KIMS Periscope 제295호
불법 · 비보고 · 비규제어업(IUU) 어업 근절의 난제 : 인도의 관점에서
2022년 7월 Unseen Labs가 진행한 무선주파수 (Radio Frequency, RF) 자료 수집 활동에서 중국 어선이 인도의 배타적 경제수역(EEZ) 내에서 조업을 하는 42시간 동안 선박자동식별장치(AIS) 비콘을 꺼버린 수상한 사건이 드러났다. 이 조치는 선박이 아라비아해에 진입해 또 다른 중국 국적의 운반선과 접선할 때 그 신원을 확인할 수 없게 만들었다. 그 후에 이와 유사한 형태의 수상한 활동이 오만의 배타적 경제수역 인근에서 보고되었다.
다른 국가의 수역에서 외국 어선의 수상한 활동은 불법, 비보고, 비규제 (illegal, unreported and unregulated, IUU) 어업 (이하 ‘IUU 어업’)에 대한 깊은 우려를 낳는다. IUU 어업은 해양 생태계를 위태롭게 할 뿐만 아니라 인권과 노동권 그리고 인간안보마저 위험에 빠뜨리는 위협이다. 어업은 세계에서 핵심중인 직종 중 하나로 IUU 어업은 연안 경제를 약화시키는 동시에 선원과 수산업 종사자에 대한 위협을 증가시킨다. IUU 어업은 연안국과 기국의 노동법을 위반하고 정당한 어업 활동을 하는 어선들을 범죄 집단에 휘둘리도록 내버려둔다. IUU 어업은 장기적으로 지속가능성, 정당한 의무 및 책임의 달성 과정을 저해할 뿐만 아니라 생계를 위협하고, 빈곤을 악화시키며, 식량 불안정을 심화시킨다. 인도양 지역에서 운영되는 국제 상업적 어업은 어선에서의 인신매매와 마약밀수, 강제노동과 인권침해로 가득하다. 이러한 여건을 더욱 악화시키는 것은 난민인데, 이들은 코로나-19 팬데믹이나 노예에 가까운 불법 노역을 포함한 독특한 위험에 노출되면서까지 도피와 망명을 위해 트롤선에 의지한다.
그러나 IUU 어업은 외국 어선에 의한 위반에 국한된 것은 아니다. 기국의 법을 위반하는 어선도 IUU 어업으로 여겨진다. 더욱이, IUU 어업은 어부가 지역어업관리기구 (Regional Fisheries Management Organization, RFMO)의 반경 바깥에서 조업을 하거나 경계왕래성어류에 대해 연안국과 협력하지 못하는 경우 공해에서 발생하기도 한다. IUU 어업의 엄밀한 성격과 범위는 IUU 어업을 예방, 방지, 제거하기 위한 국제행동계획 (IPOA-IUU)에 의해 특징지어지는데, 이는 식량농업기구 (Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO)의 책임 있는 수산업규범 (Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries)의 틀 내에 있는 자발적인 수단이다. IPOA-IUU는 모든 국가, 독립체 및 어부에게 적용되지만, 법적 구속력은 없다. 그러나 IPOA-IUU는 통상적으로 잘 준수되고 있으며, “불법어업”을 “국내법에 위반하여 행해지는 어업 또는 다른 국가의 관할 수역에서 그 국가의 허락 없이, 연안국의 법률에 위반하여 행해지는 어업”으로 정의하고 있다. “불법어업”은 또한 관련 RFMO가 채택한 정책 또는 적용 가능한 국제법에 위반하여 행해지는 어업을 포함한다. “비보고 어업”은 국내법과 규정에 위반하여 관련 국가 당국에 보고되지 않거나 잘못 보고된 어업 활동 또는 RFMO의 보고 절차의 대상이 되는 지역에서 착수되었으나 이에 위반한 어업 활동을 가리킨다. “비규제 어업”은 RFMO의 운영지역에서 관련 RFMO의 당사자가 아닌 국가의 국기를 내건 선박에 의해 RFMO의 보호 수단을 약화시키는 방식으로 행해지는 활동 또는 적용 가능한 보호 또는 관리 수단이 부족한 지역에서 국가의 책임에 부합하지 않는 방식으로 행해지는 활동을 가리킨다.
