C/2024/3277
29.5.2024
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 May 2024
as regards the notification to the Republic of Senegal of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
(C/2024/3277)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (1), and in particular Article 32 thereof,
Whereas:
1.
INTRODUCTION
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (the IUU Regulation) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
(2) Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure to identify non-cooperating third countries, the
démarches
in respect of such countries, the establishment of a list of such countries, the removal from that list, the publicity of that list and any emergency measures.
(3) Pursuant to Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to identify third countries that it considers as non-cooperating countries in the fight against IUU fishing. A third country is to be identified as non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
(4) Prior to identifying third countries as non-cooperating under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to first notify those third countries of the possibility of being identified as non-cooperating countries in accordance with Article 32 of that Regulation. That notification is of a preliminary nature.
(5) The notification to third countries in accordance with Article 32 is to be based on the criteria laid down in Article 31 of the IUU Regulation.
(6) The identification of non-cooperating third countries under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation is to be based on the review of all information as set out under paragraph 2 of that Article. It is to be based on the review of all information obtained pursuant to the IUU Regulation or, as appropriate, any other relevant information, such as the catch data, trade information obtained from national statistics and other reliable sources, vessel registers and databases, catch documents or statistical document programmes and IUU vessel lists adopted by regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), as well as any other information obtained in the ports and on the fishing grounds.
(7) In accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, the Council is to establish a list of non-cooperating third countries. The measures set out, inter alia, in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation apply to those countries.
(8) Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the IUU Regulation, the acceptance of validated catch certificates from third country flag States is subject to a notification from the flag State concerned to the Commission certifying that a) it has in place the arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing vessels, and b) its public authorities are empowered to attest the veracity of the information contained in catch certificates and to carry out verifications of such certificates.
(9) In accordance with Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to cooperate administratively with third countries in areas pertaining to the implementation of the provisions of that Regulation relating to catch certification.
2.
PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
(10) The Republic of Senegal (hereinafter ‘Senegal’) submitted its notification as a flag State pursuant to Article 20 of the IUU Regulation on 1 September 2009 and it was accepted by the Commission on 1 January 2010.
(11) Pursuant to Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission has been carrying out ad-hoc cooperation with the Senegalese authorities since 2009. This cooperation covered in particular the implementation of the catch certification scheme, the activities of vessels flying the flag of Member States operating in the waters under Senegal’s jurisdiction and the licencing procedure established by the authorities of Senegal. A mission to Senegal was carried by the services of the Commission from 20 to 24 June 2011 to verify the conditions for issuing fishing authorisations and licences in Senegal, in particular to European Union operators.
(12) Bilateral exchanges continued between the years 2011 to 2020 in relation to activities of vessels flying the flag of Senegal in waters outside Senegal’s jurisdiction, as well as activities of vessels flying the flag of Member States operating in waters under Senegal’s jurisdiction and calls of fishing vessels to the port of Dakar.
(13) In the framework of the 2020 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) annual meeting (2), issues pertaining to vessels flying the flag of Senegal as well as specific calls to the port of Dakar were raised by several Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities (CPCs). This led to queries from the Commission in relation to the controls carried out by Senegal to its fishing fleet operating outside its waters (particularly in the ICCAT Convention area) as well as the controls performed by the authorities of Senegal at national ports (3).
(14) As Senegal did not provide replies on those issues (or only partial ones), these questions were raised again by the Commission in the framework of the 2021 and 2022 ICCAT annual meetings (4). In addition, the Commission expressed concerns in relation to illegal exports of ICCAT tuna and tuna like species (swordfish and albacore tuna) from Senegal to the Union market for the year 2020 (5).
(15) The issue of the illegal exportations was further discussed bilaterally between the Commission and Senegal through the exchange of nine letters between November 2021 and October 2022 (6).
(16) In the meantime, on 1 March 2022, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the authorities of Senegal to have an overview of the fisheries control system established by Senegal and to verify whether effective controls and mechanisms are in place to ensure that the fishery products entering the Union market from Senegal are legal. The reply from Senegal was received on 19 January 2023 (7).
(17) Following a meeting between the Fisheries Minister of Senegal and the Commission on 6 July 2023, the Commission sent a letter on 19 July 2023 requesting Senegal to reply to the queries raised from 2020 to 2023 pertaining to the illegal exportations, the controls of the vessels flying the flag of Senegal and the controls carried out at Senegalese ports. Senegal replied to this letter in a correspondence dated 26 October and received by the Commission on 30 October 2023.
(18) In the meantime, on 26 October 2023, the Commission sent a letter to Senegal to inform the authorities of its further analysis of potential illegal exportations of fishery products from Senegal to the Union market for the period 2011 to 2020. These findings were also transmitted to ICCAT (8).
(19) In the framework of the 2023 ICCAT annual meeting (9), Senegal provided a reply to the Commission on 10 November 2023 (10).
(20) Senegal has ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1995 Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA) and acceded to the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) (11). Senegal also accepted the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement). Senegal adopted a National Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing in February 2014 and an updated plan was adopted in 2023 (12).
(21) Senegal is a contracting party to ICCAT (13), the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) and the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC). Senegal was a cooperating non-contracting party (CNCP) to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission from 2006 to 2022 (14). Senegal is also a member of the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States bordering the Atlantic Ocean (ATLAFCO/COMHAFAT).
(22) In order to evaluate the compliance of Senegal with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State incumbent upon it under international law referred to in recital (20), the Commission sought, collected and analysed all necessary information required for the purpose of this exercise, such as information circulated by RFMOs, information transmitted by Senegal and Member States as well as information retrieved from reliable databases.
3.
POSSIBILITY OF SENEGAL BEING IDENTIFIED AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY
(23) Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the duties of Senegal as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of this review, the Commission took into account the criteria laid down in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation.
3.1
Measures taken in respect of recurrence of IUU fishing activities and trade flows of products stemming from IUU fishing (Article 31(4) of the IUU Regulation)
(24) In accordance with Article 31(4)(a) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the measures taken by Senegal with respect to any recurrent IUU fishing activity carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals, or by fishing vessels operating in its maritime waters or using its ports.
(25) The Commission first analysed the measures taken by Senegal with respect to any recurrent IUU fishing activity carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals.
(26) In 2019, Senegal received information from a third country (15) on catches of albacore tuna by the fishing vessels MARIO 7 (16), MARIO 11 (17) and DIAMALAYE 1909 (18). These vessels were not on the ICCAT record of vessels authorised to fish for these species at that time. The information received from this third country also pointed at a quota overshoot of albacore tuna (19).
(27) However, as further mentioned in recitals (28) to (39), the fishing vessels MARIO 7 and MARIO 11 were able to engage in further IUU fishing activities in 2020. The fishing vessel LISBOA (20), owned by the same company (21), also exported in 2020 quantities of albacore tuna exceeding Senegal quota in ICCAT (22). The Commission therefore concludes that, despite this alert in 2019, no measures were taken by Senegal to efficiently control its fleet and to ensure that these vessels do not engage in IUU fishing activities.
(28) In the framework of the 2020 ICCAT annual meeting, information was circulated by an ICCAT contracting party in relation to vessels flying the flag of Senegal for having potentially engaged in IUU fishing activities (23). This information concerned the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11 and MAXIMUS (24).
(29) The fishing vessel MARIO 11 was sighted in May 2020 operating on the high seas, within the ICCAT Convention area, with tuna and shark fins on board (25).
