Are We Facing 'Environmental Fraud'?

Drop in Loligo Squid Catches in Falkland Islands (Malvinas): A Barometer of Environmental Concern and Growing Fishing Uncertainty

ARGENTINA
Sunday, July 20, 2025, 04:50 (GMT + 9)

A drastic 50% decline in Loligo squid catches in the Falkland Islands is alarming the Galician fishing fleet and sparking growing environmental concern. Experts, such as Dr. César Augusto Lerena, link this decline to overfishing, rising ocean temperatures, and especially the impact of hydrocarbon seismic surveys, questioning the rigor of Environmental Impact Assessments.

Despite a significant decrease in Loligo squid (Doryteuthis gahi) catches in the Falkland Islands in recent years, 16 large freezer trawlers from Vigo and Marín have departed in search of this highly prized resource, which supplies Spain and a large part of the European Union market.

However, there's significant uncertainty among vessel owners. This isn't just due to the high cost of licenses in the islands, but also the expense of traveling to and operating in Falklands waters. If insufficient volumes of this species are caught, it could mean a major financial setback for businesses, compounded by the non-fulfillment of commercial agreements related to the supply of this product.

This concern is well-founded, as catches of this species have fallen by 50% in recent years, according to statistics from the Falkland Islands Government (FIG). The severity of the problem increases because the exact origin of this decline is unknown, and biologists and experts are working on various hypotheses. These range from attributing the decrease in catches to overexploitation of the resource by these large vessels, which have increased fishing effort; to the sustained increase in ocean temperature in the region; and also to the negative effects that seismic blasting, used for offshore hydrocarbon exploration, might be causing.

Source: coastalreview.org

The Impact of Seismic Surveys on Loligo Squid

Given this scenario of uncertainty, SeafoodMediaGroup-FIS published an article on July 8, echoing observations of erratic catches by the Spanish fishing fleet in the Falkland Islands. A comment from the Galician press particularly caught our attention, linking the decline of Loligo squid to hydrocarbon and gas prospecting in the southern South Atlantic waters, both around the Falklands and in continental Argentine waters.

To clarify these claims, we interviewed Dr. César Augusto Lerena, an expert on the South Atlantic and fisheries. Through the Agustina Lerena Foundation and the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies (CESPEL), both institutions he presides over, he dedicates himself to researching issues related to natural resources and the environment, with the aim of understanding his perspective on the matter.

(SeafoodMediaGroup-FIS) (SMG): As reported, Galician media are linking the decline of Loligo squid to hydrocarbon and gas prospecting in the Southwest Atlantic. Given your experience on the subject, what is your opinion on this possible connection? Are there any evidence or studies that support this concern?

Dr. César Augusto Lerena, Agustina Lerena Foundation (CAL-FAL): The negative impact of seismic acquisitions, depending on the species and their different biological stages, has been analyzed by various organizations and experts worldwide. Beyond the effect that fishing in the Falklands could have on the Argentine ecosystem, published reports indicate that catches of species in general have not decreased in the archipelago's waters, except for the Loligo species. In this case, even the 2024 season was marked by "the particular decision not to open the second season for this squid in the Falklands due to low biomass," based on the low availability of the resource—which is why in 2024 only 48,888 tons were caught, the lowest volume recorded since 2016, completely contrasting with the catches of other species. 

Sea Lion Offshore Project in Falkland. Source:  ©Rockhopper Exploration

It is therefore possible to attribute this to the seismic explorations carried out, both in the Falklands area (North/Central Sea Lion) and in the southern marine basins (6 sub-areas of 86,000 Km2); West Falklands (18 sub-areas of 14,000 Km2) and North Basin (14 sub-areas of 100,000 Km2) of the Southwest Atlantic. Although international studies are not absolutely conclusive, these explorations could significantly damage the larval and juvenile stages of the squid, severely affecting its biological cycle. Given the reduction in Loligo squid catches cited, it would be appropriate to analyze whether the environmental impact studies are sufficiently accurate and to take precautionary measures against a hypothetical serious predation or dispersion of the species.

Potential Contradictions in Environmental Assessments

(SMG): Given that there are studies demonstrating that seismic blasting affects marine species in various ways, especially Loligo squid, how do you explain that the environmental impact studies by the consulting firm Serman y Asociados for Shell and Equinor allowed these companies to conduct and continue seismic acquisitions in the South Atlantic? Are there discrepancies in evaluation criteria, or do these studies not guarantee that there will be no impact on the species?

