85% of remote fishing is carried out by five countries: China, Spain, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, which spend 25 million fishing hours of the world's total of 37 million hours; for which, it is highly likely that the greatest damage will not be caused by the remaining 216 States, but by these five countries, which operate - except for Japan in recent years - both in the Pacific Ocean and the South Atlantic and, therefore, efforts to improve the administration and care of resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and migratory resources on the high seas, will have poor results if work is not done on these five States responsible for ILLEGAL FISHING and the imbalance of ecosystems, since together they capture about 30 million tons of the total 92 million/year, that is, 33% of the total catches of "221 States and territories that reported some type of activity in the fishing trade" (FAO, “State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”, p: 18, 2020) . In the Southwest Atlantic, we must add the illegal licenses granted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain in the Malvinas, where foreign vessels extract some 250,000 tons of fishing resources annually.   The European Union is preparing to reduce catches in EU waters and increase fishing outside its jurisdiction, suggesting that the situation will worsen.

Fishing is an essential resource for the development of peoples who, through their activities, rely on fishing as an element of employment generation, food security, business livelihoods, and regional development. Therefore, the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean should unite to pursue a common policy aimed at eradicating illegal fishing.

ILLEGAL FISHING is understood to be that in which fishing species are caught without complying, totally or partially, with international, national and/or source regulations and/or without authorized official or independent control and/or if they are caught without control by the flag State or with vessels that, despite using third-party flags, are subject to the regulations of their countries of origin and/or in maritime spaces where the maximum sustainable catch has not been previously determined and/or damaging the interests of third-party States by carrying out fishing operations without prior agreement with the coastal States on those species that interact or are associated with or are migratory species originating in the EEZs or migrating from the high seas to the EEZ; or when fishing takes place in invaded (as in the Malvinas/Malvinas case) and/or disputed third-party territories, or where any act of any kind is carried out that threatens the sustainability of fishing species and/or pollutes the environment and/or threatens food security and/or jobs and/or the economy of States; benefiting transnational organized crime and/or engaging in tax evasion through non-payment of taxes, fishing rights, or import or export duties; and/or failing to declare the goods they import or export, thereby evading customs duties and/or damaging the reputation of the countries or communities to which they belong, thereby contributing to violating the legal regulations that ensure good fishing practices agreed upon in international and community conventions to ensure sustainable, biologically sustainable, and commercially equitable business operations.

Beyond the technicalities of IUU Fishing, there are no minor offenses compared to ILLEGAL FISHING, since the depletion of fishery resources and the pollution of the marine environment are serious acts that threaten the ecosystem and the availability of protein for humanity. For example, failing to declare a catch upon landing could be considered a mere infraction; however, when fishing is subject to quotas, this behavior leads to overexploitation or the unavailability of resources for other companies that also have a quota. Among hundreds of other examples, we could also classify ILLEGAL FISHING as fishing when a catch is caught without first determining the "Maximum Allowable Catches," regardless of the scope; etc., most often through "Olympic fishing." 

Global fisheries production has reached 223 million tons, of which 92 million tons are marine fisheries resources and 131 million tons are aquaculture or mariculture resources. However, between 16 and 24 million tons come from illegal fishing, representing between $36 and $54 billion (FAO, 2016, p. 5-6) for remote fishing countries, which appropriate fishing resources from coastal states' EEZs or, on the high seas, when they capture migratory resources originating in and/or associated with EEZs. This does not take into account discards resulting from fishing with little or no on-site monitoring, which experts and specialized agencies such as FAO estimate at 30%, increasing losses to almost 28 million tons annually.

We should also consider foreign-owned companies authorized to fish in the EEZs of countries that transship vessels, generally of the same nationality, that operate illegally on the high seas.   

