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

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

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’ subsidythat government acquiescence about IUU fishing can be a form of ‘harmful’ subsidy

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)

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

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)

Map of the CCAMLR Convention Area

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

Movement of IUU fishers

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

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

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)Norway funded construction of longline vessels for South Africa with subsidies of NOK5-6 million (Album, 1997) Glacial vessels fished legally in 1996 for hakeGlacial 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 AreaSame vessels arrested for IUU fishing toothfish in 1997 in SA, Australian and French territories in CCAMLR Convention Area Other vessels also involvedOther vessels also involved

Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) Access subsidies migration of EU vessels (mainly Spanish) to the Southern Ocean mainly through EU/Argentine Agreement for hakemigration 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 yearsIn 1992, EU/Argentine agreement signed and came into effect in 1994 for five years 28 Spanish vessels transferred to the hake fishery >40m Euros28 Spanish vessels transferred to the hake fishery >40m Euros However by , catches were 47-58% above TACsHowever by , catches were 47-58% above TACs Hake stocks declined, vessels forced to other fishing groundsHake stocks declined, vessels forced to other fishing grounds

Description of the fishing subsidy (continued) Two vessels originally funded by EU for the EU/Argentine fisheries agreement for hake enter IUU fishing for toothfishTwo vessels originally funded by EU for the EU/Argentine fisheries agreement for hake enter IUU fishing for toothfish The Orense and the Ibsa IVThe 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

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

Conclusion IUU fishers flagged to CPs and non CPsIUU fishers flagged to CPs and non CPs IUU fishing contributed to decline of localised toothfish stocksIUU 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

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

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