Can Anti-IUU Trade Measures Diffuse to Other Market Countries? Case Study of Australia

Barclay, K

Can Anti-IUU Trade Measures Diffuse to Other Market Countries? Case Study of Australia

Barclay, K

Permalink

Publisher:: Taylor & Francis
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: EU Trade-Related Measures against Illegal Fishing: Policy Diffusion and Effectiveness in Thailand and Australia, 2023, pp. 42-60
Issue Date:: 2023-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (151.88 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Barclay, K https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4779-0965
dc.date.accessioned	2024-05-27T22:57:10Z
dc.date.available	2024-05-27T22:57:10Z
dc.date.issued	2023-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	EU Trade-Related Measures against Illegal Fishing: Policy Diffusion and Effectiveness in Thailand and Australia, 2023, pp. 42-60
dc.identifier.isbn	9781032283418
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179263
dc.description.abstract	In this chapter we consider Australia as a potential receiver of policy from the EU, US and Japan regarding anti-IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing measures on seafood imports. Australia, a small player in the global seafood trade, has nonetheless been active in international forums that established IUU as an international legal topic, and in establishing catch documentation schemes used for anti-IUU trade measures in fisheries in which Australia has commercial interests. The chapter is based on qualitative research including semi-structured interviews, policy document review and event ethnography. We find that despite Australia’s having supported anti-IUU measures, including trade restrictions, in the international sphere, it has hitherto not applied anti-IUU trade measures for its own markets. Indeed, policy decisions around what kinds of regulation are appropriate for seafood trade and markets have tended away from applying government regulation, except for food safety. The chapter thus shows some of the limits to policy diffusion. In the case of Australia, domestic jurisdictional boundaries along seafood supply chains, and policy-makers’ ideas about what kinds of regulation are appropriate over each node, have acted against the adoption of anti-IUU fisheries import restrictions and other similar kinds of regulation.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Taylor & Francis
dc.relation.ispartof	EU Trade-Related Measures against Illegal Fishing: Policy Diffusion and Effectiveness in Thailand and Australia
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.4324/9781003296379-3
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Can Anti-IUU Trade Measures Diffuse to Other Market Countries? Case Study of Australia
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2024-05-27T22:57:09Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

In this chapter we consider Australia as a potential receiver of policy from the EU, US and Japan regarding anti-IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing measures on seafood imports. Australia, a small player in the global seafood trade, has nonetheless been active in international forums that established IUU as an international legal topic, and in establishing catch documentation schemes used for anti-IUU trade measures in fisheries in which Australia has commercial interests. The chapter is based on qualitative research including semi-structured interviews, policy document review and event ethnography. We find that despite Australia’s having supported anti-IUU measures, including trade restrictions, in the international sphere, it has hitherto not applied anti-IUU trade measures for its own markets. Indeed, policy decisions around what kinds of regulation are appropriate for seafood trade and markets have tended away from applying government regulation, except for food safety. The chapter thus shows some of the limits to policy diffusion. In the case of Australia, domestic jurisdictional boundaries along seafood supply chains, and policy-makers’ ideas about what kinds of regulation are appropriate over each node, have acted against the adoption of anti-IUU fisheries import restrictions and other similar kinds of regulation.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179263