IUU 어업을 확인하기 위해서는 연안국, 기국, 항만국, RFMO 및 적용 가능한 국제법에서 규정한 국내, 지역 및 국제 법적 체계의 채택과 시행을 통한 준수기제가 존재해야 한다. 일반적으로, 자국의 관할권 내의 어업 활동에 대한 효과적인 모니터링, 통제 및 감시를 위한 역량과 자원이 부족한 개발도상국은 특히 IUU 어업의 손쉬운 표적이 된다. IUU 어업은 인도양 지역에 있는 연안국의 규제 시스템과 집행 역량의 틈새를 이용하기 때문에 규제가 약하거나 규제가 없는 어업 부문을 이용한다. 글로벌어업감시 기관의 (Global Fishing Watch)의 지원을 받아 작성된 2020년 세계야생동물기금 (World Wildlife Fund)의 보고서는 인도양 오징어잡이에 중국어선이 대부분인 것을 주목했고, 불과 5년 사이 비규제 오징어잡이가 830% 증가했다는 것을 발견했다. 더욱이, 부실한 관리 및 집행 시스템을 남용하는 그 성격으로 인해 IUU 어업은 연안국의 안보를 위협하는데, 이는 그 어느 국가도 무시할 수 없는 문제이다. 이와 관련한 강력한 사례 연구 대상은 인도일 것이다. 인도는 전 세계 해양 어업의 약 14%의 본거지이지만, 어족자원의 30% 이상이 생물학적으로 지속 가능한 수준으로 포획되고 있지 않는 인도양에서 전략적인 위치를 차지하고 있다.
인도는 인도의 배타적 경제수역에서 외국 어선에 의한 조업 활동을 허용하지 않는다. 그러나 IUU 어업의 발생을 확인, 금지, 처벌하기 위한 포괄적인 국내 법률과 집행 기제의 부족으로 인해 생긴 규제 공백이 있다. 2019년 인도 당국은 “훼손을 주는 불법 장비”를 싣고 인도의 배타적 경제수역에서 불법적으로 조업 활동을 하는 것으로 의심되는 Fu Yuan Yu 선단 소유의 중국 어선 10척을 확인했다. 유감스럽게도, Fu Yuan Yu 선단이 불법조업에 연루되었다는 보고는 새로운 것이 아니라 오히려 지나치게 흔하며, IUU 어업과 해양 범죄 및 인권침해 간의 복잡한 관계, 그리고 이에 대한 대응의 난제를 강조한다.
인도는 인도의 영해를 벗어나 어업을 할 수 있는 장비를 갖춘 원양 어선은 불과 104척에 불과하지만, 인도에 인허가와 등록이 되어 있고 전원 인도인 선원으로 구성된 인도 어선이라면 어떤 어선이라도 인도의 배타적 경제수역에서 지속 가능한 방식으로 어업을 할 수 있다. 인도는 유엔 해양법협약 (UNCLOS)의 168개 당사국 중 하나이고, 유엔 경계왕래성어류와 고도회유성어류의 보존관리협정 (United Nations Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, UNFSA)의 92개 당사국 중 하나이다. 이렇게 강력한 국가적 참여는 이러한 국제적 수단과 관련한 의무가 많은 국가에 귀속됨을 의미하며, 이는 대체로 획일적인 국제 법적 제도를 생성한다.
M/V Virginia G 사건에서 국제해양법재판소 (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ITLOS)는 배타적 경제수역 내의 어업 및 어업에 영향을 미치는 관련 활동을 관리할 연안국의 규제 권한을 확인했다. 이러한 판시 사항은 IUU 어업 근절에 있어 연안국의 결정적 역할을 강조한다. 권고적 의견을 통해 ITLOS는 기국의 관할권을 효과적으로 행사해야 할 의무는 기국의 어선이 해양생물자원을 보존하고 관리하기 위한 UNCLOS의 책무, 그리고 특히 관련 연안국의 배타적 경제수역 내의 방침을 준수하도록 보장하는 데까지 미친다고 확인했다. 기국은 이러한 준수를 보장하기 위해 집행 수단을 포함한 필요 수단을 통해 기국의 선박이 다른 국가의 배타적 경제수역에서 조업하는 것에 관하여 “상당한 주의 (due diligence)”를 이행해야 한다. 더욱이, 남중국해 중재 판결은 이러한 “상당한 주의” 의무에 대한 위반은 다른 국가의 배타적 경제수역에서 IUU 어업을 행하는 선박의 기국에 대한 법적 책임을 부과한다고 반복해서 강조했다. 이에 대응하여, 기국은 적절한 수사 및 교정 수단을 통해 자국의 국기를 내건 선박에게 IUU 어업에 종사한 혐의에 대한 책임을 묻고, 연안국과 협력해야 한다.