Incidentally, the coastal States of Latin America and the Caribbean are affected by illegal subsidized fishing by vessels that fish at distance in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, violating All international standards (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; United Nations (UN) Resolutions; World Trade Organization (WTO) Resolutions; Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Brazil, 1992); The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries adopted at the 28th Session of the FAO Conference on 31/10/1995; The International Plan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal Fishing of the United Nations for FAO, 2001; the FAO-WHO Codex Alimentarius; World Health Organization (WHO) standards; International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolutions; the UN Agreement concerning the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York); the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Cultural, Civil, and Political; the Fisheries and Environmental laws of the coastal states of Latin America and the Caribbean; the Regulations of the Council of the European Union on fisheries, customs, taxation, origin, consumer protection, health, etc.    

Added to this are FAO reports indicating that in Area 31 (Central Western Atlantic) 37% of fishing stocks are biologically unsustainable; in Area 41 (Southwest Atlantic) 40%; in Area 77 (Central Eastern Pacific) 14.3% and, in Area 87 (Southeast Pacific) 66.7% (Percentages of Biologically sustainable and unsustainable fishery stocks by FAO Mayor Fishing Area, 2019) , which aggravates ILLEGAL FISHING, of which the aforementioned States are mainly responsible.

In this scenario, the various Conventions, Agreements, Codes, and Plans approved by States and multilateral organizations to eradicate or minimize the negative effects of illegal fishing have proven insufficient and ineffective. More than 30 years after their approval, this illegal activity persists and grows, threatening the sovereignty of States, the sustainability of species, and the sustainability of less developed peoples, their economies, jobs, food, and the environment. They have also failed to resolve illegal fishing in areas of disputed sovereignty, threatening security in conflict areas, regional fisheries management, and the ecosystem.

Furthermore, the aforementioned national and international institutes relating to the sea and fishing have not precisely defined the terminology used for “illegal fishing”, “highly migratory”, “migratory”, “straddling”, “associated”, “transboundary”,  "populations," etc., which makes it impossible to establish regulatory frameworks for managing and conserving resources and establishing the rights and obligations of States; it is understood that, prior to reaching agreements regarding the limitation of spaces, rights, and obligations, the "what" must be established, in order to finally address the "how" and "who."

We observe that while obligations are lax on the high seas, there are greater demands in EEZs, despite the fact that the ecosystem is one and indivisible and, therefore, fishing predation or marine pollution on the high seas affects the EEZ and vice versa. For this reason, we believe it is necessary to harmonize obligations relating to research, conservation, and comprehensive and joint distribution of resources in both areas.

We also analyse that Annex I of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea lists only a small number of “highly migratory” species, leaving hundreds of species unclassified in this category, making it very difficult to implement agreements on the capture of migratory species originating in the EEZ to the high seas and from there to the EEZ. This is an issue that the FAO report ( 4 . The conservation and management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks) already referred to; as did biologists Hilborn and Sibert ( 1988, p. 36; FAO, 1994 ).

We agree with Hernán Salinas Burgos (Chile) that "jurisdiction is an expression of State sovereignty." Therefore, it lacks any biological or legal rigor for the coastal State to lose "control" of its species originating in the EEZ on the high seas, simply by crossing the imaginary 200-mile line.

On the other hand, the transport of fishery resources considered to be the product of ILLEGAL FISHING cannot be considered "innocent passage," since they have been caught without agreements with coastal States and/or have been caught without controls on board the flag States. Therefore, it must be understood that sustainability is not guaranteed and/or predation and discarding may have occurred and/or records are unavailable and/or certified origin and traceability are lacking. Likewise, it seems unlikely that self-control will resolve illegal fishing, as it has not done so to date.

Some 10,000 Chinese vessels are exceeding their jurisdiction and fishing remotely on the high seas, along with another 60,000 vessels from some 24 countries, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Spain. The United Kingdom, which is associated with Spain in the Malvinas, is also preparing to reduce catches in EU waters at the request of the European Union, suggesting that the situation could worsen.