(30) Senegal initially confirmed the following: first, that the fishing vessel was in the process of being de-registered from the national registry of vessels since 7 January 2020; and second, that it did not have a licence to fish on the high seas and that consequently its activities were considered illegal (26). The obligation to have an authorisation to operate on the high seas for fishing vessels flying the flag of Senegal is established in Senegal’s national legislation (27). However, later on, Senegal held that the presence of shark fins on board did not constitute sufficient proof that the vessel had carried out fishing activities, especially considering that it was not authorised to operate under Senegal’s national legislation (28). Therefore, Senegal requested the suspension of its inclusion on the ICCAT IUU list until evidence is found proving that the vessel did in fact carry out fishing operations (29). The vessel monitoring system (VMS) data received by the Commission from Senegal in October 2023 demonstrate that from January to June 2020 this fishing vessel was operating in the ICCAT Convention area (30).
(31) Through a communication dated 4 June 2020 (31), Senegal indicated that the fishing vessel MARIO 7 ‘would be’ in a similar situation (suggesting that the vessel was also in the process of being de-registered and no valid authorisation was issued by Senegal to fish on the high seas). According to information provided by Senegal in October 2023, this fishing vessel also operated on the high seas, within the ICCAT Convention area, during the first semester of 2020 (32).
(32) According to a letter from the authorities of Senegal (33), the operator of the fishing vessels MARIO 11 and MARIO 7 had requested their de-registration in May 2020. This letter also indicated that the fishing vessels were operating since November 2018 with an expired provisional certificate of registration. In August 2020, the authorities of Senegal stated that they approved the request of the operator and cancelled the provisional registration. From the above information, the Commission concludes that these vessels were not de-registered from Senegal’s national registry until August 2020 and, consequently, were operating without a valid registration certificate from November 2018 until August 2020.
(33) This situation poses serious doubts regarding the registration process put in place by Senegal as it appears that vessels flying its flag are allowed to operate without having a valid registration certificate. Indeed, both vessels were registered on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels during the years 2019 and 2020 as flying the flag of Senegal (at least until Senegal requested their removal from the ICCAT record following the sighting of vessel MARIO 11, mentioned in recital (29)) (34).
(34) This practice is not in line with Article 19 of the Voluntary Guidelines on Flag State Performance (35) which recommends that flag States conduct the registration of a vessel and issue an authorisation to engage in fishing and fishing related activities in a coordinated manner, that ensures each gives appropriate consideration to the other, and appropriate links exist between the operation of the vessel registers and the records of vessels. In addition, this Article further recommends that where such functions are not undertaken by one agency, the flag State ensures that sufficient cooperation and information sharing exists between the agencies responsible for those functions.
(35) In addition, as mentioned in recital (32), these vessels were removed from Senegal’s national registry in August 2020. Consequently, Senegal should have ensured that both vessels did not engage in any fishing activities until the deregistration process had been finalised, especially since no fishing licence to operate on the high seas had been issued by Senegal. This situation contravenes Article 18(3)(a) of UNFSA (36) which requires States to control the vessels flying their flag on the high seas by means of fishing licences. Further, this is also not in line with Article 3(2) of the Compliance Agreement (37) which recommends that States do not allow fishing vessel flying their flag to fish on the high seas unless they have been authorised.
(36) As indicated in recital (30), this situation is also in breach of Senegal’s national legislation which requires that vessels flying the flag of Senegal are to have an authorisation to operate on the high seas (38) and puts into question the controls of Senegal over vessels flying its flag. This is particularly due to the statement of Senegal that the authorities carry out inspections at sea and in ports in order to verify the licences (both national and regional) and logbooks with a view to ensure that the vessels flying the flag of Senegal are duly authorised to engage in fishing activities (39).
(37) Consequently, the fact that two vessels flying the flag of Senegal managed to engage in fishing activities on the high seas without valid registration and authorisation leads to the conclusion that the controls put in place by Senegal over vessels flying its flag are not in line either with its international or its national obligations.
(38) In addition, vessels flying the flag of Senegal operating in the ICCAT Convention area are to be equipped with VMS pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-10 (40). Despite this, Senegal does not ensure effective monitoring of the activities of fishing vessels flying its flag, as according to the VMS tracks provided by the authorities of Senegal, these two vessels were operating on the high seas, within the ICCAT Convention area, and this was not detected by Senegal (41).
(39) The fishing vessel MARIO 11 was included in the ICCAT IUU list following the discussions in the framework of the 2020 ICCAT annual meeting (42).
(40) In addition, further information was circulated in the framework of the 2020 ICCAT annual meeting in relation to the fishing vessel MAXIMUS, which was then flying the flag of Senegal (43). This vessel was sighted in March 2020 operating in the ICCAT Convention area, suspected of having engaged in transhipments at sea with a fishing vessel (44), while it was not authorised to carry out such operations (as a carrier vessel) in accordance with the ICCAT Recommendation 16-15 (45). That Recommendation establishes a record for carrier vessels authorised to receive tuna and tuna-like species. Carrier vessels not entered on the record are deemed not to be authorised to receive tuna and tuna-like species in transhipment operations. In addition, according to Senegalese national legislation, transhipments at sea are only allowed exceptionally upon authorisation from the Minister of Fisheries (46).
(41) Through bilateral exchanges, Senegal indicated that the fishing vessel MAXIMUS was inspected in September 2020 when it called to the port of Dakar. The authorities of Senegal did not detect any infringement and no evidence was found to corroborate that this vessel engaged in transhipments at sea (47).
(42) According to information gathered by the Commission in 2021, the fishing vessel MAXIMUS caught 311 tons of northern swordfish in a 36-days fishing trip, and then exported the products to the Union market (48). Considering the quantity caught by a single vessel in such a short time, the Commission requested further clarifications from Senegal in November 2021.
(43) In a letter dated 4 February 2022 (49), Senegal confirmed and acknowledged that these catches were fraudulently certified and that these findings reinforced the suspicions of illegal transhipments at sea committed by this vessel, already expressed in 2020 (50).
(44) In another communication dated 17 March 2022, the Commission highlighted that the fishing vessel LISBOA, flying the flag of Senegal until 13 November 2020 (51), exported 579 tons of albacore tuna to the Union market in 2020. In a letter dated 26 October 2023, Senegal indicated that these catches also stemmed from illegal transhipments at sea.
(45) In addition, the fishery products declared as caught by the vessels MAXIMUS and LISBOA exceeded the quotas allocated by ICCAT to Senegal for northern swordfish and albacore tuna for the year 2020 (52).
(46) This situation poses questions as to the controls carried out by the authorities of Senegal in relation to the vessels flying its flag. Despite the assurances given by Senegal that all fishing vessels calling to port in Senegal are subject to inspections (53) and that the catches landed are verified through landing manifests (54), these incidents demonstrate that two longliners were able to avoid the detection of the authorities of Senegal while engaging in non-authorised fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention area.
(47) In addition, vessels flying the flag of Senegal operating in the ICCAT Convention area are to be equipped with VMS pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-10, as indicated in recital (38).
(48) However, Senegal failed to detect that these two vessels caught quantities of fisheries products exceeding their allocated quotas, that the quantities declared could not all be caught within the duration of the fishing trips, and that both vessels had engaged in illegal transhipments at sea. A thorough verification of the VMS tracks, fishing logbooks and the landing manifests of these fishing vessels could have alerted the authorities of Senegal. The discrepancies found out by the Commission in the information provided by Senegal further confirm the lack of adequate control: according to the logbook data, the vessel MAXIMUS was fishing while according to the VMS tracks, the vessel was reportedly at port (55).
