|
International Fisheries Bulletin Reporter: March 2002 No. 7 Canadian port closures against Estonian and Faroese vessels Chris Hedley* In March and April, Canada decided to implement a prohibition on the use of its ports by Faroese and Estonia fishing vessels. The decision was in response to alleged overfishing and other illegal activity by the vessels of these countries in the NAFO Regulatory Area 2001 and 2002. This note briefly explains the background and current situation. In
March and April, Canada decided to close its ports to the fishing fleets
of the Faroe Islands and Estonia. The decision was based on the results
of lengthy surveillance of the activities of the vessels of these two
countries which showed non-compliance in both 2001 and 2002 with
conservation measures agreed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO). Both the Faroe Islands and Estonia are members of
NAFO (and supported the decision when it was taken). This note briefly
outlines the NAFO conservation measures for 3L shrimp; examines the
alleged illegal behaviour of the Faroese and Estonian fleets; and
briefly comments about the action taken by Canada. NAFO measures for 3L shrimp
An experimental fishery for shrimp in NAFO
Division 3L by Faroese vessels began in the late 1990s, yielding catches
of between 83 and 482 tons. Management measures were not adopted
immediately for this stock, however, in order to allow information to be
collected on the fishery. NAFO therefore directed that no commercial
fishing should be directed at the stock in 3L. In 2000, NAFO agreed to a
small directed fishery, however. A
total allowable catch of 6,000 tons was agreed, of which 5,000 tons were
allocated to Canada with the remaining 1,000 tons being divided equally
among the other 15 active member countries (67 tons each), to be fished
in the NAFO Regulatory Area (i.e. beyond 200 miles). At the same time a
package of measures was agreed, designed both to protect the shrimp from
overfishing and to minimize the bycatch of other species in the shrimp
fishery. The measures included:
Following concerns by Canada about the conduct of the fishing operations in 2001, a new measure was adopted requiring each member country to report catches of 3LNO shrimp on a daily basis (instead of at the end of the month, as had been the case) at the Special meeting of the NAFO Fisheries Commission in January 2002. Faroese
fishing operations
Canada
closed its ports to the Faroese fishing fleet – which comprises 10
vessels in the Northwest Atlantic – on 21 March. In justifying its
decision, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pointed to Canadian
surveillance which showed that Faroese vessels had significantly
overfished their shrimp quota in 2001. They had also misreported
catches, failed to comply with limitations on the number of vessels
allowed to fish in the area at any given time and failed to submit
observer reports, in a timely manner, as required. Further surveillance
in 2002 indicated that these infractions were continuing, although
following the announcement of the port closures, the Faroese authorities
denied that there had been any Faroese vessels in Division 3L since
January 2002. Canadian surveillance and patrol vessels, however, have
observed three Faroese vessels in the area since January. In addition,
two of these vessels were issued citations by Canadian NAFO inspectors
for apparent infringements of conservation measures in February and
March. The Canadian authorities have, in fact, estimated that the
Faroese vessels have already fished about 340 tons of shrimp in 3L in
2002, well above their 67 ton quota. Estonian fishing operations
The
Estonian shrimp fleet is made up of eight vessels. As with other
countries, Estonia was granted a quota of 67 tons, but as a result of
chartering agreements with three other countries was able to claim a
quota of 268 tons in 2001. According to Canadian surveillance, however,
these vessels – which spent about 170 fishing days in Division 3L –
caught more than 1000 tons of shrimp in 2001. In addition, according to
the DFO, the vessels misreported their catches on at least 140 of the
170 days they spent fishing; failed to comply with limitations on the
number of vessels allowed to fish in the area at any given time; and
failed to submit observer reports in a timely manner. The Canadian
Government expressed concern about these activities to the Estonian
authorities on a number of occasions. Following the observation of
similar conduct early in 2002, the Canadian Government decided to
introduce the port prohibition on fishing vessels from Estonia on 9
April. Commentary Canada’s ports will remain closed to the Faroese and Estonian fleets for the remainder of this year, except for emergency reasons. The possibility of re-opening the ports to the fleets may be reviewed if they demonstrate cooperation with Canadian conservation concerns and compliance with the NAFO conservation measures. The extent to which the Canadian action will be successful in improving compliance by these fleets is not clear, since it remains open to the vessels to land their catch in their home ports and, for the time being at least, the ports of other North Atlantic countries. Commercially speaking, the port closures may not, therefore, create a total deterrent. However, the political message is clear and it may result in stricter enforcement action being taken by the flag State authorities. It may also provide the impetus for further action being taken within NAFO itself. By way of analogy, NAFO adopted a scheme in 1997 to improve compliance by non-member States under which all member countries are to refuse to allow the landing of catches which have been taken in a manner which undermines NAFO conservation measures. No such system currently exists where member countries fish in this manner, although this is a possible measure NAFO could consider if it comes to address the overfishing by Faroese and Estonian fishing vessels. This masks another problem, however, namely the inability of NAFO, as the competent regional fisheries organization, to deal with infractions itself. It is unlikely that any action will be taken by NAFO until the next meeting of the Fisheries Commission or General Council and even then it cannot be guaranteed that it has at its disposal a range of tools to effectively deal with the matter. As has been seen before within NAFO (and, of course, other regional fisheries organizations) the impetus and concrete action has come from a member country acting unilaterally, rather than through the competent organization. It is to be remembered that although Canada was acting, no doubt, to protect its own interest in its share of the shrimp TAC inside its EEZ, its action directly concerned fishing in international waters, which fall under the responsibility of NAFO. Although the Canadian action is consistent with international law and is to be seen as a welcome initiative to promote the sustainable management of fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, many would prefer to see these problems dealt with effectively at a multilateral level. Chris Hedley |
