguish legally caught fish from illegally caught fish on the market (Sander et al., 2014).

Furthermore, due to globalization, commodities produced through ENRC can travel a long distance from the poaching site to the final buyer. Therefore, ENRC are transboundary issues and often involve cross-border criminal syndicates (Banks et al., 2008). Currently, the fight against Illegal fishing is still inadequate because it is frequently positioned low among criminal justice priorities, underfunded, under-resourced, reactive and regressive, subject to corruption and of low quality (Sander et al., 2014). As a consequence, it has little deterrent effect comparing to ENRC in terrestrial ecosystems (Sander et al., 2014). The use of law enforcement supports and will allow for sustainable use of resources, while targeting the crimes committed by criminal groups and cross-border criminal syndicates (Sander et al., 2014). To achieve effective and efficient adoption of law enforcement against ENRC, international institutions and development partners can help in supporting and advancing the fight against IUU fishing (Sander et al., 2014).

2.3.2 International, Regional and National Efforts Against IUU Fishing

The previous sub-paragraph has discussed the aspects of IUU fishing and how the existence of IUU fishing is damaging the marine ecosystems and undermining current governance efforts. In order to manage large-scale marine commons, institutional arrangements are required in an inclusive, organized way at multiple levels (Fidelman et al., 2012). In furtherance of resolving the problems caused by IUU fishing, institutions at different levels have established arrangements to prevent, deter and IUU fishing. In this paragraph, the institutional arrangements at different levels will be discussed.

2.3.2.1 International Arrangements

Many international arrangements concerning the fight against IUU fishing have been made by the UN. The first specific one was adopted by the FAO in 2001, which was the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU). The IPOA-IUU was developed in the context of the CCRF of 1995 which had the objective to ensure sustainable fisheries (FAO, 2001). According to the FAO (2011), national and regional fisheries management organizations can fail to achieve management goals when confronted with IUU fishing. Due to lack of political will, priority, capacity and resources, existing international instruments have not been effective in the implementation of measures against IUU fishing (FAO, 2001). The IPOA-IUU was developed as a voluntary instrument by providing all States with comprehensive, effective and transparent measures in accordance with international law (FAO, 2001). Even though the implementation of IPOA-IUU is voluntary, the IPOA-IUU was the first effort made by an international institution to provide measures for effectively combating IUU fishing.

In 2005, the Model Scheme of Port State Measures to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (hereafter referred as “The Model Scheme”) has been established in order to

(25)

24 promote the implementation of IPOA-IUU (Kao, 2015). The Model Scheme provides guidelines for port States when implementing relevant measures to combat IUU fishing and it also gives a definition of the subjects and scope in which the measures should be applied (Kao, 2015). However, The Model Scheme is a soft-law, which implies that the implementation is highly dependent on the political will of the port State, thus not legally binding (Kao, 2015).

Regardless of the promotion of IPOA-IUU and The Model Scheme, both instruments remain its soft-law nature. Therefore, there was a need to develop a legally binding instrument to ensure that IUU fishing is effectively prevented, deterred and eliminated. Hence, the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (PSMA) has been established aiming at the prevention, deterrence, and elimination of IUU fishing through the implementation of effective port State measures. The FAO believes that an effective implementation of the PSMA will ultimately contribute to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine resources and ecosystems (FAO, 2016g).

2.3.2.2 Regional Arrangements

Similarly, regional arrangements have also been made by regional organizations such as the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and by Pacific Island countries (Kao, 2015).In 2010, the FFA adopted The Regional Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Strategy (RMCSS) with the aim to support compliance with fisheries management regulations and associate measures due to the presence of gaps that undermine management measures to deter IUU fishing in the EEZ’s and high seas in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) (Kao, 2015).

Furthermore, a number of Pacific Island countries have been cooperating as a regional organization for developing a plan based on the structure of the IPOA-IUU and implementation of the plan in the Pacific Island countries (Kao, 2015). The plan provides concepts and ideas for combating IUU fishing which can also be used in other regions with some modification and adaptation (Kao, 2015).

As one of the largest importer of fishery products, the EU is seen as a valuable destination market for IUU operators (EJF et al, 2016a). Therefore, the EU plays an important role in the fight against IUU fishing (EJF et al, 2016a). A number of regulations have been entered into force in 2010 as a trade measure to prevent, deter and eliminate imports of IUU fishery products (EJF et al, 2016a). The EU regulation consists of three components: Catch Certification Scheme, Third-country carding process, and Penalties for EU Nationals and operators (EJF et al, 2016a). Using the Catch Certificate Scheme (issued by the flag state), fishery products imported into the EU is guaranteed that they are not caught by IUU operators (European Commission, 2011). Furthermore, the EC has established two blacklists for the Third-country carding process. The blacklist includes IUU fishing vessel list and the flag States that are lenient towards IUU vessels (European Commission, 2011). Last, the EU shall apply penalties for EU-flagged vessels that have been engaging in IUU fishing; Non-EU flagged vessels with an EU-national as owner and EU nationals that benefit financially from profits earned from IUU fishery products (EJF et al, 2016a). According to the report on the implementation of EU Regulations by EJF et al (2016a), the most significant achievements of the EU regulation was that improvements in fisheries management have been encouraged by the Regulation in third-countries (EJF et al, 2016a). The countries which have been listed as a

(26)

non-25 cooperation country and received a “yellow card1” have stated themselves that the carding process has given them a strong incentive to improve their fisheries management and align their national policies and legislation (EJF et al, 2016a).