UNFSA는 특히 소구역 또는 지역의 구체적인 특징을 고려했을 때, 경계왕래성어류와 고도회유성어류의 효과적인 보존과 관리에 관한 연안국과 공해 조업국 간의 협력을 향상시키는 적절한 참가자인 RFMO나 유사한 합의를 지지함으로써 UNCLOS 의무를 보완한다. 중요한 것은, 이와 관련하여 국가는 필요하고 합리적인 물리력을 포함해 자국의 보존 및 관리 수단의 준수와 집행을 위한 효과적인 기제의 채택을 보장해야 한다.
또한 항만국에 의무를 부여하고 이는 IUU 어업을 예방, 방지, 제거하는 강력하고 비용 효과가 높은 수단을 제공한다. 항만국의 책무는 어선 상의 서류, 어구 및 어획물을 점검하고, 상륙 및 환적을 금지시키는 것을 포함하여, 기항하는 외국 어선에 대한 비차별적 조치를 통한 통제의 행사를 포함한다. IUU 어업을 예방, 방지, 제거하기 위한 항만국 조치 협정 (Agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, PSMA)은 외국 어선의 입항 및 항만 이용을 위한 조건을 통해 특별히 IUU 어업을 겨냥한 주된 법적 구속력 있는 국제 협정이다.
그러나 오늘날 이러한 제도에 대한 국가의 소극적 참여는 기국과 항만국의 유사한 준법 체제 아래 IUU 어업에 대한 어선의 책임을 묻는 데 난점이 있다. 현재 STCW-F 협약, ILO 협약 및 PSMA는 발효되었으나, 체약 당사국이 각각 34개국, 20개국 및 72개국뿐이다. 게다가, CTA는 아직 발효되지 않았고, 당사국은 17개국에 불과하다.
인도는 STCW-F 협약, ILO 협약 및 PSMA의 당사국이 아닌 국가 중에 속한다. 법적 책무의 부족은 또한 2백만 ㎢에 걸친 배타적 경제수역을 포함한 인도 해역에서 발견되는 1906종 이상 해양생물에 대해 걱정스러운 영향을 미치는 IUU 어업을 막기 위해 요구되는 규제의 공백에 대한 증거이기도 하다. 이 해역은 기본적인 수준에서 2,800만 명쯤 되는 인도인에게 생계를 제공하는데, 가치 사슬을 따라 가면 이 숫자는 거의 두 배가 된다. 인도의 전통적인 어부는 계속해서 생계를 위해 점점 더 해양어장에 의존하게 되는데, 인도 해안가를 따라 어족자원이 고갈되어 감에 따라 어부들은 하는 수 없이 목숨을 걸고 더 깊은 바다로 향하게 된다. 인도는 많은 어부가 직면한 이러한 특수한 상황과 난감함을 인정하고 있다. 이런 이유로 세계무역기구 (WTO) 수산보조금 (Agreement on fisheries subsidies) 무역협상에서 인도는 생산 과잉과 관련된 것을 포함해 IUU 어업 보조금 의무와 관련하여 개발도상국 회원국 및 최빈국을 위한 특별 차별대우 조치를 청했다.
인도는 30개국으로 구성된 다자간의 구성체에 더하여, 해상 영역에 대한 의식을 성취하기 위해 여러 국가와 상선 정보 교환 협정 (White Shipping Agreement)을 체결했다. 더욱이, 인도는 2018년 인도양지역의 정보융합센터 (Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region, IFC-IOR)를 설립했다. IFC-IOR은 상호협력, 정보교환 및 인도양 지역에 널리 퍼져 있는 우려와 위협에 대한 이해를 위해 전화, 화상회의 및 인터넷 사용을 포함한 가상 수단을 통하고, 파트너 국가의 실무자를 초대하며 역량 강화를 향상시킴으로써 노력한다. 가령, 2022년 6월 IFC-IOR은 인도양 지역 도처에 55건의 IUU 어업을 보고했는데, 39건은 국지적인 IUU 어업 건이었고, 16건은 다른 국가의 수역에 불법 침입한 외국 어부를 체포한 사건이었다. IFC-IOR은 또한 IUU 어업에 대한 주간 보고서를 발행하는데, 그 중에서도 선박에 관한 세부사항, 범법 행위, 지역의 자치주, 연루된 어부 등을 정보로 정리한다. 그러나 법적 처벌이나 조치가 없었던 IUU 어업 대한 자료는 포함되지 않는다.
