In 2015, in Cape Town, an expert meeting on fisheries crime culminated in a report stating that IUU fishing is costing Africa $1 billion, indicating that 1 in 4 fish were stolen from the continent.
But where do these figures come from?
What is IUU fishing?
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is fishing activities that contravene national and international laws and conventions.
A definition of the three categories of fishing can be found in the International Plan of Action to Combat IUU Fishing, adopted by the FAO in 2001:
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing can have economic impacts on African countries. These impacts are generated in particular by the loss of income that could be realised in the absence of this activity by local communities. Also, IUU fishing can reduce the revenues of these states from taxes, licensing and landing fees that are normally charged.
Are these proposed figures relevant?
The relevance of the figures put forward by the experts in Cape Town can be questioned on the basis of another study that focused on the Pacific region. The latter study states that activities considered as IUU fishing do not cause real losses for coastal states but can even contribute indirectly to the economy of these countries. The study explains that the majority of infringements are limited to misreporting catches and fishing with prohibited methods. Reducing these infringements would not increase state revenues because vessels simply do not pay according to their catches. The disappearance of these practices will just lead to a decrease in the profits of fishing companies.
The figure of US$1 billion for the African continent is also dubious as it is based on another study conducted in 2005 by the UK government and MRAG whose methods are highly questionable. The study used figures from 8 countries through anonymous and ambiguous sources and then applied them to the whole continent by creating a formula linked to each country's World Bank good governance scores. The link between IUU fishing losses and good governance does not seem obvious and has not been well explained in this study.
It must be concluded that this estimate, which is linked to the figure proposed by the 2005 study, does not really reflect reality. It is a figure that lacks rigour for several reasons, such as the figures on which the study was based, not only did it include fleets that do not necessarily land their catches in Africa, but it also neglected catches from artisanal maritime and continental fishing. Therefore, it is not known whether the figure of 1 in 4 is higher or lower than the actual losses, but it must be concluded that it does not necessarily reflect the reality of things.
In any case, IUU fishing remains a scourge to be combated as it is directly linked to overfishing and therefore presents a risk to food security. This should not be done through exaggerated or non-rigorous estimates, but rather through research and inspection methods that take into consideration the specificity of each region, especially when dealing with a region as complex as the African continent.
This information note is based on an analytical article written by Dr. André Standing, published in English only on our website.
With Senegal’s yellow card, fisheries agreement negotiations between the EU and Senegal are at a standstill. Meanwhile, the EU will negotiate the renewal of its SFPA with The Gambia, whose waters are bordered on both sides by Senegal’s. How would access to the Gambian waters be used by EU fleets, at a time when they may be barred from Senegal waters?