European Union

Who Fishes Far recently announced the availability of new information through their pioneering database, which represents an unprecedented achievement in affording visibility to information that is rarely accessible to the public. The announcement, which can be accessed here, warns that there are some concerning gaps in the information. Amongst these, the ongoing lack of availability of a unique vessel identification number is highlighted as being of concern, despite the fact that European vessels have an authorisation number. The reason for this is that there is a recognised need for a global tool for the identification of vessels across all registries and ports. This deficiency has been of widespread concern in the sector, and has been discussed extensively in the global forum of the FAO.

IUU fishing success depends upon opacity

The absence of this vessel identification number across the spectrum of ocean going fishing and support vessels is important, because vessels flagged not just to European member states, but to the majority of distant water fishing states, are not constrained to perpetually operate under the same flag. Owners are able  to re-register vessels to other flags in pursuit of commercial or practical preferences. Through this re-registration process, the traceability of a vessel’s identity can easily be lost, and a unique vessel identifier, such as the universally acknowledged IMO number, may be the only element of permanence in what may otherwise be an unrecognisable ship.

It is clear from Interpol’s purple notices amongst other sources that a recurrent modus operandi of vessels engaged in IUU fishing operations that the masking of a vessel’s identity, nationality and history by way of frequent re-flagging is a persistent strategy adopted by IUU operators. Yet states that ostensibly subscribe to all the major international treaties on fisheries conservation and management persistently decline to make essential information available to the public.

For instance, clear registration procedures, the identity of their vessels and the licences, permits or conditions that they hold, are rarely made available even though the release of this information is in principle cost-neutral. An unfortunate recent example is the case of Thunder, whose licence status and specific reasons for de-registration have not been fully disclosed by Nigeria.

Insufficient progress despite key importance of transparency

The potential and specifics of a global record of fishing and supply vessels and reefers has been repeatedly discussed by COFI, whose strategy document makes clear that a globally adopted system of vessel identification would form the lynchpin in the convergence of IUU fishing control data-sharing, and in the coordination of regional and global control regimes. This includes the much hoped for operational success of the 2009 Port State Measures Agreement, which came into force this month, and which relies for functionality on the disclosure and availability to port authorities of key data involving vessel identity and authorisations.

In addition to vessel identification numbers, the importance of minimum standards for vessel registration procedures and their public availability for vessel verification purposes cannot be overstated: vessel registration provides a mechanism for identity traceability that can easily be lost if minimum standards, such as those set out in the 2014 Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, are not followed with rigour. The accessibility of this information in order to verify vessel identity claims should be a key feature of any public vessel register, yet it is undermined by pervasive opacity.

Conclusion

Lack of transparency is the metaphorical Achilles heel of IUU fishing control, but it is in the power of flag, coastal and port States to ensure certain key disclosures, such as vessel identity and licensing data, are made and maintained. Given that the nature of this information is commercially non-sensitive, there seems to be little justification for refusing to disclose such data.

International legislation on IUU fishing control, from the 2001 International Plan of Action, to the IUU Regulation and the Port State Measures Agreement, gravitates around the central role of the vessel in activities that can be classed as illegal, unreported and unregulated. Yet, an unidentifiable vessel is just an additional shield protecting the perpetrators.

Clearly, leadership initiatives by civil society have an important role to play, but the leverage potential of international markets should also be articulated to promote transparency. There should be little patience with current hesitancy, given that the stakes have never been higher.

The post Lack of Transparency: the Achilles Heel in IUU Fishing Control appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

New Valmar
Freedom of movement for persons
The obligation to draw up cross-border invoices exclusively in a particular language, failing which they are null and void, infringes EU law

Some sovereignty obsessed people with little practical economic sense are preparing to make a decision with the potential to seriously spook European markets. And no, we don’t mean the Brexit referendum.

In a few hours Germany’s highest court will rule on the legality of the European Central Bank’s most contentious weapon in fighting the financial crisis. At 10am local time, Mario Draghi’s ‘whatever it takes’ scheme will meet the ‘whatever we say’ of the Karlsruhe.

This is the finale of a long legal saga that has dogged the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions programme for most of its 4-year existence. Mr Draghi’s promise to, if necessary, buy unlimited eurozone bonds has never been used, but its effects were palpable. Mr Draghi challenged the speculators to bet against him, and they blinked.

The FT’s ECB watcher Clare Jones does a fine job of explaining the issues and the ping-pong between the Karlsruhe and the European Court of Justice that preceded this decision. The bottom line is that the Karlsruhe has already voiced reservations about the design of OMT – and may today take a stricter line than the ECJ. At worst it could legally hobble the scheme.

The timing is extraordinarily. On an economic level, markets are already fretting over the referendum. The ECB and the Bank of England are preparing to flood the market with liquidity and take some edge off a negative reaction. But if investors seriously turn against the eurozone periphery – as officials in Brussels and Frankfurt fear – OMT could be crucial. Its credibility matters.

On a political level, too, this is an unusually sensitive moment. What are the implications of a national court thumbing its nose at the ECJ on such an important EU policy decision? For decades the Karlsruhe has coexisted with Europe’s highest court in an uneasy legal truce, with each one claiming supremacy and the final say on law but never testing the premise to the point of destruction.

If the Karlsruhe imposes its will – and takes back control, as the Brexiters would say – what will British eurosceptics think? It could certainly inspire some interesting lawmaking in Westminster, even if there is a Remain vote on Thursday.

BREXIT MARKET RALLY

The polls are looking better for Remain. It is still close, but the apparent swing was enough for sterling made its biggest one-day gains in eight years.

Read more