이러한 상황에서, 법의 모호함과 부실한 집행으로 인해 IUU 어업 종사자 수가 증가하고 있다. 일차적인 장애물은 IUU 어업 그 자체에 대한 포괄적인 식별이다. 무선주파수 자료 수집과 같이 수상한 어선을 감지할 수 있는 기술을 받아들이는 것이 유용할 수 있다. 인도의 사례는 어업에 관한 부정확한 법적 규제는 해상에서의 더욱 유약한 집행을 야기함을 실증한다. 가령, 추가적인 세부 지침 없이 인도 어선으로 하여금 “지속 가능한” 방식으로 조업 활동을 하도록 허용하기만 하는 것은 연안국과 기국의 의무를 지키고 IUU 어업에 종사하는 어선에 책임을 묻기에는 모호하고 부적당하다. STCW-F, ILO 협약, CTA 및 PSMA에 대한 부족한 참여 또한 IUU 어업을 근절하는 데 심각한 문제점이다. 게다가, 법적 체계는 종에 특화된 접근법 및 지역에 특화된 접근법을 취해야 하며, 이는 국가로 하여금 실제로 어업의 보존과 관리를 위한 예방적 접근법을 취할 수 있도록 더욱 가능하게 해줄 것이다. 중요한 것은, 분쟁이 벌어지는 해상 영역에서의 잠정적인 어업협정은 즉각적인 안보 위험이 있기 때문에 우선순위가 되어야 한다. 그러나 일견에, IUU 어업을 근절하기 위해 이러한 조치를 마련하는 것은 강력한 정치적 의지를 필요로 한다.
The Challenges of Combating IUU Fishing: Through the lens of India
In July 2022, a Radio Frequency (RF) data acquisition campaign by Unseen Labs revealed a suspicious incident where a Chinese fishing vessel turned off its AIS beacon for 42 hours while operating inside the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This move made the ship unidentifiable as it entered the in the Arabian sea and rendezvoused with another Chinese flagged fish carrier. Thereafter, such similar suspicious activity was reported near the Omani EEZ.
Suspicious activities by foreign fishing vessels in the waters of other States raise serious concerns of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a menace, which not only endangers marine ecosystems, but also jeopardises human and labour rights as well as human security. Fishing is one of the deadliest professions in the world, and IUU fishing compounds the threats to seafarers and fish workers while eroding coastal economies. IUU fishing flouts coastal and flag state labour laws, leaving their workers at the mercy of profit-driven companies or even criminal enterprises. Maritime law enforcement agencies tend to target the vessel and not its operating company, so fishers face legal sanctions by coastal states for their participation in IUU fishing activities. Hence, IUU fishing not only inhibits progress towards achieving long-term sustainability and responsibility but also threatens livelihoods, exacerbates poverty and intensifies food insecurity. The international commercial fishing industry operating in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) is replete with human and drug trafficking and forced labour and human rights abuses on board fishing vessels. Further exacerbating these conditions are refugees, who resort to fishing trawlers to escape and seek asylum, even while being exposed to unique risks, including the COVID-19 pandemic or illegal servitude akin to slavery.
However, IUU fishing is not limited to violations by foreign fishing vessels only. Fishing vessels violating flag state laws also constitute IUU fishing. Further, IUU fishing also occurs in the high seas when fishers operate outside of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or fail to cooperate with coastal states on the management of straddling stocks. The precise nature and scope of IUU fishing is characterised by the International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (IPOA-IUU), which is a voluntary instrument within the framework of the Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. IPOA-IUU applies to all states, entities and fishers, but is not legally binding. Yet, the IPOA-IUU is remarkably widely respected, and it defined “illegal fishing” as fishing in violation of national laws or fishing in waters under the jurisdiction of another state without permission and in violation of coastal state laws or. “Illegal fishing” also includes fishing in contravention of the measures adopted by the concerned RFMO or applicable international law. “Unreported fishing” refers to fishing activities that have not been reported or misreported to the concerned national authority in violation of national laws and regulations or undertaken in areas subject to but in contravention of the reporting procedure of the RFMOs. “Unregulated fishing” refers to activities conducted in a way that undermines the conservation measures of RFMOs in their operational area by vessels flying the flag of States that are not party to the concerned RFMO or which are conducted inconsistent to State responsibilities in areas lacking applicable conservation or management measures.
