It is a well-known fact that Thailand is one of the countries that received a "yellow card" or a notification from the European Commission that it is "non-cooperating to take action to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing."
The commission has also recommended that Thailand should continue to improve its fisheries laws, regulations, and management in line with EU regulations as well as in accordance with law, legislation, and instruments under the international agreements on conservation and sustainable management of fishery resources to which the country is obligated.
These include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPAO-IUU) under the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Failure to take action may result in Thailand being suspended from exporting fish and fisheries products into the EU market.
In the beginning, the European Commission required Thailand to propose a six-month corrective action plan. Later, representatives of the commission came to visit and advise Thailand several times and saw progress in solving various problems based on their recommendations. The commission then gave Thailand an extended period for resolving the said problems.
Following the issuance of the "yellow card" notice, the Thai government took immediate action by exercising special powers under Article 44 of the "Interim Constitution" to enact many fisheries-related laws, regulations, and orders. Also, a specialised agency known as the Command Centre for Combating Illegal Fishing (CCCIF) was established, and it also boasted full power together with committees and sub-committees. This gave full authority to government officials to drive various measures as well as continuously enforce the law to severely punish offenders.
On January 8, 2019, the European Commission finally removed Thailand from the list of "warned countries" as recognition of the latter's progress in tackling IUU fishing. It took the Thai government three years and eight months to achieve this.
The lifting of the yellow card spared Thailand from suspension that would have prevented it from exporting fish and fisheries products to the EU. This reinforced the image of Thailand as a responsible fishing country able to fulfil its international conservation obligations and ensure sustainable use of its resources.
However, if we consider the impact on the Thai fishing sector as a whole, such an achievement can be considered a pitfall for sustainable fisheries in the country. Although the government perceives these measures as corrective, there are in fact damaging to the fishing sector and have the potential to negatively affect all levels of the Thai fishing industry.
Measures were drafted under the guidance of the European Commission but without regard for the fact that Thailand's fisheries sector differed from that of the EU. Thailand has had a string of serious fishery-related problems over the last 50 years. The government's neglect and its failure to consult with other stakeholders has inflicted damage on the fisheries sector and heavily impacted the country's entire economy, society, environment, and even fishers' way of life.
The government must avoid continuing to rest on the supposed laurels of Thailand being removed from the list of yellow card countries, and nor should it continue to implement only those measures drafted under European Commission guidance.
To solve the problem of IUU fishing in the country, there must be a balance of sustainability across all aspects: economic, social, and environmental.
After the UN Member States jointly drafted, endorsed, and ratified UNCLOS in 1982, the FAO recognised the importance of marine resources as a source of food as well as the possibility that it can be depleted due to overfishing.
In 1995, after several discussions, the FAO crafted a list of criteria and measures known as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) as a mechanism for the supervision and management of the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources. While the CCRF gives importance to food security, economy, society, environment, and traditions related to fishing and resource utilisation of stakeholders, the FAO, member states are required to use the code as a guideline for the voluntary management of their fisheries.
The FAO also pointed out that IUU fishing is a serious threat to marine ecosystems and to the livelihoods of those fishing using lawful means, especially in developing countries where there are artisanal fishers. Recently, the FAO forecast IUU fishing as depriving the global economy of as much as US$10.5 billion per year, hence the need for greater international awareness of the problem.
In 2001, the FAO published the IPOA-IUU for member states to use as a framework for developing their own National Plan of Action (NPOA-IUU) suitable for the fisheries, resources, environment, society, and economy of each state. The IPOA-IUU will prescribe measures for states to formulate their own measures in preventing, deterring, and eliminating IUU fishing.It
After the member states of what later became the EU ratified UNCLOS, the European Commission adopted the rules and measures of the CCRF and IPOA-IUU as a fisheries management guide. It took almost 20 years to reduce the existing number of fishing boats from 190,000 to approximately 90,000 with a budged of more than €14.6 billion (US$15.4 billion).
At the same time, however, the European Commission found that many countries that supply fish and fisheries products to the EU market have yet to pay attention to the need to combat IUU fishing. These countries have no conservation or management measures to ensure sustainable use of resources, and this is naturally viewed as unfair by EU member states that fish legally and that ensure sustainable use of resources.