(49) This situation is in breach of UNFSA provisions. Pursuant to Article 18(1) of UNFSA, a State whose vessels fish on the high seas is to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that vessels flying its flag comply with RFMO rules and that such vessels do not engage in any activity which undermines the effectiveness of such measures. The activities of these vessels were not in line with ICCAT rules, particularly Recommendations on transhipments and on quotas allocation (56). In addition, Article 18(3)(f) of UNFSA requires a flag State to take measures in respect of vessels flying its flag including requirements for verifying the catch of target and non-target species through such means as inspection schemes, unloading reports, supervision of transhipment and monitoring of landed catches.
(50) The vessels MAXIMUS and LISBOA were then listed on the ICCAT IUU list in November 2022 (57).
(51) It is important to underline that the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11, MAXIMUS, LISBOA and DIAMALAYE 1909 were all owned by the same operator when flying the flag of Senegal (58).
(52) The Commission therefore concludes that no measures were taken by Senegal to efficiently control its fleet and to ensure that these vessels do not engage in IUU fishing activities.
(53) With regard to the information laid out in the recitals above (26 to 52), the Commission concluded that Senegal failed to uphold its responsibilities as a flag State to exercise control over its fleet and prevent vessels flying its flag from engaging in IUU activities in waters outside its jurisdiction. This is in breach of Article 94(1) and (2) of UNCLOS (59), which provides that every State is to effectively ensure its jurisdiction and control over vessels flying its flag. Senegal thus failed to discharge its due diligence obligation to deploy adequate means, to exercise best possible efforts and to do the utmost to prevent IUU fishing by ships flying its flag (60), particularly considering that, as referred to in recital (26) an alert was received back in 2019. That failure is also not in line with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU) (61) which state that States should ensure that fishing vessels entitled to fly their flag do not engage in or support IUU fishing.
(54) Furthermore, pursuant to Article 18(2) of UNFSA, a State is to authorise the use of vessels flying its flag for fishing on the high seas only where it is able to effectively exercise its responsibilities. Paragraph 30 of the Voluntary Guideline for Flag State Performance also recommends that flag States effectively implement a regime for authorising fishing activities only where they are satisfied that they can effectively exercise their jurisdiction and control over their vessels to ensure compliance with applicable rules. The information described in recitals (26) to (52) indicates that Senegal was not in a position to exercise such control.
(55) As a consequence, it cannot be excluded that fishing vessels flying the flag of Senegal, other than those referred to in recitals (26) to (52), have carried out IUU fishing or fishing-related activities in areas beyond the national jurisdiction of Senegal. In addition, Senegal’s lack of control over vessels flying its flag enabled such vessels to land and/or tranship fishery products and, therefore, cannot impede the entry of fishery products stemming from IUU fishing into the markets.
(56) The Commission also analysed the measures taken by Senegal with respect to any recurrent IUU fishing activity carried out or supported by fishing vessels using its ports.
(57) As a party to PSMA (62) and to the ICCAT Convention, Senegal is obliged as a port State to efficiently carry out inspections of the fishing vessels calling to its ports, including verifying whether the fishing vessel holds the necessary authorisation to carry out fishing activities in the RFMO area concerned and whether the fishing vessel is placed on an IUU list.
(58) In 2020, in the context of the ICCAT annual meeting, information was shared by a non-governmental organisation (63) in relation to the IUU listed vessel SAGE (64), a longliner with length over 20 meters, that would have engaged in fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention area.
(59) Senegal confirmed that this vessel called to the port of Dakar on 27 April 2020 to land 25 700 kg of tuna and tuna-like species (65). Senegal further indicated that this vessel called to Dakar port in 2017, 2018, 2019, that it was inspected by the authorities of Senegal at each port call and was duly authorised by its flag State (66).
(60) However, Senegal rectified its previous statement and indicated that the fishing vessel did not enter the port of Dakar in 2018, but it entered one time in 2017, five times in 2019, and one time in 2020 (67). Despite the requests from the Commission to receive information on the exact dates (day and month), species landed and the grounds of the port calls between 2017 and 2019, to date the Commission has not received this information from Senegal.
(61) This situation indicates that Senegal authorised a longliner with length over 20 meters that was not in the ICCAT record of authorised vessels to enter its port and to land tuna and tuna-like species. This is in breach of ICCAT Recommendation 13-13 which requires that CPCs are to take measures to prohibit the landing of tuna and tuna-like species by large-scale fishing vessels which are not entered into the ICCAT record of authorised vessels (68).
(62) Furthermore, pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-08 (69), this fishing vessel was presumed to have carried out IUU fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention area as it harvested tuna and tuna-like species while it was not registered on the relevant ICCAT list of vessels authorised to fish for such species in the ICCAT Convention area. Therefore, the authorisation issued by the authorities of Senegal to let this vessel enter the port of Dakar is in breach of the provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 18-09, which indicate that when a CPC has sufficient proof that a foreign fishing vessel seeking entry to its port has engaged in IUU fishing, this CPC has to deny that vessel entry into its port (70).
(63) In addition, despite having carried out inspections of this vessel at each port call (including a verification of its fishing licence and certificate of registration (71)), the authorities of Senegal failed to detect that this fishing vessel was an IUU listed fishing vessel (72). Pursuant to ICCAT Recommendations 12-07 (73) and 18-09, Senegal should have required to the master of this vessel information about the vessel’s identification. This includes the IMO number, which was the number of the vessel Chia Hao No. 66, IUU-listed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in 2005 and cross-listed in the ICCAT IUU list in 2011 (74).
(64) This situation is also in breach of Article 9(4) of PSMA which states that when a party has sufficient proof that a vessel seeking entry into its port has engaged in IUU fishing, in particular the inclusion of a vessel on a list of vessels having engaged in such fishing or fishing related activities adopted by a relevant regional fisheries management organisation in accordance with rules and procedures of such organisation and in conformity with international law, the party is to deny that vessel entry into its ports.
(65) This is also not in line with Article 9(5) of PSMA which indicates that a port State may allow entry into its ports of a vessel exclusively for the purpose of inspecting it and taking other appropriate actions in conformity with international law which are at least as effective as denial of port entry in preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing and fishing related activities in support of such fishing. Following the entry into port of the fishing vessel SAGE, apart from failing to detect that it was an IUU-listed fishing vessel, Senegal authorised this vessel to land fishery products and failed to take measures to ensure that this vessel would not continue engaging in fishing activities. Senegal acknowledged that the fishing vessel did not return to the port of Dakar only after the external disclosing of the fact that it was an IUU listed vessel (75).
(66) In addition, according to information gathered by the Commission, the longliner MEGA N°2 (76) operated in the ICCAT Convention area whilst it was no longer registered in the ICCAT record of authorised vessels (at least from 9 November 2018 following its deregistration from the flag of Belize) (77). This vessel operated from December 2018 to at least March 2019 in the ICCAT Convention area and during that period, this fishing vessel called to the port of Dakar at least twice in 2019, according to information gathered by the Commission (78).
(67) Through a bilateral exchange between the Commission and Senegal (79), the authorities of Senegal confirmed that this vessel called to the port of Dakar for repairs in March 2019 and that it did not hold an authorisation from ICCAT. This vessel was boarded by the Senegalese Navy, which did not find any infringement, so the vessel was authorised to leave the port.
