Port State Measures Agreement

Port State Measures Agreement
Name	Port State Measures Agreement
Long name	Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
Type	Multilateral treaty
Signed	22 November 2009
Location signed	Rome
Depositor	Secretary-General of the United Nations
Languages	English, French, Spanish

Port State Measures Agreement

The Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing is a multilateral treaty negotiated under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization and concluded in Rome in 2009. It aims to strengthen controls at ports to prevent vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing from landing catches, thereby complementing measures taken by regional and coastal authorities such as regional fisheries management organizations and coastal states. The Agreement entered into force following ratification thresholds and has been incorporated into the regulatory architecture alongside instruments like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.

Background and Negotiation

Negotiations leading to the Agreement were driven by mounting evidence of IUU fishing in high-seas areas monitored by bodies such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. The Food and Agriculture Organization convened expert meetings and the Committee on Fisheries facilitated draft text development, drawing on precedents like the Port State Control regimes in International Maritime Organization frameworks and lessons from the European Union's port inspection practices. Key negotiating states included China, Japan, United States, South Africa, and New Zealand, while advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund influenced civil society inputs. Diplomatic sessions in Rome and side events at United Nations General Assembly meetings advanced consensus toward adoption.

Objectives and Key Provisions

The Agreement's primary objectives are to deny port access and services to vessels engaged in IUU fishing, to promote information exchange among parties such as flag states and coastal states, and to strengthen port inspection standards consistent with instruments like the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Core provisions require parties to establish designations of ports, to require prior notice of entry echoing practices under marine traffic reporting systems, and to undertake risk-based inspections drawing on lists compiled by regional fisheries management organizations. The text mandates denial of port use when there are reasonable grounds to believe a vessel has engaged in IUU activities, coordination with flag and coastal authorities including fisheries enforcement agencies, and mechanisms for seizure, detention, and disposition of catches and gear in line with international law obligations.

Implementation and Compliance Mechanisms

Implementation relies on domestic legislation and administrative measures by parties such as Australia, Iceland, and Norway that have integrated the Agreement into national law and port procedures. Compliance mechanisms include designation of competent authorities, training programs for inspectors often supported by FAO capacity-building and partnerships with Inter-American Development Bank initiatives, and information-sharing through national focal points akin to INTERPOL liaison for fisheries crime. The Agreement encourages use of electronic reporting systems comparable to Automatic Identification System data and cooperative tools used by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to flag suspicious vessels and coordinate inspections.

Impact on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Since entry into force, the Agreement has contributed to increased detection and disruption of IUU fishing operations by reducing opportunities for illegal landings in ports like Papeete, Cape Town, and Nouadhibou. Enforcement actions taken under the framework have complemented efforts by entities such as the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Pacific Islands Forum to restrict market access for illicit seafood, thereby affecting supply chains tied to processing hubs in Shanghai and Busan. Studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization and analyses by the High Seas Alliance indicate measurable reductions in impunity where port measures are rigorously applied, though global impacts vary with party participation and national capacity.

Parties, Ratification, and Institutional Framework

The Agreement’s entry into force followed ratification by a threshold number of states and regional economic integration organizations, and its depositary functions are administered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the request of FAO. Parties include a mix of coastal states, flag states, and geographically distant fishing nations such as Spain, Philippines, Mexico, and Senegal. Institutional support is provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization and coordination with Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and entities like the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Ratification and accession records are tracked through instruments similar to those used for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Criticisms and Challenges

Critics, including commentators from International Fisheries Association forums and researchers affiliated with University of British Columbia and University of Cape Town, note challenges such as uneven capacity among port authorities, potential for transshipment loopholes exploited in ports like Lome and Majuro, and the need for stronger linkages with customs agencies and market regulators in places like Hong Kong and Singapore. Concerns about vessel reflagging to flags of convenience and limited resources for sustained inspections have prompted calls for increased technical assistance, funding from development partners like the World Bank, and improved cooperation with law-enforcement bodies including INTERPOL.

Case Studies and Enforcement Actions

Notable enforcement instances illustrating the Agreement’s application include port denials and detentions coordinated with South African authorities in Cape Town involving distant-water fleets, actions in the Pacific Islands coordinated with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, and inspections leading to prosecutions in ports connected to prosecutions under United States prosecutorial auspices. Collaborative operations involving European Union member states and Norway have resulted in seizure of illicit catches and sanctions, while cases in West African ports have highlighted the role of capacity-building programs run with support from FAO and regional partners. These case studies underscore the interplay among flag states, port states, regional bodies, and enforcement agencies such as customs administrations and coast guards in effectuating the Agreement’s objectives.

Category:International treaties