'...Fisheries like the light-luring squid fishery are truly globalized and require a globalized approach to governance'

RESEARCH ARTICLE | Fishing through the cracks: The unregulated nature of global squid fisheries

WORLDWIDE
Tuesday, March 14, 2023, 01:20 (GMT + 9)

The following is an excerpt from an article published by science.org:

While most research has focused on the legality of global industrial fishing, unregulated fishing has largely escaped scrutiny. Here, we evaluate the unregulated nature of global squid fisheries using AIS data and nighttime imagery of the globalized fleet of light-luring squid vessels. We find that this fishery is extensive, fishing 149,000 to 251,000 vessel days annually, and that effort increased 68% over the study period 2017–2020. Most vessels are highly mobile and fish in multiple regions, largely (86%) in unregulated areas. While scientists and policymakers express concerns over the declining abundance of squid stocks globally and regionally, we find a net increase in vessels fishing squid globally and spatial expansion of effort to novel areas. Since fishing effort is static in areas with increasing management, and rising in unmanaged areas, we suggest actors may take advantage of fragmented regulations to maximize resource extraction. Our findings highlight a profitable, but largely unregulated fishery, with strong potential for improved management.

Study area map. 

Map of study area and management statuses considered here. Boundaries are based on Marineregions.org (2022) (98) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or countries to which the authors belong (see Materials and Methods).(click image to enlarge)

Seafood represents one of the most widely traded food products globally (1, 2), yet the movements and activities of global industrial fishing fleets remain notoriously opaque. These fleets are characterized by limited oversight of their activities (3), a shifting landscape of national and international policy and regulation (4, 5), and highly globalized commodity chains (6), all of which contribute substantially to the challenges of transparency and traceability in the sector (7). Within these global fishing fleets, the most opaque and problematic activities are termed “illegal, unregulated, and unreported” (IUU). However, “IUU” fishing masks a huge diversity of problems with different drivers and solutions. To date, scientific literature has largely focused on the illegal aspects of IUU fishing (8–10), with some research directed toward the challenges of unreported fishing (11, 12), but fairly little work has examined the “unregulated” aspects of IUU fishing. This is further complicated by the fact that fishing labeled as unregulated also encompasses multiple meanings, and in reality, regulation manifests as layers and gradients of rules rather than a binary indicator of regulated or nonregulated activities.

Estimated squid fishing effort and AIS coverage.

Estimated effort (vessel days) and the percentage of those not broadcasting AIS in each squid fishing region annually and in total.

This relative inattention toward unregulated fishing—understood here as the complete lack, or extreme limitation of regulations to manage a fishery—is not because it is less challenging than its illegal and unreported counterparts. Unregulated fishing is problematic and difficult to address for several key reasons. First, a fundamental assumption of resource management is that in the absence of regulation and communication between actors, the incentives of individual users will often lead to overexploitation and underinvestment in the health of the resource system (13). While scholars have questioned the frequency with which these “open access” conditions occur in reality (14–16), globalized fleets of unregulated industrial fishing vessels are a close approximation of the conditions under which this overexploitation is expected to occur. Scholarship further suggests that actors may take advantage of fragmented regulations and missing institutions to extract resource and profit levels unobtainable in more regulated spaces (17, 18).Second, unregulated spaces are often directly adjacent to regulated ones [e.g., coastal states’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs)], and different fleets often target the same species and habitats. This creates substantial equity considerations for traditional and small-scale fishers that rely on species targeted by large industrial fleets (10) as well as for developing coastal states that rely on revenue from stocks that move between regulated and unregulated areas, for example, stocks of Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) for revenue in Argentina (19–23), jumbo flying squid (Dosidicus gigas) for Peru (24–26) and Ecuador (27–29), and unconfirmed species for northwest (NW) Indian Ocean states like Kenya (30). Third, unregulated fishing is subject to considerably less scrutiny than regulated activities and, as such, is more likely to be associated with questionable human rights and labor practices (31–33). Many of the fishing vessels conducting unregulated fishing stay at sea for exceptionally long periods (months to years), bunkering (i.e., obtaining fuel) and transshipping catches at sea, thus avoiding the oversight that accompanies port calls. Last, while unregulated fisheries are often not technically illegal, there are often connections between these fleets and activity deemed illegal elsewhere (34, 35); these connections are critically important to consider.

Squid fishing effort by region and year.