(68) Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the vessel MEGA N° 2 changed its name to MARCO N°21 in 2020 (80), that this vessel continued operating in the ICCAT Convention area from January to November 2020 under that new name and carried fisheries products on board when it called to the port of Dakar in September 2020 (81). This fishing vessel was also not on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels while operating under that name.
(69) This indicates that Senegal authorised another longliner to enter its port in 2019 for repairs and it allowed it to call to the port of Dakar with fisheries products on board in 2020, while this vessel did not hold the necessary authorisation from ICCAT.
(70) This situation is in breach of ICCAT Recommendations 13-13 and 18-09 as well as Article 9 of PSMA as the entries into the port of Dakar should have been denied by the authorities of Senegal. Indeed, pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-09, where a foreign fishing vessel has entered one of its ports, the port State is to deny the fishing vessel the use of the port for refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and dry docking if the vessel does not have a valid and applicable authorisation to engage in fishing and fishing related activities in the ICCAT Convention area. Also, as indicated in recital (61), this is in breach of ICCAT Recommendation 13-13 which indicates that port States are to take measures to prohibit the landing of tuna and tuna-like species by large-scale fishing vessels which are not entered in the ICCAT record.
(71) This is also in breach of Article 9(6) of PSMA, which states that a party is to deny a vessel the use of its ports for landing, transhipping, packaging, and processing of fish and for other port services including, inter alia, refuelling and resupplying, maintenance and drydocking if a party has sufficient proof that a vessel seeking entry into its port has engaged in IUU fishing or fishing related activities. As this vessel was not on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels, its activities are considered as IUU activities pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-08 (82).
(72) No information on the flag State of this fishing vessel has been retrieved for the years 2019 and 2020, therefore it is presumed that this vessel operated as a stateless vessel. Pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 18-08, vessels are presumed to have carried out IUU fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention area when vessels are without nationality and harvest tuna or tuna-like species in the ICCAT Convention area. Therefore, in accordance with PSMA and ICCAT Recommendation 18-09, the port State is to deny the entry into port of such fishing vessels. Senegal has not mentioned whether any measure has been taken in relation to this fishing vessel and only acknowledged that this vessel entered Dakar port in 2018 for repairs (83).
(73) Furthermore, Senegal confirmed (84) the entry of other fishing vessels in Dakar port that could not be found on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels for the corresponding periods. Fishing vessel RICOS 3 (85) called to the port of Dakar for repairs in 2017 and 2018, and fishing vessel RICOS 6 (86), called to the port of Dakar in 2018 also for repairs.
(74) Similarly to fishing vessel MEGA N°2, Senegal authorised these two longliners with a length over 20 meters to enter its port without verifying whether these vessels were on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels.
(75) On the basis of the information provided in recitals (57) to (74), the port controls put in place by Senegal are not sufficient to guarantee the effective implementation of ICCAT Recommendations and PSMA provisions referred to in recitals (61) to (65), (71) and (72).
(76) In accordance with Article 31(4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the measures taken by Senegal with respect to access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market.
(77) As indicated in recitals (42) and (44), in 2020, the fishing vessel MAXIMUS exported 311 tons of northern swordfish and the fishing vessel LISBOA exported 579 tons of albacore tuna to the Union market. As confirmed by the authorities of Senegal (87), these catches stemmed from illegal transhipments at sea; therefore, these fisheries products were the result of IUU fishing activities and entered the Union market.
(78) In addition, as indicated in recital (45), these catches exceeded the quotas allocated to Senegal by ICCAT. Senegal however failed to detect that the quantities overshot the annual quotas established by ICCAT.
(79) Despite all these elements, the competent authorities of Senegal validated catch certificates according to Article 12 of the IUU Regulation, as well as the ICCAT statistical documents for swordfish pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 01-22 (88).
(80) Senegal replied that these catches were fraudulently certified, outside of the normal certification process (89). Senegal also mentioned that this occurred during the COVID period, which led to reduced inspection services (90).
(81) However, the catch certificates were validated by the authorities notified to the Commission by Senegal (91).
(82) In addition, the Commission gathered further elements on exportations from Senegal of swordfish and albacore tuna to the Union market. Analysis of the import data available from the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA) clearly points to recurrent exports to the Union market, from 2011 to 2019, of catches of these two species widely exceeding the quotas allocated by ICCAT (92). All catch certificates collected so far from the Member States (2015 to 2020 for albacore tuna, 2019 to 2020 for swordfish) confirm the general accuracy of the figures available in the EUMOFA database. The general accuracy of these figures is also confirmed for the period 2011-2012 by the specific exchanges that one Member State had with Senegal on its albacore tuna exports to the Union market (93).
(83) Consequently, as that situation is not limited only to the year 2020, and has taken place since at least 2011, the argument put forward by Senegal as indicated in recital (80), cannot be accepted by the Commission.
(84) In addition, the catch certificates that the Commission gathered from Member States show that these documents were also validated by the competent authorities of Senegal (94). This situation poses serious doubts as regards the reliability of the traceability system put in place by Senegal.
(85) Senegal explained the certification process to the Commission and highlighted that traceability is ensured through the validation not only of the catch certificate, but also of the certificate of first sale, sanitary certificate, and customs manifest (95). In addition, according to national Decree N°1975, all landings and transhipments in ports are to be notified to the competent authority validating the catch certificate in order to carry out an inspection (96). Senegal mentioned that a full inspection is performed, four services are consulted and issue an opinion before validating the certificate (97). However, the establishment of this procedure did not prevent the exportations of catches exceeding the ICCAT quotas allocated to Senegal to the Union market, thereby calling into question its effectiveness.
(86) Moreover, a Member State already alerted Senegal of an overshot of albacore tuna in 2012. Senegal indicated that investigations were being conducted and the country suspended the exportations of albacore tuna until the definitive settlement of this case (98). Yet the exportations of albacore tuna resumed in February 2013 via another Member State. Despite this alert, the data collected by the Commission underlines that the overshot continued until 2020 (99) and that, therefore, Senegal did not take the necessary corrective measures to put an end to this situation.
(87) As indicated in recital (26), a third country also alerted Senegal in 2019 of an overshot of this same tuna species. Despite this, as underlined in recital (45), the overshot of ICCAT quotas continued in 2020, involving the fishing vessel LISBOA.
(88) Despite the information received in 2012 and 2019, Senegal has not taken appropriate measures to ensure that the fishery products exported complied with the existing international, regional, and national rules.
(89) Taking into consideration the elements mentioned above, these catches (from 2011 to 2020) exported from Senegal to the Union market are considered as IUU products as they were caught and then exported in breach of ICCAT Recommendations, namely by exceeding the quotas allocated by ICCAT (100) and by failing to report the catches to the competent RFMO (101). This situation is also in breach of Articles 117 and 118 of UNCLOS on the conservation of the living resources of the high seas.
(90) Pursuant to Article 18(3)(f) of UNFSA, flag States are to take measures in respect of vessels flying their flag, including by introducing requirements for verifying the catches through such means as inspection schemes, unloading reports, supervision of transhipment and monitoring of landed catches and market statistics. The IPOA-IUU provides guidance on internationally agreed market-related measures which support reduction or elimination of trade in fish and fisheries products derived from IUU fishing. It also suggests at point 71 that States should take steps to improve the transparency of their markets in order to allow the traceability of fish or fish products. Equally, Article 11 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries outlines good practices for post-harvest activities and responsible international trade and requests States to ensure that fish and fishery products are traded internationally and domestically in accordance with sound conservation and management practices through improving the identification of the origin of fish and fishery products.
