Over 10 million people, from a population of 680 million across the ten ASEAN countries, are employed in the fisheries sector (Lee & Viswanathan, 2020). In 2022 these ten countries collectively contributed between 20% and 25% of global marine fish production of 115 million tonnes (FAO, 2024). Global food fish consumption is expected to increase from 20.4 kg per capita during the base period (average 2020–2022) to 21.2 kg by 2032 (FAO, 2023b). As the legitimate fishing industry struggles to meet rising demand, IUU fishing continues to thrive globally with an estimated value ranging from $10 billion to $23.5 billion (t Sas-Rolfes et al., 2019; FAO, 2022), a figure equivalent to between 20% and 50% of the global fish catch (Sumaila et al., 2022). The cost of IUU fishing extends to include biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and the degradation of ecosystem services, with the wide-ranging estimates reflecting the inherent difficulties in quantifying illegal activities.
The urgency of addressing IUU fishing is driven not only by the scale of the economic loss but also by its connection with other transnational crimes, such as human trafficking, forced labour, and slavery as well as the concurrent trafficking of drugs and arms within these operations (Telesetsky, 2014; Sumaila & Bawumia, 2014). IUU fishing undermines marine ecosystems, endangers biodiversity, and compromises environmental sustainability. It also threatens livelihoods, disrupts national and regional efforts to manage fisheries and conserve marine biodiversity sustainably, and undermines food security (FAO, 2023a). Collectively, these impacts highlight IUU fishing as a critical environmental and human security issue as will be demonstrated throughout this essay.
‘Securitisation’ Framework and IUU Fishing as a Non-Traditional Security issue
The Copenhagen School’s theory of ‘securitisation’ emphasises the process of developing a shared social perception of what is considered a threat to the relevant referent objects (Buzan et al., 1998). The process involves ‘securitisation actors’ declaring an issue as a national security concern, and a threat to a state’s security or sovereignty through a speech act, and the dissemination of discourse regarding existential threats (Wæver, 1993; Buzan et al., 1998; Emmers 2003). Proponents of the securitisation approach argue that it enables the large-scale mobilisation of political will and resources to address the problem (Elliot 2007, 2017).
The concept of ‘security’ is often associated with ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ security issues which relate to state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, all of which rely on the State’s military power to survive within the anarchic international system (Wæver, 1995). In a more globalised world there is an increasing complexity and multi-dimensional nature of transnational crimes, and the involvement of non-State actors across national borders (Srikanth, 2014). This shift has led to the recognition of non-traditional security issues, moving the focus from State-centred sovereignty concerns to broader societal problems (Laki, 2006). Non-traditional security issues include health pandemics, food security, cybersecurity, forced migration and displacement, terrorism, and environmental problems, with IUU fishing being one of them (Latif & Khan, 2011).
The International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPOA-IUU) under the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2021) categorises IUUF into three types: (i) Illegal—fishing conducted without permission or in violation of national laws, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’ (RFMOs) regulations, or international agreements; (ii) Unreported—fishing that is either not reported or misreported; and (iii) Unregulated—fishing conducted by vessels without nationality, vessels flying the flag of non-members of RFMOs, or in areas lacking appropriate management measures, or in violation of regional and international laws (FAO, 2021). Globally, IUU fishing results in an estimated loss of 11 to 26 million tonnes of fish annually (Suherman et al., 2020). ASEAN reported an economic loss of US$6 billion in 2019, causing considerable damage to the economies of its fishing nations (Lee & Viswanathan, 2020).
The link between IUU fishing and human trafficking, both of which occur across national borders and through physical and digital means, has been increasingly documented (UN, 2024). The Global Report on Trafficking in Persons highlighted over 50,000 cases in more than 140 countries in 2020 (UNODC, 2022). Human trafficking has been particularly prevalent within the fisheries sector, where the workforce is shifted from high-income to middle- and low-income countries. The fishing sector employs inexpensive migrant workers (ILO, 2024). A documentary video released by the European Parliament on forced labour and human trafficking within the Thai fishing industry depicted the horrific treatment of fishermen in relation to IUU fishing in 2014 and 2015 (Human Rights Watch, 2018), issues which also persist in various ASEAN member countries.
IUU fishing has also been linked to environmental damage, including an estimated US$20 billion in potential damage to coral reefs which are critical to the entire marine life system, thereby threatening food security (Chapsos & Hamilton, 2018). In addition to violating human rights and diminishing revenues for some of the region’s least-developed countries, and thereby exacerbating poverty, IUU fishing undermines the sustainability of marine fish stocks (Hosch & Macfadyen, 2022; Jama Omar et al., 2019; Selig et al., 2022; Nauen & Boschetti, 2022). The scale of IUU fishing highlights the significant role of transnational criminal networks in creating a ‘shadow economy’, an organised, illegitimate economy operating alongside the legal economic activities of States, often involving military and police personnel within their ranks (Emmers, 2003; Elliot, 2007).