(CAL-FAL): Seismic acquisition is a process that—in general terms—involves generating and recording seismic waves to study the subsurface in the process prior to hydrocarbon exploitation. It requires prior environmental impact studies which, in our opinion, should not be commissioned by the beneficiary companies. However, until a suitable selection mechanism is adapted, the competent technical bodies of the State should not only evaluate theoretical processes but also design and direct practical operations aimed at ensuring that no negative effects occur to species that may be directly or indirectly affected by oil operations. This issue has not been carried out in Argentina because INIDEP has not only not been the directing body of the execution, but it has also not been provided with sufficient economic means for this, and it—furthermore—in an evident conflict of responsibilities with another government agency, has not budgeted the work for the companies interested in the task. Consequently, the Environmental Impact Studies (EIAs) in the Southwest Atlantic have not gone beyond the theoretical phase, and this, evidently, is—in our opinion—insufficient to guarantee safe and sustainable processes for the region's most sensitive species, such as the Loligo squid, among others.

Source: Assessing the Impact of Seismic Surveys on South African Fisheries By David Russell 

Our Foundation has been observing this type of seismic exploration and analyzing environmental impact studies carried out in different countries, such as Norway, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Namibia, and, of course, in Argentina, when in 2010 Rockhopper Exploration began prospecting in the North Falklands Basin, discovering the Sea Lion field, and from 2018 when the Argentine government tendered the exploitation of some 225,000 Km2 for offshore oil exploitation, awarding areas to companies such as ExxonMobil, Total, Shell, Equinor, and YPF.

In the country, we analyzed the Environmental Impact Studies (EIAs) carried out for Shell and Equinor and observed that—in our opinion—they would not be providing sufficient guarantees to ensure that seismic actions do not affect issues related to the survival or distribution of Loligo squid. From the analysis of these EIAs, we have been able to verify that—among other things—the impact on all commercial fishing species has not been taken into account, especially migratory ones; there is an absence of on-site evaluation of critical areas and species; methodological deficiencies; lack of scientific rigor; outdated references and insufficient or erroneous information; lack of precautionary, preventive, mitigating, and compensatory measures, etc.

The international energy industry has been facing serious challenges (e.g., Makhanda High Court, South Africa, 2022; Namibia, 2021-2025), due to a lack of sufficient public dissemination and insufficient environmental impact studies, which could be due to a lack of suitability of the companies or the selection of "tailor-made" consultants who generate superficial and biased environmental impact reports that give the impression of complying with mere formalities designed to fulfill bureaucratic processes—denaturalizing the objective of these studies—and obtaining government approvals, which are repeated as prototypes. This, we have been able to verify in some of the studies analyzed; a circumstance that generates concern about the impact on sensitive species such as the Loligo squid (Doryteuthis gahi), whose decline in the Falklands causes great unease due to the lack of scientific certainty. This concern gains significance when it comes to this species, because according to in vivo scientific studies, it suffers serious alterations in its behavior and development due to activities such as seismic prospecting. This is a serious issue because it not only increases the unpredictability of the species' availability but also affects the companies that pursue it, to whom extra-fishery oil factors are added, aggravating the complexity of the activity and reducing its profitability. Any doubt about the seriousness of the Environmental Impact Studies in seismic explorations is serious, and there are doubts and no corresponding precautionary actions in the face of a decrease or alteration in resource catches.

Are We Facing "Environmental Fraud"?

(SMG): Considering that underwater prospecting work with seismic acquisition is being carried out without exact knowledge of all the consequences for marine fauna, and based on your analysis, could we be facing an "environmental fraud" scenario? What would be the implications of such a statement?

(CAL-FAL): There are several issues to consider. First, that at the time of tendering the aforementioned areas for offshore oil exploitation, no environmental impact studies had been carried out beforehand. These studies began to be carried out after the awards. That is, the existence of fishing populations, the migratory cycles of the species and their effects on the ecosystem, or the coastal towns that live from the exploitation of these resources were not valued previously. Second, based on the foundational error, at the time the environmental impact studies were carried out and despite the observations made by business associations and fishing unions, and even the opinions of INIDEP researchers—in our opinion—the studies were absolutely insufficient, limited, as we said, to the theoretical field, despite the numerous international precedents that, to carry out oil exploitations, tests were previously carried out, verifying in situ, the specific behavior and eventual damage to each species. Thirdly, as we have said, the companies themselves must cover the cost of the studies; but these must be carried out through independent scientific organizations, guaranteeing impartiality and scientific rigor in the findings. And fourthly, insufficient precautionary measures have not been taken, or, as in the case of Norway, economic compensation has been made to affected fishing companies.

Could environmental fraud be being committed? By action or omission, we understand that this figure could be configured; especially if studies on the sustainability of the species are not deepened; an immediate reformulation of protection measures, eventual repair, and indispensable precautionary actions until scientific certainty is obtained. The implications can be very serious from an environmental and economic point of view.

