Fishery problems too complicated, chronic for Article 44

The government still has no clear plan on how to handle this situation after the EU issued its ‘yellow card’ warning on the country’s illegal fishing activities. 

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha preferred the enforcement of Article 44, rather than regular laws to cope with the problem, while his deputy Prawit Wongsuwan said normal laws were enough.

Last week, the European Commission put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures in the international fight against illegal fishing.

To the commission’s concern, the Kingdom lacks effective monitoring and control, and actually sanctions systems of illegal fishing.

Problems in the fishery sector have been present for a long time but have never been addressed properly. To be fair, this situation was bad long before the military government took power. The EU began informal consultation with the Thai officials in 2011 but governments, including this one under the military junta, failed to make any progress.

That is why the EU pushed harder by kicking off a formal procedure of dialogue and cooperation with the Thai government to take action under an Action Plan within six months before an evaluation.

If this government fails in the next six months, Thailand could be identified as a “non-cooperating” country, resulting in a ban on fishery products from entering the 28-country European market. At present, Thailand exports fishery products worth a total of Bt170 billion annually, of which Bt20-30 billion are shipped to the EU market.

Things that this government needs to do from now on include putting stronger effort into the legal framework for all concerned parties in the fishery sector, relating not only fishing trawlers but also the whole chain of production, to comply with local and international practices and laws.

The EU has very clear criteria and definitions on IUU. Illegal fishery means fishing without authorisation. It means fishing which contravenes conservation and management measured by regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or against national laws and international obligations.

Fishing is regarded as unreported if it is not documented or the reporting contravenes national laws and regulations. Fishing is unregulated if a fishing vessel has no nationality and its fishing activities jeopardise fish stocks.

In the case of Thailand, the serious problem is in the category of “illegal and unregulated” – as many fishing trawlers use forced labour to fish in deep waters out of Thai territory. It is illegal as they steal fish in foreign countries’ water. Sometimes, one registered vessel is duplicated into the records as many. No need to say, officials claim never to know of fishing techniques which damage fish stocks.

The thing is, problems in the fishery sector are too complicated and chronic for Prayut’s Article 44, which says nothing but gives excessive power to the junta chief. With or without Article 44, Thailand still needs to issue more rules and regulations to solve illegal fishing, especially in terms of traceability of product, and the equipment on Thai fishing vessels.

Of course, the EU wants Thailand to have a legal framework and effective law enforcement, but this did not mean any laws and any enforcement can be put in place. The laws must be just and they must be enforced in accordance with international standards. Article 44 is not relevant since it is against the rule of law. The enforcement of such a “one-man show” law could create further more problems as it violates basic human rights.

Rather than solving the IUU problem, Thailand could face more pressure from the EU and the international community if it exercises the illegitimate power under Article 44 to crackdown on illegal fishing.

Prayut and his crew need to think this through. His coup last May is already problematic and the junta’s laws and their enforcement are worse.