Transnational Organised Crime (TOC) has been governed by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UN-TOC) of 2000, though the lack of binding international enforcement mechanisms limits its effectiveness. The Convention defines a crime as transnational if it: (i) occurs in more than one state; (ii) takes place in one state but a substantial part of its preparation, planning, direction, or control occurs in another state; (iii) occurs in one state but involves an organised criminal group that conducts activities in multiple states; or (iv) takes place in one state but has significant effects in another (United Nations, 2000; UNODC, 2004). It encompasses eighteen categories of TOC including money laundering, terrorism, human trafficking, arms trafficking, and environmental crime.
In Southeast Asia, despite the widespread and multifaceted nature of IUU fishing as a transnational environmental crime (Chapsos & Hamilton, 2018), it has not been adequately incorporated into ASEAN’s ‘securitisation’ frameworks, thereby contributing to the persistence of the problem (Elliot, 2007; 2017). Given the significant threats it poses to national and international security and stability (Mcfarlane & Mclennan, 1996) this essay argues for IUU fishing to be addressed through securitisation measures.
IUU Fishing in Selected ASEAN Countries
As demonstrated above, the scale of IUU fishing in the ASEAN region is substantial, with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand being prominent cases.
Indonesia’s annual cost of IUU fishing is estimated at US$3 billion (Chapsos & Hamilton, 2018). Between 1995 and 2005, the country reported 24 Foreign Fishing Fleets (FFF) committing IUU fishing in its waters, a number which increased to 124 FFF by 2008 (J. Williams, 2013). While the incidents involving FFFs decreased after 2010 the number of illegal fishing boats surged significantly, reaching 104 FFFs between 2014 and 2015 (J. Williams, 2013). IUU fishing in Indonesian waters remains a persistent issue with FFFs originating from neighbouring countries, including Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea (Muhamad, 2016).
In the first half of 2024, despite an increase in IUU fishing activity, Indonesia successfully prevented economic losses amounting to IDR 3.1 trillion by extensive monitoring and enforcement measures across both territorial waters and airspace (KKP, 2024a). In September 2024 Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP) apprehended 13 Indonesian workers who had been smuggled into Malaysia to work on Malaysian fishing boats (KKP, 2024b). Indonesia’s Law No. 45 of 2009, specifically Article 69, paragraphs (1) and (4), authorises the sinking of foreign illegal fishing vessels (Rohingati, 2014). However, recent environmental concerns have led to a shift in policy with the Ministry discontinuing the use of explosives due to their negative impact on marine ecosystems and conservation efforts (Rizky, 2024).
Malaysia also suffers from IUU fishing, which has been a major issue since 1985 when foreign vessels began operating in its waters using destructive fishing gear such as fish bombs (Yusof et al., 2024). The environmental and economic consequences have been severe, although detailed quantitative analyses of losses are limited. Malaysia’s Porous Maritime Borders initiative, aimed at addressing these issues, has inadvertently exacerbated IUU fishing incidents. Corruption at border crossings has been identified as a major factor undermining effective border management (Sato, 2010), highlighting the need for stronger enforcement and enhanced multilateral cooperation.
Thailand’s efforts to combat IUU fishing, particularly in relation to forced labour and human trafficking, have raised significant concerns (EJF, 2021). The government’s initiatives to tackle these issues are hindered by the ineffectiveness of policy implementation, with reports of human trafficking and serious human rights violations within the fishery sector continuing (EJF, 2021; Human Rights Watch, 2018). In 2015 the European Union issued a “yellow card” warning to Thailand, urging the country to urgently address IUU fishing through comprehensive legislative and operational reforms (EU, 2022).
Despite the scale and complexity of the problem, ASEAN’s policy frameworks to address IUU fishing continue to focus primarily on economic governance and food security (explained in the next section). This essay calls for ASEAN to strengthen its policies to address environmental and human security dimensions and to recognise the links between IUU fishing and these broader security issues.
ASEAN Policy Frameworks on IUU Fishing: Challenges and How to Improve
ASEAN has recognised IUU fishing as a major issue and has established several policy frameworks and action plans to address it, although they face implementation challenges due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms and the diverse national interests of member States.
