Changing Planet

The Tuna Industry’s Role in Ending Illegal Fishing

Every day tuna boats move in and out of ports worldwide. Developing a system to identify each unique vessel has been an arduous undertaking, but it’s paying off. Photo courtesy of International Seafood Sustainability Foundation.

As a seafood lover and a conscientious consumer, I try to know where my tuna comes from. I want to know that the fish I buy is not only good for me but also being caught in a way that keeps the ocean healthy, too. When fishing vessels use a registration number to identify themselves, seafood processors and distributers can take note of exactly who caught the fish, as well as where and how they caught it.  They can pass that information on to retailers and consumers like us. It’s a simple enough concept that increases retailer and consumer confidence in what we are buying. That’s the kind of traceability we all want, and it starts with the vessels on the water. If transparency methods like ‘can codes,’ which would allow a consumer to trace the tuna in the can back to the vessel that caught it, are ever going to live up to their full potential, it is essential that all large-scale vessels are outfitted with unique and permanent numbers first.

Why is this important? Because illegally caught fish is making it’s way onto our shelves. How much exactly is hard to say but even a small percentage is too much. Illegal fishing contributes to overfishing, often harms the environment and many times means stealing fish from poor coastal countries in Africa or small Island nations in the Pacific.

Thousands of vessels fish for tuna all around the globe. With so many boats on the water moving in and out of a variety of global ports, it is critical that every vessel have a unique and permanent number to distinguish it from all others even if it changes owners or country registry. Outfitting all boats with unique vessel identification number (UVI) such as those issued by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) allows for the unprecedented ability to track vessel behavior, good or bad, so that buyers know which boats to buy from, and so that enforcement bodies can do their job more effectively.  Of the four main inter-governmental bodies that oversee tropical tuna fishing, three adopted measures last year that require vessels operating in their waters to obtain an IMO number. The fourth one, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which manages the Eastern Pacific, just recently followed suit at their annual meeting in Peru.

This progress is due in part to the efforts of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF).  Companies that participate in ISSF comprise close to 75 percent of the global tuna purchasing power, and they have pledged to buy only from vessels with IMO numbers and to not buy from vessels identified by regional management bodies (RFMOs) as having previously engaged in illegal fishing.

That has sent a powerful message – vessels can either adapt by coming online or they can lose out on a lot of prospective buyers. Since 2011, we’ve witnessed a 76 percent spike in the number of tuna fishing vessels that have publically available, registered IMO numbers.

ISSF has taken this to the next level. Through its ProActive Vessel Register (PVR) – an audited database of tuna vessels available to the public – boat owners can prove their legality as well as other steps they are taking above and beyond legal requirements to openly demonstrate their level of commitment to sustainable practices.

In recent years, vessel owners have voluntarily added data on their boats to the PVR and this has helped the rule-makers in the RFMOs add regulatory pressure on those that have not by requiring the use of IMO numbers for vessels that fish or do business within their jurisdiction.

Just like a car’s VIN number or license plate can help police track the activity of vehicles on the road, IMO numbers help RFMOs and national governments track and enforce against vessels fishing illegally, or failing to meet certain regional standards for sustainability. Efforts from ISSF, their peer organizations and RFMOs to make the supply chain more transparent and to dissuade bad behavior are progressing well. Today, significantly more vessels are registered IMO numbers than a few short years ago, but IUU fishing remains a serious problem for the industry and for the millions of people who rely on tuna for jobs, and food, and it will remain so until we can transparently trace catches from the sandwich all the way back to the boat.

Miguel Jorge is managing director of 50in10, a worldwide collaboration to restore fisheries, and a member of the ISSF Board of Directors.

Miguel Angel Jorge is the Managing Director of 50in10, working to expand the organization's network of stakeholders, facilitate knowledge sharing about sustainable fisheries management, and help design and support collaborative fishery restoration programs implemented by the organization's partners around the world. Before joining 50in10, Miguel was Director of the National Geographic Society’s Ocean Initiative, which strives to restore the ocean’s health and productivity. He joined NGS in February of 2010. Previously Miguel worked as Director of WWF-International’s Marine Program, where he oversaw the their global strategies on fisheries and seafood, shipping and high-seas conservation policy. Before that Miguel worked extensively in Latin America and the Caribbean on marine, freshwater conservation and large-scale conservation planning processes, in the Gulf of California, Galapagos and Mesoamerican Reef. In his early career, Miguel worked in a wide array of areas, from aquaculture to refugee camp conflict mediator, to delegate at UN meetings. A native of Cuba, he has also lived in the US, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Switzerland. Miguel has a Masters in Marine Policy and a Bachelor’s in Aquatic Biology.
  • Alistair Graham

