I often cringe at black statements that preclude that “IUU fishing is rampant worldwide” or even talk about it in the Asia Pacific region as is the realities of Tuvalu are the same as of China or Korea! IUU is a big a complex issue that has different levels of impact and incidence in different regions. The realities of the SE Atlantic are fundamentally different to the ones of the SE Indian Ocean or the Western and Central Pacific Ocean… yet is difficult to find global studies that prove that.
Would you mind explaining me what good governance is?
Furthermore, I have a bit of an issue with “global studies” and rankings… as they normally come from developed countries and point down to less developed countries, as I wrote here, my reaction to indexes is always based on 2 questions:
1- What’s the point? We all know what is wrong, we need help on how to fix it
and
2: How do you avoid being unfair?
Let’s say just for an example:
Country A in Europe is rich and has an EEZ of 10 km2 and a budget for fisheries of 10 million that is 0.5% of their GDP, and 500 years of experience in bureaucracy. institutions and governments
Country B in the Pacific has an EEZ of 10000000 km2, a budget for fisheries of 1 million that is 10% of the GDP and was a colony until 1980, so has 40 years of experience in bureaucracy. institutions and governments
Who would you think will score better in any metrics based index?
Which brings me back to question 1: What is the point?
Yes, fisheries/ countries need better governance, more budgets, better management, better science, fewer subsidies, better data, blah, blah... Tell me something new... the solution is: ‘we should be all rich and well resourced?”
But also in Spanish we say “el que mucho abarca poco aprieta” (he who covers a lot squeezes little) so the wider you go by definition the lesser you can squeeze) many of these rankings go around binomial metrics that may not tell the full story… a classic is: has the country signed FAO PSMA… As I said before there are many reasons why a country may not sign it that have little to do with their determination to fight IUU (i.e. the Marshall Islands) and there are countries that have signed and they are not doing much about IUU fishing (Uruguay and Mozambique are 2 countries testament to this, where I have 1st hand experience.
But then two of my friends and colleagues (Gilles Hosch and Graeme Macfadyen) for whom I have tons of professional and personal respect are involved in what many consider the best of these rankings… and I know the basis of my criticism is well known to them as they work internationally and know the realities better than anyone.
So while I don't like indexes and rankings, I respect the professionalism they put in their work and will quote here their recently published study: “Killing Nemo: Three world regions fail to mainstream combatting of IUU fishing” (albeit I don’t like the Nemo reference and disagree of the ranking of Uruguay and RMI) as it verifies my point that while IUU is a worldwide problem, is not equally or linearly distributed and the solutions are regional.
The abstract set up the point very clearly:
This study revisits the established correlation between IUU fishing and the quality of governance. However, rather than relying on estimates of illegally harvested volumes of catch, the study tests the correlation between the national response to combat IUU fishing – as a proxy of IUU fishing risk – and the quality of governance. Linear regression analysis was applied to a global dataset of 151 coastal States, and individually to eight world regions. The study finds that the correlation of the response to IUU fishing (dependent variable) with the quality of governance is highly significant at the global level, and across five world regions; namely Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America. However, the correlation is not verified for Asia, the Caribbean and Central America, and the Middle East. For Asia, the study also finds that combatting of IUU fishing significantly weakens with rising national income. Asia, the Caribbean and Central America, and the Middle East account for more than half the volume of global marine fish catch and there regions score the worst for their response to IUU fishing in both the 2019 and 2021 IUU Fishing Index reports. The study concludes that the lack of correlation across these three regions suggests that relying chiefly on improvements in governance to bring about more effective combatting of IUU fishing will likely prove insufficient. More efforts will be needed across these regions to elevate the importance of effective fisheries management within national policy dialogues, to generate a substantially improved response to IUU fishing in the future.
And the conclusion is robust.
The question why response does not improve with governance in three world regions requires further study, and the answers to that question will be instrumental in supporting initiatives advocating for change in this domain across these regions.
The significant correlations between response and governance across Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America show that the relationship between improved governance and enhanced response is valid in most regional settings. The significant correlation at the global level owes to the fact that these five regions harbor 63% of the countries covered in the study. However, the majority of regions (and countries) only accounts for 46% of world marine capture output.
The absence of a statistically significant correlation between response and governance across Asia, the Caribbean & Central America, and the Middle East suggests that relying solely on enhanced governance to bring about improved responses to combatting IUU fishing will likely prove insufficient. Rather, specific efforts are needed across these regions to identify and understand the dynamics that undermine the quality of response, to elevate the importance of effective fisheries management within national policy dialogues, so as to bring about more robust combatting of IUU fishing in the future.
—-
The only conclusion I’ll add is what actually said a while ago in an interview: "In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles that we face in legal and sustainable fisheries is that while we want it, we allow the underfunding of official institutions and pay fisheries officers and fishers salaries that are way below mediocrity, but we expect excellence from all of them"