We also understand that administrative sanctions are not sufficient to discourage illegal fishing, and that it is necessary to apply criminal sanctions to those who engage in this practice and implement debureaucratized methodologies that allow for the implementation of agile and effective systems.

We also believe that illegal fishing is based on tax evasion, since fishing without controls or agreements facilitates it. 

We believe that the discarding of species caught incidentally or due to their low commercial value into the sea is a predatory practice that threatens the sustainability of species and the protein needs of nations, particularly less developed ones. This has been demonstrated by the European Union's ban since 2004, its implementation since 2019, and by Argentina since 1998, as well as by other countries. However, due to insufficient controls in EEZs and nonexistent controls on high-seas fishing, the results are meager.

We appreciate FAO's Report III on the Regulation of Fishing for Migratory Species on the High Seas Beyond National Jurisdiction, which states that " in accordance with international law, a State may condition access to fishing within its exclusive jurisdiction and, outside its exclusive jurisdiction, take certain measures when acts are carried out that may affect its area of jurisdiction "; that is, both the coastal State and the flag State would be obliged to agree.

We have verified that, in the face of illegal fishing by fishing vessels of flag States, it is insufficient for coastal States to monitor the outer limits of their EEZs to prevent the entry of foreign fleets fishing illegally (without control or agreement). Fishing for migratory resources on the high seas originating in the EEZ affects the entire ecosystem's resources, causing biological, social, and economic damage that affects the least developed coastal States, which have greater nutritional needs and high rates of poverty and unemployment. This malicious conduct causes serious damage to the environment and affects the sustainability of fisheries resources.

We also recognize that ILLEGAL FISHING is an environmental crime and that, for there to be accountability, "the basic requirements are knowledge and will" (María Pazmiño; Ecuador) ; it implies "the ability to know the scope of the acts carried out and the possibility of adapting one's conduct to the requirements of the legal system" (Allan Arburola Valverde; Costa Rica) and "the ability to know the illegality of one's actions and to be able to act in accordance with such knowledge..." (Juan Bustos Ramírez; Chile) and that fish, crustaceans and mollusks are part of the environment, they are part of the ecosystem and, their unsustainable exploitation; predatory; discard; etc., in short, ILLEGAL FISHING breaks the biological balance and compromises the rights of the third generation.

We understand that, in the face of population growth and growing protein needs; policy changes by flag states to secure natural resources; growing inequality between major powers and developing countries; changes in the economies of fishing companies, markets, and technological advances, etc., it is necessary to improve the available tools so that they can be used more efficiently and effectively for the comprehensive protection of resources, both in EEZs and on the high seas, and for more equitable exploitation among States.

We have analyzed, for our part, all the legislation of Latin America and the Caribbean referring to ILLEGAL FISHING, where we appreciate - beyond perfecting some norms - the will of the States to protect the preferential rights of the coastal States, especially in matters of protection of migratory resources, as is the case of the Bolivarian State of Venezuela, which refers to " tending to harmonize, in its legal system, the criteria with the countries of the region, particularly with regard to the management of highly migratory organisms and hydrobiological resources that are found both in aquatic spaces under its sovereignty or jurisdiction, as well as in the areas adjacent to it."

We also bear in mind that ILLEGAL FISHING must be considered polluting and this pollution must be presumed intentional and serious, since the volumes of illegal catch are very significant, to which are added the discards, including the discards of landed products; to which must be added what is maintained by the FAO ("The State of World Fisheries...", Sustainability in Action, FAO, 2020) that " marine species exploited in a biologically sustainable manner reach 65.8%, while those exploited in a biologically unsustainable manner reach 34.2% worldwide . "

In light of all this, the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean, in accordance with international principles and national legislation for the protection of natural resources and the environment, should carry out a series of actions aimed at eradicating ILLEGAL FISHING. These include defining the following terms terminologically and scientifically : "illegal fishing"; "highly migratory," "migratory," "straddling," "associated," and "transboundary" fishery resources; "stocks"; and other biological and operational definitions, based on which they can establish regulatory frameworks for researching, conserving, and distributing resources and establishing the rights and obligations of States. Once the corresponding terminology has been defined, a single list of migratory, associated, and straddling species, etc., should be compiled at the proposal of States and with due scientific support, in accordance with the regional distribution and biological characteristics of the species.

