“You Sunk My Fishing Ship” – A Comparison of the Australian Border Force & US Coast Guard’s Strategies to Combat Illegal, Unreported, & Unregulated (IUU) Fishing – Small Wars Journal

Report on National Strategies to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1.0 Introduction

This report provides a comparative analysis of the strategies employed by the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. The analysis is framed within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The impetus for this report is a recent enforcement action by the ABF, which involved the destruction of a foreign-flagged vessel, highlighting a direct and forceful approach to protecting its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

2.0 IUU Fishing as a Direct Threat to Sustainable Development

IUU fishing is a critical global issue that directly undermines multiple SDGs. It is not merely an environmental concern but a complex problem with severe economic and social ramifications.

2.1 Impact on SDG 14: Life Below Water

• IUU fishing is a primary driver of overfishing, leading to the depletion of global fish stocks and threatening marine biodiversity.
• Destructive fishing practices associated with IUU operations, such as bottom trawling in protected areas, cause irreversible damage to marine habitats like coral reefs and seamounts.
• By circumventing conservation and management measures, IUU fishing jeopardizes the long-term sustainability of marine ecosystems, directly contravening the core targets of SDG 14.

2.2 Impact on Other Key SDGs

• SDG 1 & 2 (No Poverty & Zero Hunger): It threatens the food security and livelihoods of coastal communities in developing nations that depend on marine resources.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): IUU fishing is frequently linked to transnational organized crime, including forced labor, human trafficking, and unsafe working conditions, undermining the principles of decent work.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The illicit nature of IUU fishing weakens the rule of law at sea and challenges the governance of national and international waters.

3.0 Comparative Analysis of Counter-IUU Strategies

The approaches of Australia and the United States illustrate different philosophies in addressing the multifaceted threat of IUU fishing, with varying implications for achieving the SDGs.

3.1 Australian Border Force (ABF): A Strategy of Deterrence

The ABF employs a robust, enforcement-led strategy characterized by direct action, as seen in the recent destruction of an Indonesian fishing vessel. This approach prioritizes the immediate cessation of illegal activity within its EEZ.

1. Methodology: The strategy involves active surveillance, interception, and punitive measures, including vessel seizure and destruction. This serves as a strong deterrent to would-be offenders.
2. SDG Alignment and Challenges:
   • This approach strongly supports the protection aspect of SDG 14 by physically removing threats to marine resources.
   • However, it may create diplomatic tensions, potentially hindering the cooperative spirit required for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), especially with neighboring countries like Indonesia.
   • The focus on punitive action demonstrates a commitment to SDG 16 by enforcing national laws, but a holistic approach also requires building institutional capacity beyond borders.

3.2 United States Coast Guard (USCG): A Strategy of Partnership and Capacity Building

The USCG’s strategy is broader in scope, emphasizing international cooperation, technical assistance, and joint operations to build a global network capable of combating IUU fishing.

1. Methodology: The USCG focuses on building the maritime law enforcement capacity of partner nations, sharing intelligence, and promoting transparent governance frameworks. At-sea enforcement is complemented by diplomatic and developmental efforts.
2. SDG Alignment and Strengths:
   • This strategy is strongly aligned with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), as it seeks to create a collaborative global front against a transnational problem.
   • By strengthening the governance and enforcement capabilities of other nations, it directly contributes to building effective institutions under SDG 16.
   • This cooperative model provides a sustainable, long-term framework for protecting marine ecosystems (SDG 14) by addressing the root causes of IUU fishing in source countries.

4.0 Conclusion: Towards an Integrated, SDG-Focused Approach

Both deterrence and partnership-based strategies have merits in the global fight against IUU fishing. An effective global response, fully aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, must integrate these approaches. Punitive enforcement is necessary to establish credible deterrence, while capacity building and international cooperation are essential for creating lasting, systemic change.

4.1 Recommendations for an SDG-Aligned Framework

1. Enhance Global Partnerships (SDG 17): Strengthen regional and international agreements for joint patrols, intelligence sharing, and coordinated enforcement actions.
2. Invest in Institutional Strengthening (SDG 16): Increase investment in training, technology, and legal support for the maritime enforcement agencies of developing coastal and flag states.
3. Promote Sustainable Livelihoods (SDG 1, 8, 14): Combine enforcement with development programs that provide alternative, sustainable livelihoods for communities vulnerable to engaging in IUU fishing.
4. Improve Transparency and Traceability: Implement and enforce port state measures and catch documentation schemes to prevent IUU products from entering the global supply chain, thereby supporting sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing directly addresses and connects to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is the primary SDG addressed. The article’s entire focus is on IUU fishing, which is explicitly mentioned as a “significant environmental issue and threat to sustainable fisheries.” The goal of conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources is central to the topic.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article discusses the strategies and actions of national institutions, specifically the “Australian Border Force (ABF)” and the “US Coast Guard,” in enforcing laws against illegal fishing. This relates to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels to combat crime.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: By comparing the strategies of Australia and the United States, the article implicitly highlights the importance of international cooperation and the sharing of knowledge and best practices to tackle a global issue like IUU fishing.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices.
   • Explanation: The article is centered on the efforts of the Australian Border Force to combat “Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing.” The destruction of a vessel suspected of illegal fishing is a direct action aimed at ending this practice.
2. Target 14.6: By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing.
   • Explanation: While not mentioning subsidies directly, the core of this target is to eliminate IUU fishing. The article’s focus on the “strategies to combat” IUU fishing directly supports the objective of this target.
3. Target 14.c: Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
   • Explanation: The article specifies that the illegal fishing occurred in “Australia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).” The enforcement of national laws within the EEZ is a direct implementation of principles established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
4. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent… and combat… crime.
   • Explanation: The article highlights the role of the “Australian Border Force (ABF)” and the “US Coast Guard” as national institutions responsible for combating the crime of illegal fishing. The comparison of their strategies points to the strengthening of institutional approaches.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators for measuring progress:

1. Indicator for Target 14.4 (Indicator 14.4.1: Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels):
   • Explanation: The article directly states that IUU fishing is a “threat to sustainable fisheries.” The actions described, such as apprehending and destroying illegal fishing vessels, are measures taken to restore fish stocks to sustainable levels. The number of vessels caught or deterred serves as a proxy indicator of the effort to achieve this.
2. Indicator for Target 14.6 (Indicator 14.6.1: Progress by countries in the degree of implementation of international instruments aiming to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing):
   • Explanation: The article itself, by describing the “strategies to combat Illegal, Unreported, & Unregulated (IUU) Fishing” by Australia and the US, serves as evidence of these countries implementing measures. The specific action of destroying an “Indonesian-flagged fishing vessel” is a concrete example of this implementation.
3. Indicator for Target 14.c (Indicator 14.c.1: Number of countries making progress in… implementing through legal, policy and institutional frameworks, ocean-related instruments):
   • Explanation: Australia’s enforcement action within its “exclusive economic zone (EEZ)” is a direct application of its legal and institutional framework derived from international law (UNCLOS), thus indicating progress.

Summary of Findings

Source: smallwarsjournal.com