Annual aggregation of effort (vessel days) estimated from VIIRS. The orange bar and the number in the bar indicate the number and the percentage of the vessels detected only by VIIRS, respectively. The blue bar indicates vessels detected by both VIIRS and AIS. (click image to enlarge)

Here, we evaluate the unregulated nature of global squid fisheries using satellite imagery and vessel tracking and monitoring data from the globalized fleet of light-luring squid fishing vessels. Notably, we consider only unregulated fisheries here and do not evaluate the legality or illegality of this fishing activity. We chose this fishery for several key reasons. First, both the target species and fishing vessels are mobile and transboundary. Squid are migratory species that move over thousands of kilometers to feed, aggregate, and spawn, often straddling multiple EEZs and high seas areas in the process (36). Globalized squid fishing fleets are also highly nomadic, with vessels moving between management areas based on seasonal abundances, licensed fishing seasons, or migratory patterns of their target species (37). Second, fishing for cephalopods such as squid has gained global importance and consequence over the past 70 years (37). As of 2020, cephalopod catches constitute about 4.3% of all global marine catches by volume and about 7% by value (2). Squid products are important and sought-after components of many national cuisines, such as in Asian (Illex squids) and Mediterranean (Loligo squids) countries, and represent important dietary contributions, especially in the light of declining finfish catches (37). Third, the fishery is subject to limited or no management depending on its location, and thus provides the opportunity to evaluate it as a potential open access property regime. Regulation and management of globalized squid fisheries is a complex and multiscalar endeavor and varies considerably between high seas and coastal areas.

For example, out of the 17 global Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), only 2—the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) and South Pacific Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO)—consider squid species within their mandate (38). Notably, the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) may also potentially manage squid in the future but currently does not. These RFMOs present vastly different management regimes for the high seas, and in some high seas areas, there is no RFMO at all [e.g., southwest (SW) Atlantic Ocean]. Moreover, squid also occur in the EEZs of dozens of coastal states, each of which implements its own domestic fisheries regulations. To adequately assess how vessels move between these various resource regimes, we consider the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU). Paragraph 3.3.2 of the IPOA-IUU states one definition of unregulated fishing as that which occurs “in areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures...” (emphasis added) (39). We interpret the second part of this as requiring RFMOs to do more than simply exist or adopt general measures, if their mandated fisheries are to be considered regulated. Therefore, here, we consider regulated fisheries to consist of those that occur within the EEZs of coastal states or that occur within RFMOs that have implemented conservation and management measures (CMMs) pertaining specifically to squid stocks. In contrast, we consider unregulated fisheries to occur on the high seas where there is no RFMO in place or where the competent RFMO has adopted no regulation pertaining specifically to squid stocks. Notably, SPRFMO has adopted some measures to regulate the squid fishery (e.g., reporting of catches, vessel monitoring system (VMS) obligations, and transshipment notifications), but not direct management measures for squid stocks, such as quota or effort limits. Applying the definition above, we categorize activities targeting squid in the SPRFMO area as “unregulated” because CMM 18-2020 on the Jumbo Flying Squid Fishery, adopted by SPRFMO in 2020, does not include specific management provisions such as effort limitations or total catch limits for the squid fishery (40). That said, we recognize that this is a stock-specific interpretation, and fishing in this area may be considered regulated in relation to other relevant stocks. Last, concerns for the sustainability, ethics, and legality of the global squid fishery are mounting (21, 41, 42), demonstrating a growing need to evaluate practices in the fishery.

Fishing effort by regulation zone.

(A) Annual counts of total fishing hours by EEZ, RFMO managed, and unregulated zones. (B) Fraction of fishing hours identified in AIS that were observed within each management zone, by fishing flag (panel) and year.(click image to enlarge)

To conduct this analysis, we combined Automatic Identification System (AIS) data providing vessel tracks and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) data depicting light detections at night, to evaluate the location and activities of globalized squid fishing vessels. We then compared this activity to areas of competence for national and regional management bodies and relevant squid regulations to determine the extent to which this fishing activity is unregulated versus regulated (e.g., EEZ or RFMO with squid regulations). Last, we examined the spatial ranges of vessel movement and fishing activity to consider whether these vessels are highly mobile and, if so, what central characteristics are displayed by their movements. On the basis of this work, we summarize the trends observed in the global light-luring squid fishery, discuss the potential implications of these findings, and point to potential recommendations.

Total fishing effort by flag state and year.

Total fishing hours observed in AIS by fishing flag (stacked) and zone for the period 2017–2020.(click image to enlarge)

RESULTS

Estimating global light-luring squid fishing

The VIIRS sensor on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite system images the entire ocean every night and can detect squid vessels, which use bright lights. These data allow us to estimate fishing effort independent of vessel tracking or fisheries-dependent data. Using these data within our study area (Fig. 1), we estimate an increase in fishing effort in the globalized light-luring squid fishery of 68% over the study period 2017–2020. The total amount of light-luring vessel effort across the four regions increased over time from an estimated 149,000 vessel days in 2017 to 251,000 vessel days in 2020, of which 61 to 63% were by vessels not broadcasting AIS (Table 1 and Fig. 2). This light-luring vessel effort represents an estimated total of 801,000 vessel days over the period 2017–2020.(continues...)

Authors: KATHERINE L. SETO, NATHAN A. MILLER, DAVID KROODSMA, QUENTIN HANICH, MASANORI MIYAHARA, RUI SAITO, KRISTINA BOERDER, MASAKI TSUDA, YOSHIOKI OOZEKI AND OSVALDO URRUTIA S | Read the full article by clicking the link here

[email protected]
www.seafood.media

Print