(91) As indicated in recitals (46) to (49), Senegal’s lack of control over the fishing vessels flying its flag enabled such vessels to tranship and land IUU fishery products in 2020. In addition, the elements gathered by the Commission for the years 2011 to 2020 show serious shortcomings in the traceability and certification procedures put in place by Senegal.
(92) On the basis of information provided under recitals (77) to (91), it is concluded, pursuant to Article 31(4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal has failed to prevent access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing into the markets.
(93) In view of the considerations presented in this section, and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission, it can be established, pursuant to Articles 31(3) and 31(4) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal has failed to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as a flag, port and market State to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
3.2
Failure to cooperate and to enforce (Article 31(5) of the IUU Regulation)
(94) In accordance with Article 31(5)(a) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed its collaboration with Senegal to determine whether the authorities had effectively cooperated in responding to questions, providing feedback or investigating matters concerning IUU fishing and related activities.
(95) The Commission has not received complete replies to the queries raised to Senegal since the 2020 ICCAT annual meeting, despite the numerous requests formulated either in bilateral exchanges and/or in the framework of ICCAT (102).
(96) It is important to underline that, while Senegal replies to the letters and statements from the Commission, its replies fall short of providing the relevant information or replying to certain questions.
(97) For instance, in July 2023, the Commission provided the authorities of Senegal with an exhaustive list of the queries remained unanswered since 2020. Despite the fact that Senegal replied to the Commission on 30 October 2023, Senegal still failed to provide information such as a complete report of the activities and catches of vessels MAXIMUS, LISBOA, MARIO 7, MARIO 11 and DIAMALAYE 1909 for the year 2019 and in 2020; detailed information on the origin of the catches stemming from the illegal transhipments at sea and details on the investigations carried out; detailed list and information in relation to the port calls of the fishing vessels SAGE, RICOS 3, RICOS 6 and MEGA N°2/ MARCO N°21.
(98) Furthermore, some replies from Senegal were received years after the original request. For instance, on 9 December 2020, the Commission asked Senegal to provide information on the activities of the fishing vessel MARIO 7 in 2020, as Senegal mentioned that this vessel would be in a similar situation with the vessel MARIO 11 (103). Despite several requests (104), Senegal only provided this reply on 30 October 2023. The information received demonstrates that the fishing vessel MARIO 7 engaged in fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention area in the first semester of 2020 while it apparently did not hold a valid authorisation issued by Senegal to fish on the high seas (105). However, the delay in response from Senegal deprived the Commission from the possibility of proposing that fishing vessel for IUU listing pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 21-13, as the three years’ timeline for such an action expired in June 2023 (106).
(99) In addition, the Commission had difficulties in receiving precise replies from the authorities of Senegal, which prevented the Commission from reaching conclusions on the extent of the IUU fishing activities. For instance, in relation to the activities of the vessel MARIO 7, Senegal stated in 2020 that this fishing vessel ‘would be in the same situation as the fishing vessel MARIO 11’ (107). However, if Senegal de-registered that vessel and did not deliver a fishing licence for the year 2020, it should have been in position to confirm this without delay. Moreover, Senegal did not provide precise information neither in relation to the port calls of several vessels, as indicated in recital (60). This prevented the Commission from knowing exactly the dates and the reasons for these port calls, and therefore to determine the nature of the activities of these vessels.
(100) On the basis of information provided under recitals (95) to (99) it is concluded, pursuant to Article 31(5)(a) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal has failed to effectively cooperate in responding to questions, providing feedback or investigating matters concerning IUU fishing and related activities.
(101) In accordance with Article 31(5)(b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed existing enforcement measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing adopted by Senegal.
(102) Article 19 of UNFSA requires flag States to investigate fully any alleged violation of subregional or regional conservation and management measures. The same Article also states that sanctions applicable in respect of violations are to be adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance and to discourage violations wherever they occur and need to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from their illegal activities. Similar wording is contained in point 21 of the IPOA-IUU and point 38(a) of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Flag State Performance.
(103) As mentioned in recitals (26) and (86), despite alerts received in 2012 and 2019 in relation to the overshoot of ICCAT species quotas from its fleet, Senegal did not take the appropriate enforcement measures, as the ICCAT quotas allocated by ICCAT continued to be exceeded until the year 2020.
(104) Furthermore, the Commission requested several times information on the sanctions imposed by Senegal on the operator that owned the fleet MAXIMUS, LISBOA, MARIO 7 and MARIO 11 in relation to the IUU fishing activities carried out in 2020 (108).
(105) The measures mentioned by Senegal in relation to the company that owned the fleet included: the withdrawal of its authorisation to operate, the permanent suspension of the issuance of catch certificates from this operator, the de-registration of the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11, MAXIMUS, and LISBOA, the non-renewal of the fishing licenses and of the ICCAT authorisations of these vessels (109).
(106) To date, the Commission has not been informed on any further measure, including financial penalty, imposed to this operator in relation to the IUU fishing activities carried out by its fleet. Senegal indicated in October 2023 that investigations to determine the nature and the legal basis of financial penalties are ongoing (110).
(107) Those measures do not take into account the benefits enjoyed by that company as a result of the IUU fishing activities carried out by its fleet. This contravenes the recommendations to take enforcement measures in respect of IUU fishing activities and to sanction offenders with sufficient severity to effectively prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from such fishing, as set out in Article 19(2) of UNFSA, paragraph 21 of the IPOA-IUU, paragraph 8(2)(7) of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as well as points 31 to 33, 35 and 38 of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance.
(108) In addition, it is important to recall that, as mentioned in recital (32), the operator had requested the de-registration of the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11, as well as for the vessels MAXIMUS and LISBOA (111). The removal of these vessels from Senegal’s registry was made based on the operator’s requests. Consequently, this cannot be seen as a measure taken by the authorities of Senegal against the operator. Furthermore, de-registration of fishing vessels is not a sufficient measure for a flag State to take, as such measure does not address the benefits stemming from the IUU fishing activity, and it does not ensure application of sanctions or measures against IUU fishing activities carried out.
(109) In relation to the non-renewal of the fishing licences, the fishing vessels MARIO 11 and MARIO 7 operated on the high seas in the first semester of 2020 without a valid licence delivered by Senegal; therefore, neither the non-renewal can be seen as an effective measure (as the licence was already not renewed).
(110) Moreover, the suspension of the authorisation to operate for that company was only imposed in August 2022, three years after the first alert raised in relation to this fleet (112). In addition, the fishing vessel DIAMALAYE 1909 was still authorised to operate in the ICCAT Convention area during 2021, despite the elements mentioned in recital (26), therefore that company continued to make benefits that year, after the detection of IUU fishing activities in 2019 and 2020 (113).
(111) Consequently, none of these measures seem to have addressed the benefits made by the company and cannot be considered as proportionate, deterrent and effective.
(112) Furthermore, as mentioned in recital (26), Senegal received in 2019 information from a third country on catches of albacore tuna by the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11 and DIAMALAYE 1909; these vessels were not on the ICCAT record of vessels authorised to fish for that species at that time (114). The information received from this third country also pointed at a quota overshoot of albacore tuna. However, the fishing vessels MARIO 7, MARIO 11, MAXIMUS, and LISBOA, all owned by the same operator, were able to engage in further IUU fishing activities.
