Authors: Ahmad Almaududy Amri Ph.D and Aloysius Selwas Taborat LL.M*
Ocean governance has never been so crucial as it is now since the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982. The myriad and multifaceted dimensions of ocean governance have intertwined in a complex manner.
Major impacts of climate change as exhibited in a growingly warmer and acidic global ocean, rising sea level, and the retreating of sea ice (2020 Copernicus Ocean State Report) continue to pose existential problems to policy makers worldwide. On the other front, ocean governance is tightly related to global development agenda, the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030).
Against the backdrop of this global landscapes, the question about how to better address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUUF) rise to eminence. A 2019 Blue Paper titled “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers”, commissioned by the High Level Panel for A Sustainable Ocean Economy, asserts that IUUF is, among others, a criminal and human rights phenomenon.
The Paper also pointed out that “…although many efforts to stem IUU Fishing are international, national governments must initiate much of the action, including regulating their own coastal fisheries, enacting regulations at ports of entry, ratifying international agreements, and employing new tracking and transparency technologies”. Indeed, not an easy feat for national policy makers. They have to tame the recalcitrance of both global and domestic fabric of policies.
In such a context, policy makers are under constant pressure to cater and deliver to the specificity of IUUF problems and challenges that besieged the extent and possibilities of their policy arsenals. And in the Indonesian context, we argue that such dilemma concerns with the fundamental question of to what extent should IUUF be addressed from a criminal and law enforcement perspective. In other words, how can a criminal and law enforcement approach to IUUF can complement Indonesia’s policy to address IUUF’s environmental and developmental dimension. We attest, that a criminal and law enforcement approach to IUUF is indeed plausible and imperative.
One of the most pressing issues in the combatting of IUUF from a criminal and law enforcement perspective is whether a penal sanction can be applied in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the maritime domain where IUUF occurs the most. In 2016, at the 25th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), the Indonesian Government introduced IUUF as transnational organized crime (TOC).The criminalization of IUUF as TOC, provided the legal framework to justify the enforcement of penal sanctionsin any maritime zones, notwithstanding EEZ. Punitive approach is critical to deter future IUUF practices.
The current global landscapes and domestic context, particularly with the growing importance of ocean governance, provides an impetus for Indonesia to rethink and reconsider its strategy in combatting IUUF as a TOC. After all, global efforts to address this issue must be anchored on a forceful initiative and measure at domestic level, if goals or commitments were to ever work at all. Hence, the following strategies can therefore be considered.
I. Usage of appropriate term
IUUF is a well-defined term particularly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and considered as an act violating administrative regulations (fisheries management concern). Thus, in accordance with this understanding, IUUF conducted in EEZ cannot be penalized. To address this, the term IUUF should be changed. Terms such as fisheries crime may be the best option.
II. Proposing resolutions at regional and multilateral forums
Garnering international support is a must. Efforts at regional and global levels must be strengthened with tailor-made approach to every cooperative platform.
In 2007, together with United States and Timor Leste, Indonesia sponsored an ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Statement on Cooperation to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUUF. The preamble paragraph stipulated that ARF is working to ensure that national legislation and enforcement regimes provide appropriate administrative, civil, and/or penal sanctions to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUUF. This statement is critical as a stepping-stone in raising awareness about IUUF and how penal sanctions may be applicable in the future. But this statement alone is insufficient. It is imperative to endorse this idea in a more global scale.
CCPCJ has indeed acknowledged fisheries crime as an emerging crime. However, CCPCJ is still weighing the possibility to classify fisheries crimes as TOC. Indonesia can identify the possibility to initiate a resolution on this issue in CCPCJ.
III. Usage of relevant international legal frameworks
a. UNCLOS
Article 73 (3) UNCLOS stipulates that violation of fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal state’s EEZ may not include imprisonment and other forms of corporal punishment. Nonetheless, it provides avenue shall states wish to impose other kinds of punishments/sanctions. But such sanctions should be first agreed by other contracting states in a form of an agreement. The said agreement should clearly stipulate the kinds of punishments/sanctions enforced to the perpetrators conducting illegal fishing in the EEZ. Indonesia can capitalize this provision by negotiating such agreement bilaterally, regionally or multilaterally.
b. UNTOC
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes (UNTOC) has explicitly listed the criteria of crimes that can be categorized as serious crimes. Article 3 (1) mentions that a crime is a serious crime if the offence is transnational in nature and involves organized criminal groups. Indonesia can utilize UNTOC to categorize fisheries crimes as TOC and to make it a new predicate crime hence creating a new legal norm.
IV. Domestic efforts
Indonesia should revise its domestic law to accord with the said efforts. The current Fisheries Act No. 31/2004 (as amended by Act No. 45/2009) has no penal sanctions. Additionally, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SuratEdaran Mahkamah Agung) No. 3/2015 in point 3 supported Article 73 (3) UNCLOS which in principle stated that perpetrators conducting IUUF activities in the Indonesian EEZ can only be asked to pay fine (reasonable bond) and not imprisonment.
Modification to the existing laws is inevitable if Indonesia were to go all the way in making IUUF or fisheries crimes as TOC. Most of the cases in Indonesia, IUUF perpetrators are not able to pay fines. The practice in Australia might serve as a reference, whereby it imposes imprisonment as a subsidiary punishment to fine. If the perpetrators unable to pay fine, the fine would be converted to number of days in prison.
Efforts to categorize IUUF or fisheries crimes as TOC will require lengthy process at both domestic and international level. Nevertheless, a meaningful step by Indonesia to address IUUF in a non-business as usual manner will serve as a building block to the global efforts.
*Aloysius Selwas Taborat LL.M holds LL.M degree from Washington College of Law, American University.
DISCLAIMER: Views expressed above are the authors’ own.