The European Commission adopted Council Resolution (EC) 1005/2008 on September 29, 2008 to establish a community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (EU-IUU Regulation), and this came into effect on January 1, 2010. EU-IUU applied to all fishing vessels of EU member states entering ports, cargo ships, and non-EU fishing vessels that dock in EU countries. EU-IUU also applied to trade and fishery products, both imports to and exports from the EU, under the established rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The EU-IUU Regulation primarily required flag states to certify their legal sources of supply and to ensure that those countries are acting in accordance with their own national conservation and management principles as well as international regulations. The European Commission therefore uses a traceability method on all marine fishery products, both imported to and exported from the EU.
If it is found that such fish or fishery products originated or are involved in IUU fishing, the European Commission will issue a yellow card notification and instruct the country providing such fish or fishery products to take the necessary action within a given period of time. If the country is able to resolve the issue, a green card will be issued, thus clearing that country to export fish and fishery products to the EU. Otherwise, a red card will be issued, hence banning that country from exporting to the EU.
After the EU-IUU Regulation went into effect, the European Commission visited countries that export fish and fishery products to the EU to determine whether they operate in accordance with the EU-IUU Regulation as well as NPOA-IUU. If a country still refuses to take appropriate action, the commission will work towards the issuance of a yellow card, as what had happened to Thailand in 2015.
The EU, with the WTO's permission, used the EU-IUU Regulation as a non-tariff trade barrier on the supposed premise of promoting responsible and sustainable use of marine resources and combating IUU fishing in accordance with FAO cooperative measures.
From 2012 to 2024, 27 countries were issued with yellow cards and three of those countries were later given red cards. Fourteen countries have since been given green cards though 11 remain in the yellow card list. One country even has the unfortunate distinction of being issued a yellow card twice.
In 2011, after the EU-IUU Regulation went into effect, European Commission representatives visited Thailand to gather information about the country's work towards compliance with the regulation as well as regulation on catch certification, as Thailand is the third largest exporter of fish and fishery products to the EU.
The visit sought to verify information concerning Thailand's arrangements for the implementation and enforcement of laws and regulations as well as conservation and management measures. Three more visits followed between 2012 and 2014 and yet the commission continued to identify issues, such as the country's continued reliance on the Fisheries Act of 1947, parts of which had not been updated in over 10 years.
A number of Thai-flagged vessels were also found to have been involved in IUU fishing with violations such as operating without valid licences and failure to properly document catch data. Thailand had also failed to fulfil its responsibilities as a coastal state to ensure optimum utilisation of fishery resources within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) according to scientific, environmental, and economic factors as prescribed under Article 61 and 62 of UNCLOS.
The Fishery Department of Thailand had not realised the importance of such measures and their impact to the country's economy, especially the image and the role of the country's fishing industry and products in the world market. The European Commission pointed out the lack of evidence that appropriate action had been taken and therefore, there was no visible progress, and this led to the issuance of the yellow card to Thailand on April 21, 2015.
The commission's decision was made following a thorough analysis of Thailand's legal framework, enforcement measures, and administrative arrangements. The analysis revealed clear deficiencies, and the reasons for the pre-identification were explained to the competent authorities.
The European Commission proposed actions to be incorporated into an action plan, and progress was to be measured using clear benchmarks and criteria. The commission was to conduct another evaluation after six months, and if Thailand was still unable to rectify the situation, the red card notification will be issued and stricter trade measures would be imposed on the country.
Adopt NPOA-IUU in accordance with provisions, requirements, measures, and code of conduct to manage both regional and international fisheries
Improve Thailand's fisheries laws, regulations, and management to be in line with international laws, measures, and agreements in which the country has obligations, as well as include NPOA-IUU within an updated Fisheries Act
Improve monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) measures and operate efficiently in accordance with the requirements of the IPOA-IUU in terms of vessel registration, licences, vessel tracking, recording, and catch certification
Improve the traceability process to ensure compliance with international trade standards
Develop cooperation with other states, especially coastal states with fishing grounds regularly visited by Thai-flagged vessels
Strictly and effectively enforce domestic and international laws, regulations, and measures
Thailand's National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO; the military junta that was in power at the time) implemented a number of measures. Some of these came into immediate effect despite the fact that the NCPO conducted no proper assessment of their possible impact to the country's fisheries, fishers, and stakeholders. Some regulations were implemented, only to be cancelled within weeks, thus sowing confusion among fishers and even the government personnel tasked with enforcing them. Others called for the imposition of exorbitant fines without regard for economic and social impact.