The determination of IUU fishing warrants the existence of compliance mechanisms through the adoption and implementation of national, regional and international legal framework, as set by coastal, flag and port States, RFMOs as well as applicable international law. Developing countries, which typically lack capacity and resources for effective monitoring, control, and surveillance of fishing activities within their jurisdiction, become particularly easy targets for IUU fishing. As IUU fishing exploits seam in the regulatory systems and enforcement capabilities of coastal states in the IOR, it overwhelms the weakly regulated or unregulated fisheries sectors. The 2020 report of the World Wildlife Fund written in cooperation with Trygg Mat Tracking and support of Global Fishing Watch noted the dominance of China in squid fishing in the Indian Ocean and found that unregulated squid fishing expanded by 830% in just five years.
Furthermore, by its very nature of misusing weak management and enforcement systems, IUU fishing threatens the coastal state security—a matter which cannot be discounted for any State. A strong case study in this regard would be India, which has a strategic location in the IOR where around 14% of global marine fisheries find home and yet over 30% of the fish stocks are not fished within biologically sustainable levels.
India does not permit fishing operations by foreign vessels within the Indian EEZ. However, there is a regulatory gap created by the lack of comprehensive national legislation and enforcement mechanisms to identify, prohibit and penalise the occurrence of IUU fishing. In 2019, Indian authorities identified 10 Chinese fishing vessels belonging to the Fu Yuan Yu fleet that were suspected of carrying “damaging illegal gear” and fishing unlawfully in Indian EEZ. Unfortunately, reports inculpating the Fu Yuan Yu fleet for illegal fishing are not novel but rather too common, underscoring the complex relationship between IUU fishing and maritime crime and violations of human rights, and the challenges to counter them.
Although, India only has a mere 104 deep sea fishing vessels that are equipped to fish beyond the Indian territorial waters, any Indian fishing vessel licensed and registered in India and manned with fully Indian crew is permitted to fish in the Indian EEZ in a sustainable manner. India is one of the 168 state parties to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and one of the 92 state parties the United Nations Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). Such strong state participation denotes that the obligations under these international instruments are vested on a large number of states, creating a largely uniform international legal regime.
Under UNCLOS, coastal states may regulate matters concerning fisheries as a part of their sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing all living and non-living resources in the EEZ. The exercise of such sovereign rights may be through licensing, collection of access fees, quotas, and other specific regulations relating to fishing vessels and fishing gear, enforcement procedures. Besides, coastal States are empowered to determine the total allowable catch of the living resources in their EEZ and are obliged to ensure that the living resources in their EEZ are not endangered by over-exploitation.
In the seminal case M/V Virginia G, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) affirmed the coastal state’s regulatory competence to manage fishing within its EEZ and related activities that impact fishing. The Tribunal highlighted that UNCLOS compels coastal states to adopt proper conservation and management measures based on relevant environmental and economic factors to maintain or restore fisheries at levels capable of producing “maximum sustainable yield.” Subsequently, in an advisory opinion, ITLOS characterized that coastal state obligations to adopt conservation and management measures for all living resources within the EEZ are mandatory and it determined that coastal states have the primary responsibility for taking the necessary measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. Furthermore, ITLOS confirmed that such laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state in conformity with the UNCLOS provisions for conserving living resources and protecting and preserving the marine environment within its EEZ constitute a part of the legal order for the seas and oceans established by UNCLOS. Therefore, state parties must comply with these rules at all times, and particularly when its ships are fishing in a coastal state’s EEZ.
These judicial holdings emphasise on the dispositive role of coastal states in combating IUU fishing. However, by virtue of Article 94 of UNCLOS, flag states also play a pivotal role in this regard by exercising effective jurisdiction and control over the conduct of ships flying their flag within the EEZ of other states. ITLOS has, in its advisory opinion, affirmed the obligation to effectively exercise flag State jurisdiction extends to ensure compliance by their fishing vessels with the UNCLOS commitment to conserve and manage marine living resources and particularly, the relevant coastal state measures in its EEZ. To ensure compliance, flag states must discharge “due diligence” with respect to the operations of its vessels in the EEZ of other States through necessary measures, including those of enforcement. Furthermore, the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration reiterated that the breach of this obligation of “due diligence” imposes liability for the flag state of ships conducting IUU fishing in another state’s EEZ. Correspondingly, flag states must hold the ships flying their flag accountable for alleged engagement in IUU fishing through appropriate investigative and remedial measures, as well as cooperate with coastal states.
