IUU fishing for toothfish in the Antarctic: COBECOS MODELLING John Pearce, David Agnew MRAG

IUU fishing for toothfish in the Antarctic:COBECOS MODELLINGJohn Pearce, David AgnewMRAG

Antisocial behaviour Photos courtesy of Australian Customs

1991 Apr 1996 Dec 1996 Jan 2002 History of illegal interest

World catches of toothfish

CDS reported 57 CDS reported 51 Actual 51 Catch rates Assume 3.5 x 40 day fishing trips/year

Catch Value Effect of CDS on value • 2000: – 10% for non-certified • 2001,2002: – 20% • 2003-2004: – 10% Effect of boycott on demand: 2002  2004 • 27% drop in production • 15% drop in US imports (frozen) • Trade 57% Japan, 36% USA, 7% Europe

Data available • IUU activity (n. vessels) • IUU activity (catch – declared out of zone) • Also available: n. arrests, n. sightings • Not yet available: n. days inspection each year

Probability of arrest; fines • Probability of arrest has increased with increasing MCS • f: ship loss ~ $1.2M

Model results Net profit - IUU Effect on number of IUU vessels

Model results Without CDS Without surveillance/control

Early History - South Georgia • Early fishery: no patrols, increase in IUU • Increase in IUU, arrests, sudden increase in opportunity costs compared to Indian Ocean sector • Departure of IUU fleet over 6 months Oct 1995 – Feb 1996 • Return of IUU fleet in 1999 when CPUE in Indian ocean had dropped and patrols in indian ocean had increased – balanced opportunity cost in South Georgia and Indian Ocean

Data Available • Estimates of encounter rate • Detailed patrol vessel surveillance data • CPUE data • Estimates of IUU activity

Modelling opportunities • Model precise response relationships in the early IUU fishery • Understand the balance of private benefits for IUU in patrolled vs unpatrolled areas • Understand the relationships in the later fishery (Indian Ocean) to see if relationships have changed

IUU fishing for toothfish in the Antarctic: COBECOS MODELLING John Pearce, David Agnew MRAG