Other measures include establishment of the CCCIF, which was headed by a naval commander and reported directly to the Prime Minister; urgent adoption of an NPOA-IUU, which copied that of the Philippines; improving MCS; and ratifying of agreements for the implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.
In addition, the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG-MARE) took the issue of human trafficking, as UNCLOS was more concerned with management, conservation, and ensuring food security than with labour issues. I believe that, if this continues to be an issue, it must be raised by the European Commission in a separate venue.
Nonetheless, Thailand became the first country in Asia to ratify the International Labour Organisation (ILO) C1 8 8 Work in Fishing Convention, whereas EU member states and many other fishing countries including the United States have yet to do so.
Anti-IUU fishing measures were implemented in Thailand despite a lack of factual information and a lack of regard for their impact on the country's fishing sector. The effects of this continue to be felt today:
The enactment of the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries 2015 with its unfair clauses and heavy fines resulted in over 3,000 commercial fishing vessels being barred from operating up to today, and this has led to unemployment and significant losses (around THB35 billion (US$1 billion) each year).
Because of reduced fishing activities, operators in ancillary industries were also forced to close shop. These include but are not limited to cold storage facilities, petrol stations, and fishing ports.
More than 100 fish factories and processing plants needed to be shut down due to a shortage of locally available raw materials.
Thailand's fish and fishery product exports also decreased significantly, from THB50 billion (US$1.4 billion) down to only THB1 billion (US$29 million).
The relevant government agencies became more concerned with enforcing laws and punishing violators than with improving knowledge of the marine environment, improving fisheries, and safeguarding the welfare of fishers.
It can therefore be said that since 2015, Thailand's efforts to combat IUU fishing only resulted in damage to the country's economy (with losses estimated to be around THB200 billion (US$6 billion) per year). Many fishing vessels have since been scrapped or sunk, fishers' way of life is in a poor state, and the government continues to fall short of compensating people and aiding those affected.
On January 8, 2019, the European Commission removed Thailand from the list of yellow card countries as recognition of the latter's progress in combating IUU fishing. Achievements identified by the commission include amendment of the fisheries legal framework in line with international standards; enhancement of MCS systems; and establishment of a deterrent regime of sanctions.
However, as mentioned earlier, what the Thai government believes to be effective measures have only proved detrimental to the sector, particularly fishers (whose livelihoods are in a state of collapse) and the environment (which is in critical condition). Thailand, once counted among the world's leading exporters of fish and fishery products, now must have to import such products to address local consumption.
Thailand is once again under threat of being issued a yellow card. In September 2024, the country's fishery department received a warning letter from the EU saying that the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries 2015 must not be amended.
This and other issues all point towards the EU's intervention in Thailand's internal affairs as if the latter is also an EU member state. It therefore seems difficult for Thailand to free itself of the EU-IUU Regulation dilemma.
Is the EU merely using its anti-IUU fishing policy as a trade barrier and not as a marine resource conservation initiative? When we look at the world IUU fishing index, we see China, Russia, and India among the top five countries that have been flagged for IUU fishing in 2023, and yet the EU continues to import from them. Even EU member Spain was included in the list (number 21), whereas Thailand was further down from it (number 105). Despite this, however, the EU has not extensively warned these other countries and required them to take immediate action to combat IUU fishing as it did Thailand.
Moving forward, the EU and Thailand should still cooperate to implement measures to combat IUU fishing. The cooperation must be based on a number of factors, particularly respect for each party's sovereignty; compliance with FAO measures on IUU fishing instead of the EU-IUU Regulation; and the need for a practical solution that can apply to Thailand (not a one-size-fits-all approach).
It is imperative that Thailand accelerate its efforts to combat IUU fishing, but the world must also recognise that Thailand is on the right track in this regard. The country will remain within the EU-IUU Regulation pitfall for as long as the EU believes that strict adherence to the "rules adopted by the European Union" without amending existing laws or consulting with local stakeholders will be "the best guarantee that Thailand will not [resort] to IUU fishing."
However, the concern remains that "any amendment to what the EU has endorsed" in terms of anti-IUU fishing measures may cause the second issuance of a yellow card. This situation only places the sustainability of Thailand's fisheries and marine resources under threat. If not addressed soon enough, it may lead to the collapse of Thailand's fishing industry and culture and of the Thai people's way of life.