(113) Furthermore, Senegal stated that no action could be taken against the vessel MAXIMUS as illegal transhipments could only be sanctioned if the vessels were caught in the act (115). This statement is in line with Article 91 of the Maritime Fisheries Code adopted by Senegal on 13 July 2015, which is applicable in cases where the vessel cannot be inspected or has fled, as well as for very specific infringements (absence of valid fishing licence, fishing in a restricted area) (116). The Commission notes that this provision makes it difficult to catch vessels engaging in illegal transhipments at sea, particularly on the high seas, and consequently it may hamper the authorities from taking the necessary enforcement measures, even if evidence has been provided to the authorities.
(114) On the basis of information provided under recitals (102) to (113) it is concluded, pursuant to Article 31(5)(b) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal has failed to implement adequate enforcement measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
(115) In accordance with Article 31(5)(c) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the extent and gravity of the manifestations of IUU fishing considered.
(116) As indicated in recitals (45) and (82), Senegal exported quantities of fishery products exceeding the quotas allocated by ICCAT, and this occurred during several years according to the elements gathered by the Commission.
(117) In view of the considerations presented in this section, and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by the Senegalese authorities, it could be established, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (5) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal failed to discharge its duties under international law with respect to cooperation and enforcement.
3.3
Failure to implement international rules (Article 31(6) of the IUU Regulation)
(118) In accordance with Article 31(6)(a) and (b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed Senegal’s ratification or accession to relevant international fisheries instruments and its status as a contracting party to RFMOs or its agreement to apply the conservation and management measures adopted by them.
(119) As described in recitals (20) and (21), Senegal is a party to UNCLOS, UNFSA and PSMA. The country is a contracting party to ICCAT and a member of relevant regional organisations (CECAF, SRFC, ATLAFCO/COMHAFAT).
(120) Senegal adopted on 13 July 2015 a law establishing a Maritime Fisheries Code and an implementing decree on 22 November 2016 (117). One of the objectives of that Code was to adopt new provisions in order to improve the fight against IUU fishing; however, the Commission noted that there is no definition of IUU fishing activities in that text. In addition, Senegal indicated that despite the law being adopted before its accession to PSMA (118), the relevant provisions of that international agreement were transposed in the new Code. However, the provisions on port State measures remain limited in that Code, particularly the Code does not contain provisions on the use of ports and the conduct of inspections (119).
(121) In accordance with Article 31(6)(c) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed whether Senegal might have been involved in any acts or omissions that may have diminished the effectiveness of applicable laws, regulations or international conservation and management measures.
(122) As indicated in previous sections, the activities of vessels flying the flag of Senegal in the ICCAT Convention area as well as the lack of port controls diminished the conservation and management measures adopted by this RFMO. In addition, in the framework of ICCAT, Senegal received in 2022 a letter of identification ‘due to concerns about lack of fulfilment of flag and market State responsibilities to take appropriate actions in response to IUU fishing activity, including possible significant amounts of illegal transhipments and/or overharvest of ICCAT species as reflected by recurring discrepancies between exports and reported catch, validation of exports of such fish’ (120). In the framework of the 2023 ICCAT annual meeting, that identification was not revoked, as Senegal failed to submit an action plan outlining the actions taken to address the shortcomings identified (121).
(123) As indicated in Section 3.1, Senegal fails to fulfil its obligations derived from PSMA, which require States to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing through the implementation of effective port State measures, as well as its duties pursuant to UNFSA, particularly Articles 18 and 19, which require a State whose vessels fish on the high seas, to take control measures to ensure that those vessels comply with RFMO rules.
(124) In view of the considerations presented in this section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission and the statements made by Senegal, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (6) of the IUU Regulation, that Senegal failed to discharge all the duties incumbent upon it under international law with respect to international rules, regulations and conservation and management measures.
3.4
Specific constraints of developing countries (Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulation)
(125) Senegal was considered in 2021 by the United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI) (122) as a low human development country, ranking 170 out of 189 countries.
(126) Although specific capacity constraints may exist with respect to monitoring, control and surveillance of its fleet, the specific constraints of Senegal derived from its level of development do not justify all the deficiencies identified in the previous sections. No evidence suggests that the failure of Senegal to discharge its duties under international law is the result of the low levels of development reflected in the UNDHI ranking. No tangible evidence exists to correlate shortcomings in fisheries legal framework, monitoring, control and surveillance, and traceability systems, with poor capacity and infrastructure.
(127) Furthermore, Senegal has not highlighted any constraints in terms of implementation of its obligations. On the contrary, the authorities stated that ‘the system established by Senegal is in line with the requirements and responsibilities established under ICCAT Convention and managements measures and allow for the verification of compliance with these measures by authorised vessels’ (123).
(128) Since 2018, the Commission has provided support to Senegal in the fisheries sector through the regional programme (Improve Regional Fisheries Governance in Western Africa, PESCAO) (124).
(129) In view of the facts presented in this section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as the statements made by Senegal, it could be established, pursuant to Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulation, that the development status and overall performance of Senegal with respect to fisheries management may be impaired by its level of development. However, account taken of the nature of the established shortcomings of Senegal, the development level of Senegal cannot excuse or otherwise justify lack of cooperation and the country’s overall performance as flag, port, coastal or market State with respect to fisheries and the insufficiency of its actions to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
4.
CONCLUSION ON THE POSSIBLE IDENTIFICATION AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY
(130) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the failure of Senegal to discharge its duties under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State and to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, Senegal should be notified, in accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in the fight against IUU fishing.
(131) The Commission should also take all the
démarches
set out in Article 32 of the IUU Regulation with respect to Senegal. In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which that country may respond in writing to the notification and rectify the situation.
(132) Furthermore, the notification to Senegal of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers to be a non-cooperating third country for the purposes of this Decision does neither preclude nor automatically entail any subsequent step taken by the Commission or the Council for the purpose of the identification and the establishment of a list of non-cooperating third countries,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Republic of Senegal shall be notified of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 2024.
For the Commission
Virginijus SINKEVIČIUS
Member of the Commission
(1)
OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1
.
(2) 2020 written exchanges replacing the 22nd special meeting of ICCAT.
(3) ICCAT Documents PWG_411/2020, PWG_416/2020, PWG_425/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
.
(4) 27th Regular meeting of the Commission, 15-23 November 2021; 23rd special meeting of the Commission, 13-21 November 2022.
(5) ICCAT Documents COC-322A/2021; COC_312A/2022; COC_312A_ADD_2/2022; COC-312A_ADD_3/2022; COC_312A_ADD_4/2022, available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
and
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(6) Letters dated 25 November 2021, 9 December 2021, 4 February 2022, 17 March 2022, 17 May 2022, 24 May 2022, 10 June 2022, 19 August 2022, and 12 October 2022.
(7) An update of the reply to the questionnaire was received by the Commission on 26 May 2023.
(8) ICCAT Document COC/312 Annex 1, available under:
https://iccat.int/COM2023/index.htm#
.
(9) 28th Regular Meeting of the Commission, 13-20 November 2023.
(10) ICCAT Document COC_306_REV/2023, available under:
https://iccat.int/COM2023/index.htm#
.
(11)
https://treaties.un.org/
;
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/FishStocks_EN_C.pdf
;
https://www.fao.org/port-state-measures/background/parties-psma/en/
.
(12) An updated plan was received by the Commission in November 2023.
(13) Senegal became a contracting party to ICCAT in 1971, withdrew in 1988, and re-joined the Commission in 2004,
https://www.iccat.int/en/contracting.html
.
