Illegal Fishing Has Ignited Diplomatic Spat Between Neighbours  BA Hamzah

Abstract. Illegal fishing by foreigners in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand has ignited diplomatic spat between the neighbours. Unrestrained the IIU can undermine regional security.

Global warming has harmed the world’s fish supply. Scientists blame it on pollution, over- fishing and over investment. Less fish means less protein for the world’s growing population. More than ten percent of global’s population depends on fish protein for their livelihood.

Less fish also means states likely to fight over scarce fishery resources. This can cause low-level tensions between them. Complicating the global fish supply is the menace posed by illegal, unreported and undeclared fishing (IUU). Between 11 to 26 million tonnes of fish are caught illegally each year, conservatively estimated at 10- 30 per cent of global catch, estimated between US$ 11-$22 billion per year.

The Gulf of Thailand, Indonesian waters and the exclusive economic zone of Malaysia are prone to IUU. The Gulf of Thailand is already overfished.

Illegal fishing or IUU is a global menace and regionally, it is developing beyond diplomatic tiff between the “warring states”. Heated diplomatic exchanges are observed every time a state takes action to arrest and burn foreign vessels for illegal fishing. Many unfamiliar with the situation view the punitive decision as too extreme.

Coastal states, however, view the punitive enforcement as a necessary deterrence. Indonesia, for example, claims that its current muscular policy has paid off. The number of IUU in Indonesia has dropped more than 80 per cent, according to the RAND Report. Before President Joko Widodo came into office in 2014, Indonesia used to lose around $ US 4 billion annually to illegal fishing. No more now.

In May 2019, Indonesia sank another 51 fishing boats (38 allegedly from Vietnam and the rest from Malaysia, the Philippines and China) for illegal fishing. Between November 2014 and November 2017, a total of 363 foreign IUU vessels in Indonesia waters were arrested. The perpetrators included Vietnam (188), Philippines (76), Thailand (22), Malaysia (51), Indonesia (21), Papua New Guinea (2), China (1), Belize (1) and no flag (1). Almost all perpetrator states took issue with Jakarta for arresting their nationals.

The IUU is also rampant in Malaysian waters. According to the Fishery Department of Malaysia (2019)-up to RM 6 billion is lost to illegal fishing every year. In a recent operation (May 2-16,2019) conducted by a Joint Task Force comprising the Maritime Enforcement Agency (the Coast Guard of Malaysia), the Fishery Department, the Royal Malaysian Navy, the Royal Malaysian air Force and the Royal Malaysian Police, a number of Vietnamese fishing boats were arrested along with their crew.

Since 2006, Malaysia has arrested 748 vessels and detained 7203 fishermen from Vietnam fishing illegally in Malaysian waters. In May 2019, following the arrest of twenty-five Vietnamese fishing vessels, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the resident Vietnamese Ambassador and handed him a demarche against Vietnamese fishermen for illegal fishing.

These IUU incidents in Indonesia and Malaysia have soured diplomatic relations between the “warring states”. The use of force by the affected states to protect their critical resources at sea, while necessary for deterrence purposes, could ignite more tensions between them.

Inter-state conflicts over fish and access to scarce fish resources are not new. The British and the Icelanders have for decades almost came to blows over cod fish. Although there was no declaration of war between the two nations, ‘the cod wars’ between 1940s and 1976 were tense. The dispute over cod in Iceland’s waters became ugly in the 1970s following decision by Iceland to exclude British trawlers. In response, Great Britain sent its Royal Navy to protect its fishing fleet.

Upset by Iceland’s decision to ban cod fishing in its extended territorial waters, Great Britain retaliated by banning the landing of cods in British ports. This decision hurt the Icelanders as the UK was the largest market for Iceland’s cod. However, Icelanders received a reprieve when the Soviet Union offered a market for the cod. To avoid further escalation between East and West America stepped in and got NATO countries to support Iceland. The whole matter ended following the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (UNCLOS,1982).

The ‘fight’ over cod between Canada and the United States off Newfoundland is legendary. The entire cod specie that straddled the borders of the two countries is now almost extinct from overfishing and poor cooperation between the two states on how to manage the stock. Contrast this with is the situation in the Barents Sea where the migratory cod fish is thriving well. Credit goes Norway and Russia who have cooperated to ensure mutual gain.

The British Government took Norway to the International Court of Justice to determine the legality under international on the lines of delimitation under its 1935 decree that effectively excluded British trawlers from fishing in Norway waters. The judgement in the Anglo-Norwegian Case (1951) that favoured Norway put an end to British fishing activities in the Norwegian waters.

Canada was involved in the turbot war with Spain and other European countries off the New Foundland coast over the years leading to the arrest on March 9th, 1995 of a Spanish trawling vessel. The Canadian Coast Guard seized the Spanish fishing trawler Estai off the coast of Newfoundland claiming Spanish fishermen were catching more than their share of the allowable total catch quotas set up by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). Emma Bonino, the then EU Fisheries Commissioner, called the seizure “an act of organised piracy.” The relationship between the two countries became tense after Spain even sent a warship to protect its fishermen. On April 16th, 1995, Spain, Canada and the EU reached an agreement, ending the dispute.

About a year ago (1918), the French and British fishermen began hurling projectiles at each other in the bay of Seine fighting over the right to harvest the scallop. In the recent tiff over scallop in the English Channel, angered by the action of the French, the British trawlers called for diplomatic intervention and military protection of their vessels.

Despite tough enforcement measures in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, IUU remains rampant partly because area is so vast, making effective enforcement extremely difficult. The absence of agreed maritime boundaries complicates matters. For example, Indonesia and Malaysia have yet to agree on a common EEZ boundary; similarly, there are unresolved overlapping maritime claims between Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The situation in the Spratlys proper is more acute with China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia claiming part of the sea making ocean governance and fishery management a political challenge. Worse, when some states use armed escort to protect fishermen in disputed waters.

Plans are afoot within the Association of Asean Nations (Asean) to tackle the IUU fishing via, for example, the Strategic Plan of Action on Asean Cooperation on Fisheries 2016-2020. However, they have not gone far enough to rein in the problem on the ground. Asean leaders must start viewing IUU as a security problem that can ignite tensions between the “warring neighbour states”, if efforts to curb the menace fail.