Caribbean fisheries laws “out of sync” as criminals exploit regional waters, new gap analysis warns

By BATV News Desk
December 2025

A new regional review of fisheries laws across 22 Caribbean jurisdictions is warning that outdated statutes, inconsistent definitions, and weak enforcement provisions are creating exploitable loopholes—at a time when fishing vessels and coastal waters are increasingly linked to transnational crime and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. fish gap

The report—Caribbean Fisheries Legislation Gap Analysis—was produced through collaboration between CARICOM IMPACS and Auxilium Worldwide as part of a wider initiative aimed at “bringing transparency” to Caribbean fisheries and flag registries to reduce opportunities for exploitation.

A patchwork of laws—some more than a century old

One of the clearest findings is the uneven “modernity” of fisheries legislation across the region. The analysis points to statutes ranging from very old frameworks—such as Trinidad and Tobago’s base law dating to 1916—to more recent reforms in places like The Bahamas (2020), Turks and Caicos Islands (2018), and St. Lucia (revised laws in 2023). A map graphic in the report visualizes how widely these enactment dates vary across the Caribbean.

The authors argue that older laws often fail to address present-day realities, including vessel-tracking technology (GPS and AIS), “GPS spoofing” and other manipulation risks, and the rapid spread of fish-finding tools that increase fishing pressure on stocks.

Why the legal gaps matter: IUU fishing and wider crime

While many policy conversations focus on sustainability, the report stresses that criminal exploitation of the fisheries space is not being met with adequate legal tools. It highlights research indicating fishing vessels and fishing-related activity can be used for drug and firearms trafficking, money laundering, migrant smuggling, and other offences—yet many fisheries statutes do not meaningfully connect to broader criminal law or empower fisheries officers to act when non-fisheries crimes are detected.

A major weakness flagged is the limited cross-referencing between fisheries offences and penal codes, combined with weak inter-agency coordination—especially among fisheries authorities, customs, immigration, police and coast guard units.

International obligations: uneven adoption, uneven enforcement

The report frames UNCLOS as the foundation for maritime rights and duties, then warns that uneven ratification of key instruments—particularly the UN Fish Stocks Agreement—creates practical barriers for cooperation, boarding, inspection, investigation, and information-sharing across jurisdictions.

It also points to reputational and commercial consequences when countries fail to meet international expectations. As an example, the report cites the European Union’s identification of Trinidad and Tobago as a non-cooperating country in the fight against IUU fishing, underscoring how outdated frameworks can become a direct trade and diplomacy issue.

Definitions and “technicalities” that can become loopholes

The analysis documents significant inconsistencies in basic legal definitions across the region—starting with what legally counts as “fishing.” Some countries define fishing narrowly, while more recent laws broaden the term to include activities such as attracting fish, using aircraft or beacons, transshipment, and supplying fuel to fishing vessels—areas that can be critical to enforcement when illicit activity is disguised as legitimate operations.

Another key gap concerns vessel ownership transparency. The report notes that many countries do not define “owner” in their fisheries statutes, and where “beneficial ownership” is referenced it may not be clearly operationalized for fisheries enforcement—making accountability harder when vessels are structured through layered corporate entities.

Bycatch, gear rules, and derelict equipment: weak and inconsistent controls

Environmental and compliance issues also feature prominently:

• Bycatch and discards: The report says most fisheries statutes reviewed lacked definitions or general rules around bycatch, incidental catch, and discards—despite ecological and economic consequences. fish gap
• Gear possession vs. use: Some laws penalize use of prohibited gear but not possession; others treat possession itself as an offence; and some use ambiguous “intent to use” language that can be difficult to prove in practice. fish gap
• Stowage rules: Many states rely on vague requirements that gear not be “readily available for fishing,” while a smaller number provide more specific stowage criteria. fish gap
• Derelict gear: The report highlights weak and fragmented approaches to managing abandoned or discarded fishing gear, often split across multiple laws and agencies—leading to inconsistent enforcement.

Access agreements: a transparency and governance flashpoint

Access agreements—arrangements permitting foreign fishing—are described as both important (especially for states with small EEZs) and high-risk, because they are often negotiated with limited public visibility and may concentrate decision-making power in a small number of officials. The report argues this combination raises corruption vulnerability and complicates verification of whether agreements align with sustainable fisheries plans.

Enforcement: penalties, procedures, and prosecution gaps

A central legal finding is that many fisheries laws provide limited procedural guidance for interdiction (boarding, seizure, evidence handling, jurisdiction, prosecution). The report notes that Jamaica stands out for having more developed procedural enforcement provisions, while many other jurisdictions are comparatively silent.

It also highlights that penalties can be inconsistent and sometimes fail to deter, and warns that courts may under-penalize serious illegal fishing incidents—sending signals that the region is a low-risk operating environment for repeat offenders.

Recommendations: practical reforms to close the gaps

Among the report’s headline reform recommendations are:

1. Training across agencies and stakeholders (including non-fisheries officials and fishers) to spot, report, and preserve evidence of illegal activity.
2. Shiprider arrangements to enable cross-jurisdiction enforcement and strengthen boarding/inspection capacity.
3. Wider ratification of the Treaty of San José, presented as a mechanism to streamline maritime interdiction processes—particularly for narcotics trafficking involving vessels, including fishing vessels.
4. Stronger Port State Measures (PSMA) implementation, using ports as enforcement gateways to deny services and share intelligence when IUU fishing is suspected.
5. Regional watch centers to speed up communications and enforcement action.
6. Digitised, joint regional documentation systems for vessel licensing, ownership records, enforcement actions and sanctions—shared across relevant regional bodies.

The bottom line

The report’s core message is that fisheries policy cannot be treated as a narrow environmental or economic issue. In a region where maritime space often exceeds land territory, the analysis argues that outdated statutes, fragmented enforcement authority, and inconsistent legal definitions collectively create the conditions for both ecological harm and criminal exploitation.

BATV News will continue tracking how governments and regional bodies respond, particularly as states modernize laws to address vessel monitoring, beneficial ownership transparency, inter-agency enforcement, and the growing overlap between fisheries and transnational crime.

For feedback: contact the BATV Editorial Division at: info@batvja.com