2.3.2.3 National Arrangements

National governments consider marine resources as open resources which are freely open to all nationals with relevant licence (Berkes, 2006). However, IUU fishing also occurs in national waters (including inland fisheries). Therefore, there it is crucial that national governments also implement plans to combat IUU fishing. Domestic efforts have been made by major fishing States such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States (Kao, 2015). These States have been adopting National Plans of Actions to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. However, according to Kao (2015), the number of States with an NPOA adopted is still relatively low; therefore, the effectiveness of these tools to combat IUU fishing may be uncertain (Kao, 2015). Regardless of the number of adopted NPOAs, these major fishing States can also influence other States to undertake actions to create their own NPOAs (Kao, 2015)

2.4 Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

Traditionally, data and information about fishing efforts have been reported and provided by fishing skippers (Lee, South, & Jennings, 2010). Thanks to the technological development in the 21st century, monitoring systems for maritime spaces have been developed to improve the ability to monitor and control activities conducted in the oceans. The VMS is one of those systems which is an enforcement and surveillance tool based on a satellite system to monitor the location and the movement of fishing vessels in the EEZ’s (NOAA Fisheries, 2016) and on the high seas. The EU was one of the first parts of the world to implement compulsory VMS installation on vessels (European Commission, 2015). This paragraph will describe the principles of VMS and the benefits and limitations of VMS in MCS.

2.4.1 Principle of VMS

The program of VMS requires an installation of equipment which is programmed to provide information about the position and activity of the vessel (FAO, 2016a). The program is comprised of several VMS components which consist of electronic equipment in combination with antenna and transceiver, external power source and cabling installed on a vessel (FAO, 2016b). Collectively, the combination of these parts is called the VMS unit (FAO, 2016b). The VMS unit may also include external communication systems, data input devices, etc. (FAO, 2016b).

There are various types of technology that support VMS programs; these all provide common information following the VMS principle, i.e. a unique unit identifier, date and time, latitude and longitude (FAO, 2016b). Two types of position provision methods can be distinguished: integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) in the unit which calculates the position directly and include it in the report, or the satellite system which calculates the position by measuring the signal from the unit according to the theories of the Doppler shift2 (FAO, 2016b). The speed and course of the VMS unit may be calculated directly and sent to the relevant fishery monitoring centre using a software application which calculates the speed based on the difference in time and distance of

1_{Pre-identification card received as a warning for lack of cooperation and presence of evidence in the country’s systems to combat}

IUU fishing (EJF et al, 2016a_).

2_{The change in frequency of the emitted electromagnetic wave when the transmitter and receiver are in motion relative to each other}

(27)

26 positions (FAO, 2016b). Furthermore, some VMS automatically requires vessels to provide/record catches (Detsis et al, 2012).

In a satellite system, data will be transmitted from the vessel to the VMS satellites and then transferred to the processing centre on Earth (FAO, 2016a). The processing centre on Earth will then validate and store the data for the relevant fisheries monitoring centre (FMC) (FAO, 2016a). The FMC retrieves the data through internet connection and stores the data in the database. For the monitoring duties, the identity and location of monitored vessels are presented on a map display, with relevant features such as International Maritime Boundary Lines (IMBLs), EEZ boundaries and regulated fisheries areas (FAO, 2016a). The principle of VMS is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 7 Principle of VMS. Source: Department of fisheries and aquatic resources, 2015b

2.4.2 VMS Legal Frameworks

The legal frameworks related to the implementation of VMS programs depend on the jurisdictions of the management authorities. Currently, VMS schemes are implemented at national and regional level (FAO, 1998); therefore, the requirements for a fishing vessel to participate in a VMS program may be expressed based on the relevant agreements established at national and regional level (FAO, 2016f).

2.4.2.1 National VMS Programs

National VMS programs are enacted in national rules or laws that apply within the national jurisdictions. The requirements are mostly linked to fishing permits, vessel registrations, and other authorization mechanisms that affect all nationals carrying out fishing activities in a particular fishery or geographic area (FAO, 2016f). In addition, the requirements regarding the compulsory installation of VMS equipment are usually enforced at the national level.

