It will be able to catch five tons. Image: Revista Puerto / FIS

Prodesur is authorized to fish for toothfish with the Tai An

The claim made by the quota-holding companies regarding the catch volume of this non-quota vessel led to restrictive measures being adopted to prevent directed fishing. The owner of the boat filed a complaint, but the Federal Fisheries Council ratified her decision.

Source: Stockfile FIS -->

During the meeting of the Commission to monitor the Black Hake species, the quota-holding companies complained about the fishing that they considered excessive carried out by the Tai An vessel of the Prodesur firm that does not have a quota. Both INIDEP and the Fisheries Directorate indicated at the time that the company did not incur any violation of current regulations, given that its catches, although sometimes high, never exceeded the percentage of the catch set as a limit by the regulations. current. But to prevent the spirit of the rule that seeks to protect a scarce resource from continuing to be distorted, it was decided to set a maximum bycatch limit in tons.

The original regulations established that the percentage of bycatch of toothfish in a fishing trip could not exceed 1.50% of the total catches, but based on an analysis of official fishing statistics and information from observers on board. , INIDEP concluded that it was necessary to limit the bycatch of toothfish to a value of up to 5 tons. Consequently, the CFP committed to review and complement the current regulations, with an additional restriction that prevents exceeding a certain value of bycatch, in order to maintain the process of recovery of resource abundance.

<--Source: Stockfile FIS

In Resolution 21/23 it was then established that "a fishing trip or trip is considered directed at the toothfish species (Dissostichus eleginoides) when its catch exceeds 1.50% of the total catches or 5 tons, which that is less.” 

Given this CFP decision, the Prodesur firm filed a motion for reconsideration, in which it maintained that “the INIDEP report would not adjust to the reality of the facts” adding that “the capture potential of the 5,000-ton vessel is not its usual catch; that the 5-ton capture limit for the toothfish species is irrational, since it would represent 0.33% of the hold capacity of the Tai An vessel.”

They also indicated that the resolution "incurs the vice of misuse of power, since it would pursue a purpose different from that legally provided, by benefiting third parties" and added that "the administration measure on the toothfish species affects it since it captures said sort of incidentally.”

The Council's response was forceful. Firstly, they pointed out that it is a quotated species that has the lowest abundance, at a rate of 3,700 tons when for other species of hake that volume can reach 313 thousand tons, as in the case of the hubbsi.

Source: Stockfile FIS

On the other hand, they pointed out that the catch limit of 5 tons “has not been raised, by the appellant, as an unreasonable limitation, but rather it is presented as a very small amount for the hold capacity of the Tai An vessel.”

In this regard, they explained that the restriction on incidental catch, limited in its original version only to a percentage of the fishing capacity of a vessel "can be an ineffective measure for the administration and conservation of a resource that, like toothfish, is of a slow but clear recovery, which is largely due to the rigorous limitations that fishing activity has received, both that directed at the species and that which captures it incidentally.

Source: ARevista Puerto -->

As if to make it clear to the company that the Council has been tolerant when it comes to setting a limit in tons, they pointed out that the INIDEP technical proposal offered a maximum range per tide between 2.5 and 5 tons, having opted for the one that gave greater volume.

“This is a technically suitable measure and, furthermore, the one that produces the least restriction among those proposed by the scientific-technical organization. From a technical point of view, the recursive presentation does not offer arguments of the solidity necessary to distort the analysis, background and conclusions contained in the INIDEP report,” the councilors maintained.

Regarding the “diversion of power” implied by the modification to the rule, to which the company referred, the directors limited themselves to responding that what is being preserved is the resource and that it is also a species that is quoted by the that the complaint would not take place since the ship does not have said capture authorization.

“The resolution is aimed at the good administration of the natural fishing resource” and they added that “it does not have other companies as beneficiaries, as the reconsideration resource suggests, but rather said natural resource” and that the current quota holders have been assigned a percentage of the maximum catch”, they indicated in Minute 33.

“The CITC Regime authorizes any permit holder to acquire, through transfer, the quota of one of its holders. This regulatory device was used by the appellant, but in the opposite sense: to transmit the ownership of its quota of the species to another permit holder," they reminded her, implying that she had no right to complain, and then they declared the attempted hierarchical appeal inadmissible. , leaving the administrative route exhausted.

Now the Prodesur company is left with legal action if it persists in the idea of fishing more than 5 tons of toothfish as a companion species.

Author: Karina Fernández | Revista Puerto (Traslated from the original in Spanish)

[email protected]
www.seafood.media

Address:	Pres. Bernardino Rivadavia
City:	Ushuaia
State/ZIP:	Buenos Aires (V9410DJD)
Country:	Argentina
Phone:	+54 (02901) 436668
E-Mail:	[email protected]
More about:

Print