    Hi Miguel, nice job getting the use of IMO numbers by tuna RFMOs. Given that we’ve now got an IMO decision to remove the exemption for fishing vessels in their resolution encouraging the use of the IMO numbering systems by owners of vessels over 100GT, it seems to me that now would be a good time to review and revise the ISSF ‘ask’ with respect to IMO numbers, perhaps, for starters:
    (i) require use of IMO numbers for all FVs operating outside flag state waters, regardless of size or construction material – to ensure consistency with the provisions of the FAO port state measures agreement regarding port access for foreign fishing vessels (and the PSMA has a fudge for dealing with small/artisinal FVs);
    (ii) require full participation in both the IMO vessel and owner number systems – i.e., it’s not sufficient just to have an IMO number – the owner must ensure all required data to get a number in the first place is maintained (i.e., missing data is as much a compliance problem as not having an IMO number);
    (iii) require RFMO member states to notify, each year, which FVs they have authorised to fish for the coming fishing season – i.e., notifications/authorisations would lapse each year thus getting rid of the muddle assoiated with long lapsed authorisations still being on RFMO lists;
    (iv) require RFMO member flag states to include in their FV notifications details of the fishing permits and licences issued to each vessel/master so that others can know exactly where and how a vessel is – and is not – allowed to fish;
    (v) allow RFMOs to cooperate with FAO in sharing notification/authorisation data to build consolidated lists in formats and on terms consistent with the emerging requirements of an FAO Global Record of FVs, especially in the central role of the IMO numbers – for both vessels and owners – as the UVIs at the heart of the GRFV.

    In other words, maybe the time has come for the tuna canners to press RFMO member states to use the IMO numbering systems in a way that facilitates each other in becoming party to and implementing the provisions of the FAO PSMA and the IMO Cape Town Agreement on fishing vessel safety as well as in developing a Global Record of FVs – as well as ensuring that fish can be tracked from catch to can.
    Cheers, Alistair

  • Karli

    I absolutely agree that IMO numbers are needed for fishing vessels to better control the vast fleets chasing our fish. But I don’t think ISSF has any credibility on combating IUU fishing while it gives a “no IUU” tick to convicted illegal fishing vessels on its proactive vessel register. Take Spanish vessel Albacora Uno for example. It paid $1million compensation last year for illegal fishing in Nauru, in 2012 is was convicted and fined for illegal shark fishing in Marshall Islands shark sanctuary, in 2011 there is a case of illegal tuna dumping in the east Pacific, and in 2010 it was fined $5million for multiple cases of illegal fishing in US Pacific waters from 2007-2009. This is a vessel with an illegal fishing history going back years, and millions of dollars of fines, with no apparent change in behaviour towards fisheries law. For ISSF to give this vessel a “no IUU” tick is blatantly wrong, and the justification that it doesn’t appear on any RFMO IUU blacklist is flawed. RFMOs are consensus organisations, and no vessels are listed unless members all agree to it. The fact that the Pacific Tuna Commission has only two vessels on its blacklist does not mean that they were the only two bad guys out there: Other vessels with “no IUU” ticks on the ISSF register have been convicted of IUU fishing in the region. If ISSF is genuinely trying to help conscientious consumers do the right thing with their seafood purchases, why would they hide this sort of information from people, and give a vessel like Albacora Uno credit for “no IUU” when they know full well it has multiple convictions for illegal fishing? Surely, buying fish from a massive European vessel, one of the worlds largest tuna ships, heavily subsidised by the EU and Spain yet stealing fish from small Pacific Islands’ waters, is exactly what conscientious consumers are trying to avoid doing, so why is ISSF hiding that information?

  • I appreciate your note, Karli, and I am glad for the opportunity to clarify some matters regarding ISSF.

    The ProActive Vessel Register is not an endorsement of the vessel’s listed, just like participation in ISSF is not an endpoint for tuna companies. The PVR simply lists vessels working towards more sustainable practices, and I applaud their willingness to provide public data about what they are and are not doing to improve, and to be independently audited. ISSF does not condone the alleged IUU activities mentioned, but it can’t play tuna police. Coastal State governments investigated the vessel’s activities, brought an enforcement action when it deemed such action necessary, and levied a sanction accordingly. That is the most appropriate and viable way to punish vessels for these kinds of wrongdoings. ISSF is, however, pushing RFMOs for the kinds of improvements Alistair mentioned in his comments.

    You can learn more about ISSF’s PVR here: And you can read the full report on the ISSF approach to IUU , which includes a review of the case you mention in greater detail, here:

    Thanks again for your response, and I hope we can count on your continued support to make tuna fishing around the world sustainable and marine ecosystems healthy and resilient.

About the Blog

Researchers, conservationists, and others share stories, insights and ideas about Our Changing Planet, Wildlife & Wild Spaces, and The Human Journey. More than 50,000 comments have been added to 10,000 posts. Explore the list alongside to dive deeper into some of the most popular categories of the National Geographic Society’s conversation platform Voices.

Opinions are those of the blogger and/or the blogger’s organization, and not necessarily those of the National Geographic Society. Posters of blogs and comments are required to observe National Geographic’s community rules and other terms of service.

Voices director: David Braun (

Social Media