2.4.2.2 International and Regional VMS Programs

VMS has been promoted worldwide by several RFMOs and adopted by countries. Four RFMOs (CCAMLR, FFA, NAFO and NEAFC) which focus on the management of the fish stock in general have been implementing programs for operational VMS with the aim to monitor compliance with fisheries regulations of the member countries EEZ’s, including territorial seas and other closed areas within the EEZ’s (FAO, 2016c).

The requirements of these VMS programs are bound to international or regional agreements. However, the actual implementation is typically carried out by authorities at national level (FAO,

(28)

27 2016f). Yet, a State which is a member of an intergovernmental organization or RFMO and has ratified agreements established with these organizations must often enact legislation that is applicable to all persons of that State (FAO, 2016f).

2.4.3 The Use Of VMS In MCS

Traditional MCS make use of methods such as aerial and surface patrols, of which the service is usually provided by a third party which makes the operations costly and inefficient (FAO, 2016d). Furthermore, the geographical coverage of these methods is relatively limited (FAO, 2016d). In contrast, VMS is a relatively cost-effective tool which can enhance MCS of fisheries (FAO, 2016d). According to the FAO (1998), the efficiency is greatly improved by VMS because it allows fisheries managers to have timely and accurate information about the movements of fishing vessels at sea. Besides regional programs, domestic efforts for VMS program have also been made by 14 countries3. Using VMS as an enforcement tool, countries and RFMOs are able to monitor compliances with relevant national or regional fisheries regulations.

One of the major significance of VMS is in its deterrent effect (FAO, 1998). As unauthorized fishing activity is likely to be deterred because vessel operator is reminded that the vessel is being monitored by management authorities (FAO, 2016d). Practical experience in Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America have observed and reported such a demonstration and bear out the deterrent effect (FAO, 1998).

When illegal activity is suspected or detected, patrols can be planned efficiently using the location of the vessel provided by VMS. Therefore, searching and travel times can be effectively reduced (FAO, 2016d). Furthermore, when illegal activity is determined, VMS can provide documentation for violations due to compliance with evidence-handling rules which makes VMS data applicable to legal proceedings (FAO, 2016d). Also, the implementation of VMS is recommended in accordance with the requirements for vessels under the jurisdiction of a certain State, by the FAO IPOA-IUU (FAO, 2001).

In addition, VMS is not only used as an enforcement tool, but it also improves the safety and security of vessels (FAO, 2016d), since many VMS devices have a distress button which can generate an alarm to the FMC for emergency or distress situations.

2.4.3.1 Limitations of VMS

Although VMS is enhancing the ability of MCS through monitoring the compliances with fisheries regulations and improving the safety and security of the vessels (FAO, 2016d), it also has its limitations in fisheries management (FAO, 2016e). According to the FAO (2016e), the ability of VMS is limited to the use for other types of fisheries regulations such as target species, catches and quotas, etc. (FAO, 2016e). Monitoring these compliances cannot be accomplished with the use of VMS alone; it is more effective to use traditional enforcement methods such as inspection (FAO, 2016e).

3

Australia (South Australia and Australian Fisheries Management Authority), Chile, Estonia, Falklands Island, Iceland, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Peru, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, Uruguay, United States of America (Northeast region, Northwest region, Pacific Islands region, Southeast Region and Alaska region) (FAO, 2016a₎

(29)

28 As mentioned in paragraph 2.5.3, VMS data can be used for legal proceedings, yet, VMS by itself does not provide evidence which is satisfactory for criminal courts of an offense that involved fishing activity (FAO, 1998). VMS data can only indicate probable illegal fishing activity and provide a good and sufficient basis for further investigation by using traditional MCS methods (FAO, 1998).

Issues regarding fishing unauthorised species, using prohibited or non-compliant fishing gear, falsifying or concealing identity or evidence, obstructing work of inspectors, catching undersized fish, participating with IUU fishing vessels and fishing in RMFO without complying with their rules or is flying a flag that is not party to or cooperating with that RMFO, remains unaddressed.

In brief, VMS can enhance the effectivity of MCS (FAO, 1998), but it does not replace them (FAO, 2016e). To achieve a more comprehensive MCS, VMS should be used in combination with traditional MCS techniques such as aerial and surface surveillance, landing inspections and documentary inspection (FAO, 1998).

(30)

29

2.5 Conceptual Scheme

The main concepts in this research are conceptualized in the illustration below. It starts with the theory of multi-level ocean governance and legal pluralism which are imposed on different governance levels in order to combat IUU fishing. At the international level, the EU has set up the IPOA-IUU wherein the EU ensures that no illegally caught fish is landed in the EU market. In order to revoke the ban, the Sri Lankan government has implemented VMS and changed their national legislation which would have impacts on the local fishermen but also the enforcement procedures at the local level. IUU fishing could possibly be deterred by cooperation at different levels.

Towards a socially acceptable fisheries governance : implementation of Vessel Monitoring Systems to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing conducted by Sri Lankan Multi-day boats