Regional efforts began as early as 1967 with the establishment of the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Strategic Partnership (ASSP) which included external members such as Japan (SEAFDEC, n.d.). This joint initiative between ASEAN and the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) aimed to strengthen sustainable fisheries and combat IUU fishing. Both parties worked together to develop coordinated positions on international fisheries issues and implement mutually agreed fisheries programmes. A more recent key initiative is the Regional Plan of Action to Combat IUU Fishing (RPOA-IUU), established in 2007. This framework provides guidelines for responsible fishing practices and emphasises the need for cooperation among member States to enhance monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) capabilities (RPOA-IUU, 2024). While the RPOA-IUU offers a comprehensive plan that encourages member countries to exchange resources and information to combat IUU fishing effectively, enforcement remains a significant challenge.
In 2017, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines established the Trilateral Cooperative Arrangement (TCA) to address shared security challenges (Yaoren et al., 2021). The initiative focused on maritime terrorism, piracy, and other transnational crimes around the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas. However, it does not specifically address IUU fishing or the associated issue of human trafficking. Within its Strategic Plan of Action on ASEAN Cooperation on Fisheries 2021-2025 (ASEAN, 2021b), ASEAN reiterated its commitment to the fisheries sector as one of the priority areas for ASEAN Economic Integration. The plan underscores the recognition that much of the region’s fish stocks have been overexploited, and marine ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs severely degraded. Although human trafficking in IUU fishing is briefly mentioned as an emerging concern, there is no clear strategy on how ASEAN will address this issue comprehensively.
ASEAN should revisit its Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP), adopted in 2015 (ASEAN, 2015a), and strengthen its enforcement mechanisms. The ACTIP provides key provisions for member States to prevent human trafficking, protect victims, uphold law enforcement, prosecute trafficking crimes, and enhance regional and international coordination. However, as with other ASEAN policy frameworks, its implementation has been hindered by conflicting national interests, and the lack of regional enforcement mechanisms has impeded its effectiveness. The ASEAN Network for Combating IUU Fishing (AN-IUU) established in 2020 represents a step in the right direction as it incorporates environmental security concerns. However, it lacks a sense of urgency. The framework acknowledges the significant risks that IUU fishing poses to marine ecosystems, disrupting national and regional efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks, and restricting progress towards long-term sustainability and responsibility (Widjaja et al., 2020). However, it fails to establish specific measures to address these issues.
In essence, despite ongoing efforts within ASEAN regional governance, progress has been hindered by competing national interests among member States. Each country prioritises its own political and economic goals over regional plans, making it difficult to implement effective solutions (Chalk, 2023). The following steps should be taken urgently:
- Regulatory measures prioritising labour rights protection and combatting human trafficking within the fishing industry are now essential.
- ASEAN members must enhance cooperation on security measures, including joint surveillance, monitoring, and reporting to prevent unauthorised entry into neighbouring countries’ maritime territories.
- Strengthening regional and international collaboration is vital to minimise incidents involving Foreign Fishing Fleets (FFFs) which predominantly originate from neighbouring countries. For instance, the European Union has reiterated its commitment to assist ASEAN in tackling IUU fishing (EEAS, 2024) a step that should be pursued.
- ASEAN should align its security frameworks on IUU fishing with existing international frameworks, including the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (United Nations, 1995) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which regulate quotas, fishing gear, and seasonal restrictions (Cochrane, 2020).
- ASEAN must work towards common goals to address enforcement challenges arising from insufficient state capacity to patrol vast maritime areas, a lack of political will, policy incoherence, and misalignment with local community needs, which together result in minimal compliance and the continued prevalence of IUU fishing (Miranda & Stotz, 2021).
- While State-based initiatives, such as regulating fishery closures or prohibitions, are essential (Cochrane, 2020), other initiatives, such as fishing subsidies that have increased fishing capacity and exacerbated overfishing, must be minimised (Lee & Viswanathan, 2020; Gallic and Cox, 2006).
Conclusion
This essay has demonstrated that IUU fishing poses significant threats to ASEAN’s environmental and human security, undermining biodiversity, depleting marine resources, and exacerbating economic loss, while also perpetuating forced labour and human trafficking within the fishing sector. Despite ASEAN’s efforts through various policy frameworks, the lack of enforcement and regional coordination limits their effectiveness. It is therefore crucial to address these issues through a ‘securitisation’ framework. Strengthening cooperation among ASEAN member States, with an emphasis on integrating environmental and human security priorities, is essential to mitigate the socio-economic and ecological impacts of IUU fishing. ASEAN should also enhance both regional collaboration and international partnerships, ensuring the security and prosperity of its populations while safeguarding maritime environments.
By addressing IUU fishing within the context of human and environmental security frameworks the issue can be elevated to a higher political priority, thereby heightening the sense of urgency and intensifying the allocation of much-needed resources.