Considering the intentional and serious ecological damage caused by ILLEGAL FISHING and the attack on the political and food sovereignty of States , a series of urgent measures should be established as a precautionary measure , including at least a ban on fishing for migratory resources originating in EEZs on the high seas and from there to the EEZ, without agreement with the coastal States; on fishing and transshipments on the high seas without the control of independent observers; and requiring vessels fishing outside their jurisdictions to provide certification of origin and traceability by coastal States in areas not subject to the jurisdiction of the States, which will guarantee sustainable and environmentally safe fishing.

To prioritize the official structures of coastal States responsible for implementing policies related to the care of the marine environment and marine living resources, enabling them to interact with other branches of government and conduct foreign relations, enabling them to reach agreements with flag States on the exploitation of high seas resources and the marketing of products. At the same time, to provide technical and financial support to coastal States so that their implementing authorities, through the corresponding research institutes, can establish maximum sustainable catches on the high seas, enabling flag States to obtain information regarding available resources and their migratory status.

Implement the necessary mechanisms to facilitate direct agreements between States aimed at ensuring ownership of migratory resources originating in the EEZ beyond 200 miles and promote an equitable, sustainable and free distribution of these resources, as well as that of associated species, with the flag States on the high seas, in order to harmonize economic interests with the development of less favored States, based on economic sustainability and biological sustainability with greater equity.

Establish new tools and strengthen technical, operational, and control measures to eradicate the discarding at sea and post-landing of species caught incidentally or due to their low commercial value, in response to the protein needs of States, particularly the least developed ones.

Implement appropriate criminal sanctions for those who carry out ILLEGAL FISHING, since administrative sanctions have proven insufficient to discourage this scourge that depredates the resource and puts this criminal practice "at the same level as other threats, such as organized crime and terrorism, which demonstrates the seriousness" ( United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "Maritime Security Strategy Document", 2014 ) and, the low penalties imposed for these crimes, makes ILLEGAL FISHING very attractive to criminal organizations (Haenlein, 2017, p. 08) and, these vessels that fish illegally are used for the transport of drugs, weapons and the use of slave labor and, while harmonizing the application of criminal sanctions, promote fines for ILLEGAL FISHING whose amount exceeds the value of the vessel and the seized raw materials, since it is not only an illegal extraction of resources, but a violation of sovereignty and the security of coastal States.

Promote the effective application of sanctions to States, owners, shipowners, captains and responsible officers of vessels engaged in illegal fishing, rather than to the vessels themselves, which are assets that should, in any case, be confiscated or scrapped;

Establish mechanisms to ensure that, in accordance with Article 88 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are used exclusively for peaceful purposes . The use of the high seas to capture resources migrating from the EEZ without control or agreement with coastal States should not be considered peaceful purposes, nor could it be understood that the plundering of third-generation resources can be classified as a peaceful purpose carried out on the high seas. Likewise, violating international laws; fishing without conservation agreements; without declaring operations or doing so inaccurately; without control of catches and transshipments on the high seas; without unobjectionable observers and inspectors; receiving subsidies; using nets with meshes that do not release juveniles; discarding at sea; overexploiting; using flags of convenience to evade penalties; capturing migratory resources without taking into account the needs of less developed States and/or affecting the economies of coastal States; polluting the sea; Carrying out activities involving slave labor or without enforcing ILO labor laws and the Human Rights Convention; fishing without establishing Maximum Sustainable Catches; fishing for resources by intercepting and impeding the migratory cycle of species; engaging in practices that threaten the sustainability of fishery resources, etc. Similarly, the transportation of fishery resources that should be considered the product of ILLEGAL FISHING, lacking records, origin, and certified traceability, cannot be considered " innocent passage ."