To assist flag states in this regard, the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on Flag State Performance provides a range of actions, including monitoring, control and surveillance. These guidelines promote international information sharing and cooperation to place flag states in a position to refuse registration to vessels reported for IUU fishing or that are “flag-hopping”—a practice used to repeatedly register with new flag States to dodge detection—which undermines anti-IUU fishing efforts.
The high seas, which lie beyond areas of national jurisdiction, are open to all states and subject to high seas freedoms, including the freedom of fishing—albeit subject, inter alia, to the duty of conservation of the living resources of the high seas and cooperation with other States for that purpose, as well as the obligation to comply with the UNFSA and RFMOs. While discharging this duty of cooperation for the purposes of conservation of high seas living resources, states whose nationals exploit identical or different living resources in the same area are to negotiate, through means of appropriate sub-regional or regional fisheries organizations, for taking necessary measures. Similar to their effective role in the EEZ, the terms of the UNFSA and RFMOs provide for effective the management of international fisheries, but compliance is always a challenge.
The UNFSA complements the UNCLOS obligations by endorsing RFMOs or similar arrangements, particularly considering the specific characteristics of the sub-region or region, as pertinent players in enhancing cooperation between coastal States and States fishing on the high seas for effective conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The obligation for such cooperation is extended to non-members or non-participants of such organization as well. Additionally, States should enter into consultations in good faith and without delay, specially where there is evidence that the concerned fish stocks may be threatened by over-exploitation or where a new fishery is being developed for such stocks. Importantly, states are to ensure adoption of effective mechanisms for compliance and enforcement of their conservation and management measures in this regard, including necessary and reasonable use of force.
This legal regime is further influenced by instruments developed within the framework of the FAO, the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. Flag state obligations to effectively tackle IUU fishing are augmented by the 1995 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing vessels personnel (STCW-F Convention), the 2007 ILO Work in Fishing Convention, No. 188 (ILO Convention) and the 2012 Cape Town Agreement (CTA). These instruments are applicable to fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, which are generally involved in deep sea fishing operations. They relate to safety of fishing personnel at sea, protecting their living and working conditions and safety of fishing vessels, respectively.
These instruments also vest obligations on port states, which provide a powerful and cost-effective means of preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing. Port state commitments include exercise of control through non-discriminatory measures over foreign fishing vessels calling into ports, including by inspecting documents, fishing gear, catch on board fishing vessels, and prohibiting landings and transhipments. Other lucrative additions in this field are the IPOA-IUU, the 2007 Model Scheme on Port State Measures to Combat IUU Fishing (Port State Model Scheme) and the Agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (PSMA). The IPOA-IUU encourages port states to report to the concerned flag state where there is clear evidence of IUU activity and where IUU fishing occurred beyond that port state’s jurisdiction. The non-binding Port State Model Scheme emphasises on fishing vessel identification through IMO ship identification number—a Unique Vessel Identifier, which was extended for assignment to fishing vessels since 2013. The PSMA is the principal binding international agreement that specifically targets IUU fishing through conditions for the entry and use of ports by foreign fishing vessels.
However, inadequate state participation to these instruments today is disadvantageous to holding fishing vessels accountable for IUU fishing under parallel compliance regimes of the flag states and port states. Presently, the STCW-F Convention, ILO Convention and PSMA have entered into force, but they only have 34, 20 and 72 contracting parties respectively. Besides, the CTA has not yet entered into force and has 17 state parties only.
India is among the states that are not a party to the STCW-F Convention, ILO Convention and PSMA. The lack of legal commitment is also evidence of the required regulatory gap to intercept IUU fishing, which has alarming impacts over 1906 marine species found in the Indian waters, including an EEZ that spans over 2 million sq. km. These waters provide livelihood to some 28 million Indians at the primary level—a figure that almost doubles along the value chain. The traditional marine fishers of India continue to be increasingly dependent on marine capture fisheries for livelihoods, and with depleting fish stocks along the Indian coastline, the fishermen are forced to venture deeper into the sea at the cost of risking their lives—despite the recognised lack of traditional entrepreneurship in the deep-sea fisheries sector.
However, India acknowledges these special circumstances and the helplessness many of its fishers confront. Hence, at the trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization on the Agreement fisheries subsides, India sought special and differential treatment in the IUU fishing subsidies obligations, including with regard to overcapacity, for developing country members and least-developed countries. Specifically, it suggested exclusion of territorial waters—where most small scale and artisanal fishing takes place in the Indian context—from the prohibition of subsides for unreported and unregulated fishing.
