Promoting Cooperation of Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance of IUU Fishing in the Asia-Pacific
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written piece that provides a detailed overview of IUU/MCS issues for eight countries within the Asia-Pacific region. The paper remains highly descriptive.
The main comment is that such a regional overview paper is regrettably lacking an analysis of China PR and, to a lesser extent, South Korea. If the authors could consider adding these two countries, and especially China PR, the study would be more comprehensive and likely draw a larger audience.
A second general comment is about the relative absence of coverage of communication around IUU between the eight countries covered, and more generally about coordination and (future) cooperation within the region. This would deserve a specific section and more emphasis in the discussion.
A third general comment is about the lack of attempt to assess the level of effectiveness (or at least perceived effectiveness) of anti-IUU measures taken, both across time and across jurisdictions. A sum-up table in this regard would be useful.
A fourth general comment is that the broad causes of IUU and the impunity of offenders are not sufficiently presented (or at least referenced).
Finally, there is very little mentioned about enforcement and anti-IUU disciplinary measures taken (e.g. aggregated amount of fines, number of successful prosecutions, etc…).
Minor comments:
Ln. 54, please revise the explanation of PSM to provide a more complete picture (e.g. vessels with illegal catch, noting that the term ‘illegal vessels’ is quite vague).
Section 3.2 could include an estimation of the MCS budget for the countries covered, possibly ratio (e.g. per national EEZ area, per number of licensed boats).
Regarding Indonesia, there is no specific discussion of the exception anti-IUU regime that took place under Susi Pudjiastuti. These have attracted global attention within the fisheries sector, and both the actions taken and assessment studies could be referred to here (e.g. Cabral, R. B., Mayorga, J., Clemence, M., Lynham, J., Koeshendrajana, S., Muawanah, U., ... & Costello, C. (2018). Rapid and lasting gains from solving illegal fishing. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(4), 650-658).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached letter.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As a reviewer, I am delighted to read an article like this one.
I consider it is a very well-written and structured work, which is a strength of the article. The authors manage to express precise ideas by delving into a complex topic with many nuances.
The authors clearly state the paper's objectives, breaking them down into questions that they answer in different sections. That structure is a real success. Furthermore, answering the research questions in separate sections allows the reader to dont get lost or overwhelmed by the amount of information from 8 different countries.
On the methodology, I think it is solid, although succinctly explained.
As the authors explain, one of the fundamental problems of IUU fishing is the lack of information. While it is true that interviews with confidential informants can help to gather new data on the IUU fishing and MSC actions, they have the downside of being difficult to replicate and verify. This is a weakness of the source of information, not of the method chosen by the authors. I think it would be interesting for the authors to consider including the form used in the interviews in the annex to tackle this limitation. Moreover would be suitable to include a list of institutions interviewed.
In addition, I think it would be positive to point out in the manuscript which specific points the interviews served to clarify issues of the literature review.
On the other hand, combining interviews with an extensive review of academic literature, laws, NGO reports gives much more solidity to the data used. The triangulation of information sources such as the one used in this work is recommended by FAO (2018) to address work on IUU fishing.
Regarding the literature and media review carried out, I believe that it addresses the state of art in IUU and is quite broad to support the results and the discussion raised. In addition, they contextualize the countries analyzed well, including legislation on fishing in each country.
I honestly think the review work is excellent. Congratulations to the authors.
The paper's main weakness is the challenge of contextualizing different types of IUU fishing (SSF vs. industrial vessels) into the same scale/scope. In a general way, the authors manage the challenge well. However, in the discussion, they open a reference to domestic IUU fishing that I think can be improved.
(From Line 460). Consider improving your discussion making it more consistent by talking about the following:
Illegal fishing in SSF is a vast universe in which there are different types of illicit fishers, who act for various reasons: Self-consumption, to generate economic income, there are poachers driven by poverty or need, because they ignore the legislation, etc. ( see Ballesteros & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2018a).Some illegal fishers acted as a political act of rebellion against fishing laws when they considered it illegitimate. (see Raemaekers et al., 2011; Raemaekers & Britz, 2009) or as way to ensure the existence of their fishers communities (Ballesteros & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2018b; Gezelius, 2004).
In this universe, as the authors indicate, socio-economic and policy measures that go beyond fisheries policy, such as policies to reduce poverty and unemployment, and inequality, can serve to reduce illegal fishing (Ballesteros & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2019).
On the other hand, it would be interesting to briefly mention the IUU fishing of recreational boats, which may have cumulative importance in IUU fishing (see (Bergseth & Roscher, 2018) (Bergseth, Russ, & Cinner, 2015)
Good job
References
Ballesteros, H. M., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G. (2018a). “Acceptable” and “unacceptable” poachers: Lessons in managing poaching from the Galician shellfish sector. Marine Policy, 87, 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.015
Ballesteros, H. M., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G. (2018b). How much in the clan are you? The community as an explanatory factor of the acceptance of poaching in small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 97(June), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.014
Ballesteros, H. M., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G. (2019). “Economic Crisis and Poaching: Advice on Anti-Poaching Management from The Galician Shellfish Sector.” Deviant Behavior, 40(12), 1508–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1525804
Bergseth, B. J., & Roscher, M. (2018). Discerning the culture of compliance through recreational fisher´s perceptions of poaching. Marine Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.022
Bergseth, B. J., Russ, G. R., & Cinner, J. E. (2015). Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves. Fish and Fisheries, 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12051
FAO. (2018). Technical guidelines on methodologies and indicators for the estimation of the magnitude and impact of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/CA0458EN/ca0458en.pdf
Gezelius, S. (2004). Food, money, and morals: Compliance among natural resource harvesters. Human Ecology, 32(5), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-004-6099-5
Raemaekers, S., Hauck, M., Bürgener, M., Mackenzie, A., Maharaj, G., Plagányi, É. E., & Britz, P. J. (2011). Review of the causes of the rise of the illegal South African abalone fishery and consequent closure of the rights-based fishery. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(6), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.02.001
Raemaekers, S. J.-P. N., & Britz, P. J. (2009). Profile of the illegal abalone fishery (Haliotis midae) in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: Organised pillage and management failure. Fisheries Research, 97(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2009.02.003
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached letter.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for these revisions. Please consider the following:
1) ln. 85, please clarify statement about "strengthen its surveillance, especially for foreign vessels", as readers should expect to understand how China's move to put its Coast Guard under the command of the PAPF is reducing IUU activities by Chinese vessels, but instead it seems that this move is directed at reinforcing the control of foreign vessels (one would suppose in Chinese EEZ, but this is not explained, and there is also no explanation as to whether this relates/applies to the internationally defined China PR EEZ or to China PR's so-called 'nine/ten-dash line').
2) ln. 334, and as you note in your response, after "This hardline policy started 333 under the leadership of the former Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Susi Pudjiastuti (2014-2019)" consider stating that this policy proved to be very effective from an anti-IUU perspective but challenging to implement due notably to pressure against it from China.
3) ln. 431, please consider explaining that despite prohibiting Chinese vessel within Japan's EEZ, Chinese vessels still had an impact on Japanese waters as many Chinese vessels illegally operated in North Korean waters, pushing many North Korean fishers to illegally enter Japanese waters in search of catch (thus pointing to an indirect effect from Chinese IUU activities).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached letter.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
