62 Proceedings Fall 2024 From those three newly defined tiers/regions, the working group then selected five priority flag states— Ecuador, Panama, Senegal, Taiwan, and Vietnam—with which to pursue new projects and initiatives to support ongoing counter-IUU fishing efforts. These nations were willing to work with the United States, but also were locations where change and impact could be made in combatting IUU fishing. The CAMPION continues to grow and evolve. The recent establishment of regional sub-working groups representing Africa, Latin and Central America, Pacific Island nations, and Southeast Asia shows the inter- agency strength that is being developed. It is evident not only around the D.C. Beltway, but with action offi- cer levels across the U.S. government and around the globe. The Coast Guard is a key player in these working groups, whether they are regionally based or in a spe- cific element like maritime domain awareness or intelli- gence, and the service’s influence and abilities are being requested. Through the M-SAFE Interagency Working Group, the Coast Guard can, and is, growing its abili- ties and influence in combatting global maritime threats with our partner agencies. The Role of the Coast Guard From the international framework and problem set, to the U.S interagency response, working our way down to the Coast Guard, it is easy to see the need for our ser- vices. The increasing demand for Coast Guard services is seen in key U.S. strategic documents ranging from the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy,4 The National Security Memo on Combatting IUU Fishing and Associated Labor Abuses,5 and to a greater level, The National Security Strategy.6 The Coast Guard then developed its own guiding documents which shape the operations and work it com- pletes. The Coast Guard IUU Fishing Strategic Outlook7 and Implementation Plan Strategic Outlook8 identify three primary lines of effort that will drive the service’s efforts to achieve the future desired end state defined as “Global adherence to international norms and the pres- ervation of critically important marine resources.” These lines of efforts are: • promote intel-driven enforcement • counter predatory and irresponsible behavior • expand multilateral enforcement cooperation Under these efforts, it becomes more and more appar- ent that the Coast Guard cannot, and frankly should not, be or become the world’s ocean police. It is not in the business of global, direct law enforcement. Partnerships with like-minded nations are critical to success. The Coast Guard’s bilateral agreements across the globe show how dedicated the service is to this principle. Shiprider agreements allow the Coast Guard to support other nations’ organic living marine resource enforce- ment capabilities through training and providing opera- tional platforms from which nations with more limited resources may exert their sovereignty. The Coast Guard currently has 19 bilateral maritime law enforcement agreements that contain a shiprider provision for the IUU fishing mission. These countries are predominately located in Pacific Islands, Africa, and, most recently, Ecuador. Prior to 2016, the text for the bilat- eral maritime agreements did not include the IUU fish- ing mission, and were mostly counter-narcotics based, showing the growth of interest in the theatre. Shiprider operations around the globe have proved effective in helping partner nations exert their authority over their own fleets and EEZs. In the same way that HSBI schemes allow for greater authorities on the high seas, shiprider operations allow our partner nations to better enforce their own laws with the Coast Guard serv- ing as the boarding platform and assisting with training and development of law enforcement personnel. From the Seychelles to islands scattered across the Pacific, the ability of partners to take ownership over their own waters is critical in combatting IUU fishing. Higher levels of collective ocean governance has fostered greater ownership and pride, leading to better manage- ment of these critical resources. The best type of partner the Coast Guard can be in the international community is one that provides the ability for our partners to have the knowledge, desire, legal backing, and platforms by which they can enforce their own fisheries compliance. In turn, that will benefit the entire international community. Beyond direct operations, the Coast Guard also sup- ports problem-set education, providing training and seminars around the globe and in Washington. The work of the Mobile Training Branch in organizing jointly held seminars with NOAA and Coast Guard subject matter experts, like the one I supported in Abidjan, cannot be overstated. They bring experts together to discuss issues that are bigger than any one nation. These five-day seminars, like the one I led in Côte d’Ivoire, are held around the world and led and facili- tated by Coast Guard Mobile Training Branch members. The goal is to provide opportunities for government offi- cials of the host nation to discuss IUU fishing with the subject matter experts from NOAA and the Coast Guard. During the seminars participants have and will continue to work towards bilateral agreements, discussing the role of RFMOs, how to measure fish holds, and how we can better work together as governments. Just as important, they have discussed how they can effectively break down silos in their governments and communicate more effec- tively in much the same way the Coast Guard is trying to work through the M-SAFE Interagency Working Group.