Fishing within Indian territorial waters is legislated by the respective maritime State or Union territory of India. Commonly, these state legislations provide for licensing and registration of the fishing vessels and empower the relevant administrations to restrict, prohibit or regulate fishing in any specified area—keeping in view the need, inter alia, to: (a) protect the interests of stakeholders engaged in fishing, particularly those employing traditional fishing craft; (b) conserve fish; (c) to regulate fishing on a scientific basis; and (d) the need to maintain law and order in the sea. Despite this framework, large number of fishing boats routinely stray into other Indian states’ waters and beyond their specified area of operation—courtesy to depleting fish stocks in the coastal waters and weak enforcement of the existing laws. In fact, Italy questioned the legitimacy of fishing by Indian fishermen in Indian EEZ in the “Enrica Lexie” arbitration, where the Arbitral Tribunal held that “States may, exceptionally, exercise their freedoms under Article 87 of the Convention also through small non-registered vessels, although the Convention tends to discourage non-registration.”
Further, the adoption of clear and precise fisheries laws would require clarity on the maritime areas within the jurisdiction of states to help states to concretely realise the exact extent of implementation and enforcement of such laws. In reality, the existence of disputed maritime zones complicates the realisation of such laws.
The 2014 Arbitral Award in the Bangladesh/India Maritime Delimitation and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh/Myanmar judgement resulted overlapping grey areas in the Bay of Bengal (BoB). Beyond 200 NM from Bangladesh’s coast, Bangladesh has a sovereign entitlement to the seabed and its subsoil, while within 200 NM of the coast of India, India and Myanmar have overlapping sovereign rights in the water column and over the living resources therein. To resolve this dilemma, the arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to enter into further agreements or the creation of cooperative arrangement, wherein India and Myanmar have to either share or agree to apportion their sovereign rights in the EEZ, while Bangladesh enjoys exclusive rights over the continental shelf. In practice, fishermen routinely go missing in the rough sea conditions in the BoB and are often arrested for fishing in the maritime boundaries of each other by Bangladesh, India and Myanmar. India has bilaterally engaged with Bangladesh to combat transnational illegal activities at sea, including to restrain fishermen from crossing their respective maritime boundaries, and with Myanmar for cooperation in the field of fisheries in the BoB and the IOR, emphasising on maritime domain awareness and the inadvertent crossing of the maritime boundary by their respective fishermen and facilitating their early release. India and Myanmar have signed an MoU on border cooperation, including for peace and tranquillity on both sides of the maritime border, where usage of their respective maritime spaces for inimical activities is prohibited and both countries are to take necessary measures to prevent illegal fishing and deal with such incidents after mutual consultations. The above arrangements, nevertheless, direct for the need of comprehensive trilateral arrangements for fishing and fisheries in the BoB, in addition to bilateral comprehension of each country’s conduct in the grey areas.
Also, the unresolved dispute concerning the Sir Creek between India and Pakistan, which impacts the maritime boundary delimitation in the Arabian sea region coupled with absence of impactful fishing agreements, is a serious IUU fishing and national security concern. In 2011 Indian fishermen on board Indian fishing vessel MV Kuber were taken hostage and subsequently killed by Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists, who then entered India to strike Mumbai and murder hundreds of people. Also, in these disputed waters, the regular arrest of the fishermen of both countries for their inadvertent deviation into the other’s waters has become a common feature. Nevertheless, India has not maintained any database of registered fishermen across coastal borders with Pakistan. Although endeavours have been made to promote humane treatment of the arrested, detained or imprisoned fishermen in this case, a major loophole to be remedied lies in the selective usage of the Global Positioning System (GPS) by fishers straying into Pakistani territory to avoid surveillance. Clearly, disputed maritime boundaries aggravate IUU fishing, which in turn exposes coastal states to additional security threats.
However, to help countries navigate these overlapping maritime entitlements where the final delimitation agreement concerning the EEZ is pending, Article 74(3) of UNCLOS provides for two interlinked obligations on concerned coastal States for conduct during the entire transitional period: a positive obligation to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and a negative obligation to make every effort not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final agreement. The significance of these obligations has also been emphasised by the Award in the arbitration regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname (Guyana/Suriname) and the Judgement rendered in the dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.