International Precedents and Fishing Experiences

(SMG): What experiences have been documented in other countries or regions of the world regarding the impacts of seismic surveys on fishing populations, and specifically on fishing activity? Are there cases where significant negative effects on catches or on the behavior of target species have been recorded?

(CAL-FAL): There are numerous documented cases in the world, and the environmental impact studies themselves cite some of them. As we have mentioned, in Norway, which has one of the most advanced legislations in this regard, it compensates for damages to fishing companies; although, we must say that this is insufficient, and mitigation actions must be carried out in the face of eventual environmental damages.

Significant damages to fishing activity have been recorded due to oil seismic explorations, where it is indicated that seismic waves would cause injuries to fish, such as damage to auditory organs, tissues, and nervous systems; mortality in larvae and juveniles; and alterations in growth and reproduction. For example, in Australia, alterations were shown in zooplankton, which decreased by up to 60% after seismic impacts. In Norway (1990/2020), catches of cod and haddock decreased. In general, in tuna, hake, and cod, modifications in migratory distribution have been detected. In the North Sea, a reduction of between 40 and 80% was also recorded in 2000 due to seismic actions. The same applies to the Gulf of Mexico. The cases of South Africa and Namibia have already been mentioned.

<-- Sourcee: A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on f ish & invertebrates

In the particular case of the Loligo squid (Doryteuthis gahi), taking into account its biological distribution and despite no specific cases having been previously confirmed, there is sufficient evidence that the species is vulnerable to seismic impacts. For several years, a significant decrease in catches in the Falklands has been observed, which could well be attributed to oil seismic explorations, since coincidentally with the first seismic explorations carried out in the region, the decrease or irregularity in the catches of this species began. In addition, there is evidence on the impacts on Loligo that "they are highly sensitive to acoustic vibrations due to their nervous system and sensory organs, such as the statocyst, which detects vibrations and pressure changes, affecting balance and orientation, reducing swimming capacity and prey capture" (Scientific Reports, 2019); adding, furthermore, that noises can cause them stress and abandonment of breeding and feeding areas. That is, spawning and the food chain could be interfered with by affecting zooplankton. It is also very probable that, if correlated with the species Loligo vulgaris and Sepioteuthis sepioidea, Loligo gahi will have the same behaviors in the face of seismic explorations: escape, increased energy consumption, and reduced feeding efficiency. The change in distribution and its decrease could affect the food chain of species found in the waters of the Falklands, such as Southern Hake; Black Hake; Patagonian Toothfish; Hoki, and others.

The sectoral concern also lies in the fact that environmental impact studies—as we referred to—would not be guaranteeing the sustainability of the species, and the most evident case could be that of Loligo.

The Need for Continuous and Rigorous Environmental Impact Studies

(SMG): So, from your perspective, do you believe that environmental impact studies should be carried out more seriously, with greater depth, and on a continuous basis? Do you propose a real-time evaluation model that allows using experience to correct and improve any necessary aspect?

(CAL-FAL): Based on what has been said, there is no doubt. All studies must be optimized, those implemented in the future and those currently in force, and in the latter, urgent action is required, because biological and economic losses can be significant and in some cases irreversible. The Environmental Impact Study (EIA) cannot be a snapshot of a living and migratory resource; therefore, the studies should not be exclusively theoretical but practiced in vivo and continuously, implementing improvements and correcting deviations. In addition, offshore oil activity can be positive for the economy of the country and the region; but it must be harmonized with fishing activity. One could start by analyzing the Norwegian model of co-participation and compensation; although it must be perfected and adapted to the species and the region, it is interesting because it begins by understanding that a productive activity cannot cause harm to another, especially when fishing exploitation precedes it and a large industry has been built around it, generating jobs and population development.

Future Actions of the Agustina Lerena Foundation

(SMG): Finally, does the Agustina Lerena Foundation, which you preside over, plan to take any measures regarding this problem? What steps are you considering to address these challenges and protect marine resources?

(CAL-FAL): As we have said, our Institution is not against offshore oil activity, as long as it is carried out in an environmentally responsible manner. We understand that all activities—of any nature—must be carried out in balance with the sustainability of species and environmental care. In this case, the marine environment. In this sense, we have already initiated the necessary actions to ensure that all oil companies operating in the Southwest Atlantic operate respecting all international and national environmental legislation; but, deepening issues that have been overlooked in the Environmental Impact Studies (EIAs), because these safety instruments, as we said, cannot be transformed into bureaucratic presentations with the mere effect of obtaining approvals to start oil exploitation; rather, they must ensure sustainable operations from seismic impacts to oil explorations and their subsequent commercialization, reconciling fishing exploitations permanently in the region.

Related news:

• Galician Fleet Sets Sail for Falklands with Cautious Optimism Amid Loligo Squid Uncertainty

[email protected]
www.seafood.media

Print