(14) Senegal did not apply for renewal of its CNCP status in 2022; report of the 26th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
https://iotc.org/meetings/26th-session-indian-ocean-tuna-commission
.
(15) ICCAT Documents COC-312A_ADD_3/2022 and PWG_405_ADD_2/2022, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(16) MARIO 7, IMO N°8529521. Current name: BLUEFIN, current flag: Namibia. Previous flag: Senegal (until August 2020).
(17) MARIO 11, IMO N°8529533. Current name: HALIFAX; current flag: Namibia. Previous flag: Senegal (until August 2020).
(18) DIAMALAYE 1909, IMO N°8017762. Current name: LUCCIA, current flag: The Gambia.
(19) See footnote 15.
(20) LISBOA, IMO N°7929176, longliner. Current name: KIKI, current flag: Unknown. Previous flags: The Gambia (until November 2023), Senegal (until November 2020).
(21) HSIN FEI TRADING INVESTMENT COMPANY Dite NATIC SARL (NATIC SARL) (
https://www.iccat.int/en/vesselsrecord.asp
).
(22) See recital (45).
(23) ICCAT Document PWG-405C/2020 (available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
) and ICCAT Circular 7716/2020.
(24) MAXIMUS, IMO N°9038402, longliner. Current flag: Unknown, current name: LUCAS. Previous flags: The Gambia (until November 2023), Senegal (until November 2020).
(25) ICCAT Document PWG-405C/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
.
(26) ICCAT Circular 3977/20 (dated 12 June 2020) and Document PWG_416/2020 available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
.
(27) Articles 34 and 35 of the Law No 2015 – 18 of 13 July 2015 establishing the Maritime Fisheries Code (‘ Loi n° 2015-18 du 13 juillet 2015 portant Code de la Pêche maritime ’), available under:
https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/sen155049.pdf
.
(28) ICCAT Document PWG_412/2020, dated 3 November 2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en.
(29) Idem.
(30) Letter dated 26 October and received by the Commission on 30 October 2023.
(31) ICCAT Circular 3977/20.
(32) Letter dated 26 October and received by the Commission on 30 October 2023; VMS tracks of the vessel provided from January to June 2020.
(33) ICCAT Circular 8965/21, dated 29 November 2021.
(34) ICCAT Document PWG-405C/2020 (available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
); the fishing vessel MARIO 11 was on the ICCAT record of authorised vessels when it was sighted operating in May 2020 (under ICCAT No. AT000SEN00031). According to the ICCAT record, the fishing vessel MARIO 7 would have been registered at least until June 2020.
(35)
https://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/international-framework/voluntary-guidelines-for-flag-state-performance/en/#:~:text=The%20Voluntary%20Guidelines%20for%20Flag,and%20control%20of%20fishing%20vessels
.
(36)
https://www.un.org/oceancapacity/UNFSA
.
(37)
https://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/international-framework/fao-compliance-agreement/en/
.
(38) Articles 34 and 35 of the Maritime Fisheries Code.
(39) Communication from Senegal dated 19 January 2023.
(40) Paragraph 1 of that Recommendation: ‘contracting parties […] shall implement a vessel monitoring system […] for its commercial fishing vessels exceeding 20 meters between perpendiculars or 24 meters length overall’,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(41) Letters dated 26 October 2023.
(42) Under serial N°2020001,
https://www.iccat.int/en/IUUlist.html
.
(43) Senegal indicated that this vessel was deregistered on 13 November 2020 (Inspection report of the fishing vessel, received on 29 July 2021 from the authorities of Senegal).
(44) ICCAT Circular 7716/2020.
(45) ICCAT Recommendation 16-15 on transhipment applicable in 2020, repealed by Recommendation 21-15, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(46) Article 55 of the Maritime Fisheries Code.
(47) Emails exchanged between the Commission and Senegal from 20 July to 30 July 2021. Inspection report of the fishing vessel, received on 29 July 2021 from the authorities of Senegal.
(48) ICCAT Document COC-322/2021, available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
. The fishing trip took place from 26 May to 30 June 2020. To be noted that the quantities are converted in live weight (239 tons of dressed weight).
(49) Letter received by the Commission on 14 February 2022; Senegal reaffirmed this statement during the 2022 ICCAT annual meeting (ICCAT Document COC_312A_ADD_4/2022, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
).
(50) See recital (40).
(51) Current name: KIKI, current flag: Unknown. Previous flags: The Gambia (until November 2023), Senegal (until November 2020).
(52) In 2020, Senegal had an adjusted quota of 225 tons for northern swordfish and 240 tons for albacore tuna as allocated to Senegal by ICCAT (Recommendations 17-02, 16-06 and 16-07,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
). See also ICCAT Document COC-304(D)/2022, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(53) Communication dated 26 May 2023.
(54) Communication dated 19 January 2023.
(55) Letter from Senegal dated 17 May 2022, extracts of logbooks as well as VMS tracks provided for the fishing vessel MAXIMUS.
(56) ICCAT Recommendation 16-15 on transhipment applicable in 2020, repealed by Recommendation 21-15; ICCAT Recommendations 16-06 (north albacore tuna), 16-07 (south albacore tuna), 17-02 (northern swordfish), 17-03, (southern swordfish), available under:
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(57) MAXIMUS under serial N°20220006, LISBOA under serial N°20220008;
https://www.iccat.int/en/IUUlist.html
.
(58) See recital (27) and footnote 21, the company is HSIN FEI TRADING INVESTMENT COMPANY Dite NATIC SARL (NATIC SARL) (
https://www.iccat.int/en/vesselsrecord.asp
).
(59)
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
.
(60) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case No 21, par.129.
(61)
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=71be21c9-8406-5f66-ac68-1e74604464e7
.
(62)
https://www.fao.org/port-state-measures/resources/detail/en/c/1111616/
.
(63) ICCAT Document CoC 312/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
.
(64) SAGE, IMO N°7825215, longliner, IUU listed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in 2005. Current flag: Unknown according to several open databases. Previous flag: The Gambia (deregistered on 8 February 2021), Seychelles, Belize. Previous names: CHI FUW NO. 6, CHIA HAO N°66. This vessel has been cross listed by ICCAT in 2011, under serial N°20110014.
(65) ICCAT Document COC_312/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
.
(66) Idem. According to information gathered by the Commission, this fishing vessel was flying the flag of The Gambia from 2019 to February 2021, it was previously flagged to Liberia according to information provided by Senegal.
(67) Information provided by Senegal through a letter received by the Commission on 30 October 2023. The authorities of Senegal confirmed that the vessel was inspected at each port call.
(68) Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the establishment of an ICCAT record of vessels 20 metres in length overall or greater authorized to operate in the Convention area. The Recommendation 13-13 was applicable when the fishing vessel SAGE called to the port of Dakar; this recommendation was then repealed by ICCAT Recommendation 21-14 (
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
).
(69) Recommendation by ICCAT on establishing a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. The Recommendation 18-08 was applicable when the fishing vessel SAGE called to the port of Dakar; this recommendation was then repealed by ICCAT Recommendation 21-13 (
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
).
(70) Recommendation by ICCAT on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, paragraph 17 (
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
).
(71) ICCAT Document COC_322_APP_2/ 2021 (available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
) and letter dated 26 October 2023.
(72) The fishing vessel SAGE has changed its name several times since its IUU listing, see footnote 64. Nevertheless, a verification of the IMO number of the fishing vessel would have been sufficient to conclude that this fishing vessel was IUU listed.
