Have subsidies played a role in IUU fishing for Patagonian toothfish in the Southern Oceans?

1. Have subsidies played a role in IUU fishing for Patagonian toothfish in the Southern Oceans? • UNEP Workshop on Fisheries Subsidies and Sustainable Fisheries Management • 26-27 April, 2004 • Geneva • Indrani Lutchman

2. Outline of presentation • Introduction to the case study • Description of the fishery • Description of the subsidy • Results of analysis • Conclusions and recommendations

3. Introduction • Case study was one of seven funded by WWF • Investigating links between government subsidies and depletion of stocks • This study makes the case: • that government acquiescence about IUU fishing can be a form of ‘harmful’ subsidy

4. Description of the Fishery • Toothfish is a large, long-lived species found in off South America and sub-Antarctic Islands • Highly lucrative species fetching up to US$10 per kilo • Fishery began in mid-1990s • By 1998, major stocks were depleted (in Indian Ocean sector)

5. Description of fishery (continued) • Two main types of fishing: • Legal fishing • fishing with licences in CCAMLR Convention Area • fishing within waters of national jurisdiction outside CCAMLR Convention Area • fishing on high seas outside CCA

6. Description of the Fishery (continued) • Illegal fishing • Illegal – fishing by vessels flagged by parties to CCAMLR but whose activities are in contravention of its conservation measures, for example, fishing out of season; fishing in waters subject to coastal state jurisdiction (even with the CCAMLR Convention Area) without the state’s permission, by either CCAMLR or non-CCAMLR flagged vessels. • Unregulated – when fishing occurs on the high seas (i.e. outside areas of national jurisdiction) but within the Convention Area by vessels whose flag state is not a CCAMLR party and whose activity is therefore assumed to be contravening or undermining conservation and management in the area. • Unreported – firstly covers the catches of illegal and unregulated fishing which are most unlikely to be reported but also may cover examples of mis-reporting (for example, declaring catch came from a different area) or under-reporting, where that mis-reporting is wilful. (Source: Agnew and Green, 2002) • (Source: Green and Agnew, 2000)

7. Map of the CCAMLR Convention Area

8. Description of the fishery (continued) • History of IUU • In 1992/1993 with Chilean and Argentine registered vessels • By 1995, illegal Chilean vessels fishing in South Georgia • UK Government implement MCS and enforcement • IUU vessels move to Indian Ocean Sector 1996-1997 • Next move to Australian zone 1997-1998

9. Movement of IUU fishers

10. Description of the Fishery (continued) • Impact on toothfish stocks: • In PE and Marion Island • In French Islands (Crozet and Kerguelen) • In 1998, CCAMLR strengthens and implements new measures to curb IUU fishing

11. Description of the subsidy • Specifically: • subsidies for vessels construction for fishing in South Atlantic • access subsidies for foreign fishing rights (EU/Argentine) • government acquiescence - a form of ‘harmful’ subsidy

12. Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) • Subsidies for vessel construction • Norway funded construction of longline vessels for South Africa with subsidies of NOK5-6 million (Album, 1997) • Glacial vessels fished legally in 1996 for hake • Same vessels arrested for IUU fishing toothfish in 1997 in SA, Australian and French territories in CCAMLR Convention Area • Other vessels also involved

13. Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) • Access subsidies • migration of EU vessels (mainly Spanish) to the Southern Ocean mainly through EU/Argentine Agreement for hake • In 1992, EU/Argentine agreement signed and came into effect in 1994 for five years • 28 Spanish vessels transferred to the hake fishery >40m Euros • However by 1995-1998, catches were 47-58% above TACs • Hake stocks declined , vessels forced to other fishing grounds

14. Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) • Two vessels originally funded by EU for the EU/Argentine fisheries agreement for hake enter IUU fishing for toothfish • The Orense and the Ibsa IV • Ibsa IV was fined for illegal fishing in French waters in October 1998 • Orense was involved in transhipping IUU fish from longliners and was sunk at sea in 1998

15. Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) • Acquiescent flag states (CPs and non-CPs) • non-compliance with conservation measures • Acquiescent coastal states • South Africa, eg. For not imposing sanctions • Aquiescent port states • Mauritius, Seychelles • allowing IUU fishers to land in their port

16. Conclusion • IUU fishers flagged to CPs and non CPs • IUU fishing contributed to decline of localised toothfish stocks • No evidence has been found that the development of IUU fishing was directly and deliberately linked to any particularly government or subsidy • However, the export of excess fishing capacity identified as having indirectly contributed to the expansion of IUU fishing and the decline of toothfish stocks

17. Constraints • Case study was constrained by gaps in information on • : • the historical status of some toothfish stocks • obvious uncertainty of estimates of IUU catches • the confidentiality of some CCAMLR and industry information on vessels • economic data on subsidies

18. Future analysis • To do a full analysis would require: • Up-to-date and historical information on stock status • More accurate estimates of IUU fishing, catches, trade and trade routes • Publicly accessible information on the vessels authorised by each country to fish in the CCAMLR Convention Area • A detailed, verified vessel database clearly showing the history of naming, flagging and ownership of each vessel • Economic information on national subsidies • Clear, verified information on the origin of fish transhipped or landed in different ports