Another impediment is the persistent tension between India and Sri Lanka regarding the traditional or historic fishing rights in the Palk strait region. The Award of the Eritrea-Yemen arbitration has laid precedence that the traditional fishing rights of nationals of other States continue to exist in a coastal State’s territorial sea and the latter has a duty to preserve the traditional fishing rights of free access and enjoyment for the fishermen of both States for the benefit of the lives and the livelihoods of what it described as the “poor and industrious order of men.” In the 1970s, India and Sri Lanka have agreements affirming the obligation. However, the friction perseveres with the fishermen belonging to the two countries being arrested for allegedly fishing therein and often, Indian fishermen suffer with injury or death due to being shot by Sri Lankan authorities. Subsequently, the repatriation of fishermen suffers delay, the seizure of the fishing boats leads to fishermen facing bankruptcy and the injured fishermen or family of the deceased are left awaiting adequate relief.
Another incident demonstrating the immense vulnerability of Indian fishermen came in 2012 Enrica Lexie case, when two Indian fisherman, who had chartered in the Indian EEZ, were shot and killed by Italian Marines on suspicion of piracy. The Marines served on board the Italian-flagged commercial oil tanker, Enrica Lexie, and the case created a diplomatic row between India and Italy for nearly a decade. These examples challenge the interpretation of the rights, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of coastal states under applicable international law, especially in the waters where they exercise sovereign rights over the natural resources. Further, they lament the direct impact of criminal activities on economic rights.
Given these increasing challenges, it becomes pertinent to enhance situational awareness of the activities in the maritime domain, particularly concerning IUU fishing. India has signed White Shipping Agreements with several countries to achieve maritime domain awareness, in addition to a multilateral construct comprising of 30 countries. Further, India established the Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) in 2018. The IFC-IOR strives for mutual collaboration and exchange of information and understanding the concerns and threats prevalent in the IOR, firstly through virtual means, including telephonically, video conferencing and use of internet, secondly by hosting Liaison Officers from partner countries, and thirdly, by enhancing capacity building. In June 2022, for example, the IFC-IOR reported 55 incidents of IUU fishing throughout the IOR, wherein 39 incidents were of local IUU fishing and 16 incidents of arrests of foreign fishers poaching in the waters of another. The IFC-IOR also publishes a weekly report of weekly incidents of IUU fishing tabulated inter alia with the vessel details, offences, county of region, fishers involved and responders. However, in there is no data on incidents of IUU fishing occurring where no legal consequences were imposed.
In these circumstances, it is clear that obscurity in law and weak enforcement enable vessels engaged in IUU fishing and augment its occurrence. The primary hurdle is the comprehensive identification of IUU fishing in itself. Embracing technology, especially capable of detecting suspicious fishing vessels, such as RF data acquisition, may be helpful. The case of India demonstrates that imprecise legal regulation of fisheries, results in an even frail enforcement at sea. For instance, just permitting Indian fishing vessels to fish in a “sustainable” manner with no further detailed guidelines is vague and inadequate to meet the coastal state and flag state obligations and hold the vessels engaged in IUU fishing accountable. The lack of participation in STCW-F, ILO Convention, CTA and PSMA are also severe drawbacks to combat IUU fishing. Applying the obligations under these instruments will also enable a humane approach to deal with vulnerable fish workers.
Besides, the legal framework must also take a specie-specific and area-specific approach, which will further enable states to actually take a precautionary approach for the conservation and management of fisheries. Importantly, provisional fishing arrangements in the disputed maritime areas must become a priority, since they have immediate security risks. Prima facie, however, putting in place these measures to combat IUU fishing requires a strong political will.
- 약력
Sindhura Natesha Polepalli는 인도 정부의 항만, 해운, 수로부(Directorate General of Shipping and Warrows)의 해양 법률 고문이다. 몰타 국제해양법연구소(IMO-International Maritime Law Institute, Malta)에서 해양법 분야에서의 눈부신 성과로 인해 수상과 함께 국제해양법 석사(LL.M.) 학위를 취득했다.
- 국내외 참고자료
- 알림
- 본지에 실린 내용은 필자 개인의 견해이며 본 연구소의 공식 입장이 아닙니다.
- KIMS Periscope는 매월 1일, 11일, 21일에 카카오톡 채널과 이메일로 발송됩니다.
- KIMS Periscope는 안보, 외교 및 해양 분야의 현안 분석 및 전망을 제시합니다.
- KIMS Periscope는 기획 원고로 발행되어 자유기고를 받지 않고 있습니다.