Promote the development of agreements between states to encourage the addition of value to catches by less developed coastal states, reducing their international trade of whole or minimally processed species, thereby improving their management, generating local employment, and ensuring less risk of quality loss due to indirect reprocessing.

To contribute to clarifying the classification of acts of “Piracy” by vessels engaged in ILLEGAL FISHING, since by engaging in this practice the provisions of Article 87 , paragraph 2 of the Convention on the High Seas are transfigured: “they shall be exercised by all States, having due regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas”, since the seizure on the high seas by foreign vessels of migratory species (livestock) originating in the EEZ, interfering with their migration “in a place not under the jurisdiction of any State” or through acts of “voluntary predation committed for economic purposes” or through the appropriation of resources through the occupation of maritime territories of other States, should in all cases be classified as acts of piracy.

Act against those States that exercise an overbearing occupation of continental, island, and maritime spaces or exploit areas of disputed sovereignty by capturing populations of fish species, threatening the ecosystem and regional fisheries management, and jeopardizing the sustainability of species and security in conflict areas.

Strengthen coastal States' port policies through advisory services, financing for dock construction and modernization, and the application of essential technologies and operational and control resources. This will enable their national authorities, within their jurisdiction, to implement all necessary measures to exercise their police powers and determine the origin and traceability of catches, while hindering, as far as possible, the illegal fishing trade.

Urge multilateral organizations, with the consensual cooperation of all States, to improve certification systems of origin and those related to catch controls in ports, transportation, industrial processes, storage, and trade in general, to ensure the origin and all processes, in order to reduce trade in products from illegal fishing.

Act in favor of effective and consensual regulation, so that the most developed States contribute to the less developed ones, so that fishing can be a livelihood for the latter, complying with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and with articles 24 to 26 of the New York Agreement: " States shall fully recognize the special needs of developing States in relation to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and the development of fisheries for such species" and , understanding that fishing should not be for subsistence but should ensure a " Fishing Economic Unit " that allows fishermen - no matter how small - an economically sustainable activity and that, through adequate administration, the less developed States can have the necessary fishing resources to supply industries, generate jobs and development of towns and cities along the maritime coast.

Finally, The European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States have considered illegal fishing a national security issue since 2014. China and Russia, without declaring it, operate in this direction.

Latin America and the Caribbean should pursue a joint project to end illegal fishing in the EEZ and on migratory resources originating in the EEZ on the high seas. 

Dr. César Augusto Lerena [1]

Expert in South Atlantic and Fisheries

President of the Agustina Lerena Foundation

President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies

www.cesarlerena.com.ar

August 1, 2025 ( August 1, 1816, the Army of the Andes was born, giving freedom to the peoples of Chile and Peru ).

[1] The author holds a PhD in Veterinary Sciences. He is President of the Agustina Lerena Foundation (founded on October 21, 2002). He is also President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies (CESPEL) (founded on April 2, 1989). He is an expert on the South Atlantic and Fisheries; former Secretary of State; former Advisor to the Argentine Senate and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies; and former Professor at the FASTA and UNNE Universities.  Author of the books "Malvinas. Biography of the Surrender. Fishing as a Currency" (2009); "Fishing. Appropriation and Predation" (2014); “South Atlantic, Malvinas and Federal Fisheries Reform” (2019) and “Malvinas 1982-2022. A heroic feat and 40 years of dedication. Fishing as a Bargaining Currency” (2022) and “The Plunder. The nation's appropriation of Buenos Aires' fishing resources (2024). Author of the Fishing Law of the Province of Buenos Aires No. 11,477; Author of the National Maritime Fishing Bill (File S-2259/14). Co-author of the National Merchant and River Marine Law No. 27,419 and the National Law of the Fishing Naval Industry No. 27,418, among other laws and articles (www.cesarlerena.com.ar).