(73) Recommendation 12-07 by ICCAT for an ICCAT scheme for minimum standards for inspection in port, repealed by Recommendation 18-09,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
(74) See footnote 64.
(75) ICCAT Document COC_312/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
, and COC_322_APP_2/ 2021, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
.
(76) Vessel MEGA N°2, IMO N°8004076, current name ISRAR 1, current flag: Unknown. Previous flags: Oman, Unknown, Belize. Previous name: MARCO N°21. This vessel was IUU listed by ICCAT in 2021, under serial N°20210006, for harvesting tunas and tuna-like species in the Convention area and was not registered on the relevant ICCAT list of vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the ICCAT Convention area.
(77) This fishing vessel was previously registered under AT000BLZ00061, flag Belize. According to information provided by Belize, the vessel was de-registered by Belize on 8 November 2018 (ICCAT Document COC_312/2021, available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
).
(78) The Commission gathered ‘Automatic Identification System’ (AIS) data that demonstrates that this vessel operated in the ICCAT Convention area from January to March 2019; to be noted that the vessel cut its AIS in March 2019 when leaving the port of Dakar and switched it back on in September 2019 while being at Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
(79) Email exchanges between 29 March and 2 April 2019.
(80) Documents available on the ICCAT website, in the IUU list page, vessel ISRAR 1, serial N°20210006, previous information,
https://www.iccat.int/en/IUUlist.html
.
(81) This information was retrieved on the website of Dakar port website:
https://atlantis.portdakar.sn/accueil.jsp
.
(82) Paragraph 1) a): Harvest tuna and tuna-like species in the Convention area and are not registered on the relevant ICCAT list of vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the ICCAT Convention area,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(83) Letter dated 17 November 2020 sent to the ICCAT Secretariat (ICCAT Circular 7668/20, not published), information confirmed through ICCAT Document COC_322_APP_2/2021, available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
, and letter sent by Senegal and received by the Commission on 30 October 2023.
(84) Idem.
(85) RICOS 3, IMO N°8568682, then renamed ISRAR 3. Current flag: Unknown. Previous flags: Oman (from 2020 to 2023), Saint Vincent & the Grenadines (from 2015 to 2018), Tanzania. Previous name: MARIO 3. This vessel was IUU listed by ICCAT in 2021, under serial N°20210008, for harvesting tunas and tuna-like species in the Convention area and was not registered on the relevant ICCAT list of vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the ICCAT Convention area.
(86) RICOS 6, IMO N°8568694, then renamed ISRAR 2. Current flag: Unknown. Previous flags: Oman (from 2020 to 2023), Saint Vincent & the Grenadines (from 2015 to 2018), Tanzania. Previous name: MARIO 6. This vessel was IUU listed by ICCAT in 2021, under serial N°20210007, for harvesting tunas and tuna-like species in the Convention area and was not registered on the relevant ICCAT list of vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the ICCAT Convention area.
(87) See recitals (43) and (44).
(88) Recommendation by ICCAT establishing a swordfish statistical document program,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(89) Letters dated 4 February 2022 and 17 May 2022; ICCAT Document COC_312A/2022; ICCAT Document COC_312A_ADD_4/2022; ICCAT Document COC_312A_ADD_2/2022, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
; ICCAT Document COC_306_REV/2023; ICCAT Document COC_309/2023, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2023/index.htm#
.
(90) ICCAT Document COC_312A_ADD_4/2022 (available under
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
) and letter dated 26 October 2023.
(91) Article 20 of the IUU Regulation and ICCAT Recommendation 01-22,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(92) Data retrieved on EUMOFA
https://www.eumofa.eu/
. ICCAT Document COC_312_ANNEX 1/2023, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2023/index.htm#
.
(93) See recital (86).
(94) The Commission has gathered catch certificates validated by Senegal for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
(95) Communication dated 26 May 2023, update of the reply to the questionnaire sent by the Commission. It is not indicated since when exactly this procedure is in place.
(96) Ministerial Decree No 1975 of 5 March 2010 establishing a catch certificate for fishery products (‘Arrêté ministériel N°1975 du 5 mars 2010 instituant le certificat de capture des produits de la pêche’).
(97) See footnote 95.
(98) Letter from Senegal dated 31 December 2012.
(99) As indicated in recital (45).
(100) ICCAT Recommendations 09-05, 11-04, 13-05, 16-06, 20-03, 21-04 (north albacore tuna); ICCAT Recommendations 07-03, 11-05, 13-06, 16-07, 20-05, 21-05 (south albacore tuna); Recommendations 10-02, 11-02, 13-02, 16-03, 17-02, 21-02 (northern swordfish); ICCAT Recommendations 09-03, 12-01, 13-03, 16-04, 17-03, 21-03 (southern swordfish), available under:
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(101) Article IX of the ICCAT Convention, Recommendation 05-09 by ICCAT on compliance with statistical reporting obligations, Recommendation 11-15 by ICCAT on penalties applicable in case of non-fulfilment of reporting obligations and see also footnote 100 (
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
).
(102) For instance, ICCAT Documents COC-322A/2021 (available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
) and COC_312A/2022 (available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
).
(103) ICCAT Document PWG_425/2020, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2020/index.htm#en
. See also recital (31).
(104) ICCAT Documents COC-322/2021 and COC_312A/2022: ‘
Senegal has repeatedly failed to provide the information requested in relation to MARIO 7 in order to determine whether the vessel was also operating without authorisation in the Convention area in 2020
’. Available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
and
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(105) ICCAT Circular 3977/20:
‘This vessel [MARIO 11] does not hold a valid license applicable to all vessels flying our flag while fishing on high seas. Therefore, in accordance with national legislation, this fishing activity is considered illegal. The situation would be similar for the vessel “MARIO 7” AT000SEN00030’.
(106) Paragraph 2 of ICCAT Recommendation 21-13,
https://www.iccat.int/en/RecRes.asp
.
(107) See recital (31).
(108) See footnote 21.
(109) ICCAT Document COC_322_APP_2/ 2021 (available under:
https://iccat.int/com2021/index.htm#en
) and letter from Senegal dated 26 October 2023.
(110) Letter from Senegal dated 26 October 2023.
(111) Letter from Senegal dated 19 August 2022.
(112) Idem.
(113) ICCAT Documents COC-312A_ADD_3/2022 and COC_303/2022; two ICCAT CPCs declared imports from this fishing vessel in 2021 (available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
).
(114) ICCAT Documents COC-312A_ADD_3/2022 and PWG_405_ADD_2/2022 (available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
).
(115) Letter from Senegal dated 17 May 2022.
(116) ‘ Procédure de recherche et de constatation à vue ’.
(117) ‘ Décret N° 2016-1804 du 22 Novembre 2016 portant application de la Loi de 2015 ’.
(118) Accession on 23 March 2017,
https://www.fao.org/treaties/results/details/en/c/TRE-000003/
.
(119) Articles 74 to 77 of the Maritime Fisheries Code.
(120) ICCAT Document COC-308_APP_2A/2022, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(121) ICCAT Document COC_308_APP_2A_REV/2023, available under:
https://www.iccat.int/com2023/index.htm#
.
(122) Information retrieved from
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/specific-country-data#/countries/SEN
.
(123) ICCAT Document COC_312A_ADD_2 /2022, available under :
https://www.iccat.int/com2022/index.htm#
.
(124)
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/mare/items/625304/en
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3277/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Feedback