우리나라 원양어선의 IUU에 관한 연구

Abstract

The US has pre-identified Korea as an IUU supporting country in January 2013, since the low level of punishment by the Korean Government for illegal fishing activities conducted by Korean distant water fishing vessels in the Antarctic area and also the objection to the listing of Korean vessels as an IUU vessel of the Convention for the Commission of Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). In addition, Korean vessels committed various forms of illegal fishing activities in West African waters in 2011 and 2012, including unlicensed fishing, violations of appliable rules and regulations, fishing operations in closed areas, false documents, illegal transshipment, etc. As Korea did not have a fisheries monitoring center to effectively control Korean distant water fishing vessels, which were not fully equipped with VMS on board, European Union (EU) also pre-identified Korea as a non-cooperating third party in November 2013.

This study reviewed international and domestic cases of pre-identification as a non-cooperating third country, and the relevant causes of the pre-identifications. It was found out that one of the most critical reasons was the lack of the control system of pre-identified countries over their fishing vessels. To prevent the recurrence of IUU fishing by Korean distant water fishing vessels, Korea has newly inserted Paragraph 2 of Article 12 (Control over Korean nationals) in the Korean Distant Water Fisheries Development (DWFD) Act as of January 6 2015, for the purpose of rigorous management of Korean nationals working on board foreign fishing vessels.

Second, this study examined the challenges regarding the amendment of the Korean DWFD Act to be taken off from the pre-identification list as a potential IUU nation. Recently, amended provisions of distant water fisheries regulations of southeast Asian countries including Taiwan were mostly in line with the EU IUU Control Regulation, while the Korean DWFD Act was also much similar to the EU IUU Control Regulation, except for the provisions on the overseas investment.

In conclusion, this study suggests that: i) penalty provisions set out in Paragraph 2 of Article 1 (Serious infringement) of the Korean DWFD Act should be further specified; ii) a thorough investigation of any suspicious IUU cases should be prioritized regarding Paragraph 9 of Article 9 (Immediate measures) of the Act; iii) transshipment approval system set out in Paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the ACT should be changed considering the notification system; iv) the 10 % margin set out in Paragraph 2 Article 16 of the Act should apply to all fish species; v) provisions on vessel monitoring system (VMS) should be newly established, in order to re-amend the Korean DWFD Act in an effective and efficient way.