ON 9 October last year, the captain of the Thunnus, fishing illegally off South Georgia in the South Atlantic, made a bad mistake. When a small yacht came alongside, he hailed its captain, racing yachtsman Jerome Poncet, and handed him two large, freshly hooked Patagonian toothfish. Maybe he didn鈥檛 notice the tall Briton on the boat in unaccustomed oilskins, sporting a new stubbly beard and taking notes. It was South Georgia鈥檚 director of fisheries, Craig Shelton. Nine weeks later, a government patrol vessel arrested the Thunnus and brought it back to port, where the owners were convicted of illegal fishing.
A triumph for stern British policing of perfidious foreign pirates? Not quite. What about the other vessels illegally plundering South Georgian toothfish during much of 1995? And why, in a paltry trawl of four vessels arrested off South Georgia in three years, have none been Argentinian, even though most of the identified pirate vessels are registered in Argentina?
Despite the arrest of the Thunnus, which is believed to be registered in Belize, Britain presides over one of the largest pirate fisheries in the world. The pirates were responsible for plundering perhaps 10 000 tonnes of fish last year. But according to Shelton, the British government had a fisheries patrol vessel on station off South Georgia for just one week during 1995.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, David Tatham, South Georgia鈥檚 recently retired commissioner, says that the government of South Georgia has some 拢1.5 million in the bank 鈥� enough to hire a fisheries patrol vessel for more than a year. There can be few other demands on the government鈥檚 coffers 鈥� the island has a civilian population of zero.
The Patagonian toothfish lives on the edge of the continental shelves of the South Atlantic. It can survive for 25 years, grows up to 1.5 metres long, and is tasty enough to sell for $8 a kilo. Most of the fish are caught by longliners, vessels that pay out dozens of long lines, each with up to 10 000 baited hooks. The majority of the catch is exported to Japan.
South Georgia is a dependent territory of the British government. Although there is no formal link with the Falklands, which is also a dependent territory, in practice South Georgia is largely administered from the Falklands. The government of South Georgia first issued licences to catch toothfish in its waters in 1993. Last year, it set a limit on the catch of 2800 tonnes, and licensed up to four vessels at a time to catch fish for 10 weeks from March to May.
But the reality is different. The pirates set their lines throughout the year. Martin Cox, general manager of Consolidated Fisheries, a Falklands fishing company, estimates that the total catch, legal and illegal, is up to 15 000 tonnes.
The British government does not deny the problem. On the contrary, it told the November meeting of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), whose remit includes the waters of South Georgia, that 鈥渃atches from illegal fishing now exceed those taken legitimately鈥�.
The report named nine pirate vessels seen by passing vessels 鈥� including naval ships 鈥� apparently fishing illegally off South Georgia and a long list of unidentified ships. Of the named ships, four were Argentinian, three Chilean, one Korean and one registered in Belize.
In January 1995, seven longliners were spotted, in July three, in August three 鈥� including the Argentinian Mar del Sur III. In September, there were five, and in early October a further seven. Several were regulars, such as the Belize-registered Liberty, seen fishing illegally in 1994, twice in early 1995 and again in July that year.
The British report concluded that 鈥済iven the 鈥� repeated sightings of certain named vessels, we believe it not unreasonable to conclude that a number, if not the majority, have fished the waters for extended periods 鈥� if not throughout the year鈥�.
Yet in 1995 only the Thunnus was apprehended, by the Cordella, a Falklands fishery patrol vessel hired by the South Georgia government. In December 1994, the Cordella intercepted the Korean ship Ihn Sung 66, which was fined 拢90 000 under South Georgian law. The magistrates, based in the Falklands, now seem to be adopting a get-tough policy. The owners of the Thunnus were fined a record 拢1.8 million on two counts of illegal fishing.
But the central question remains: why have there been so few arrests? Shelton says it is difficult to prove that the boats are fishing. Most captains claim they were lost, broken down or just passing through. And just to compound the problem, most vessels are spotted by military planes and ships serving the South Georgia garrison 鈥� which has so far refused to become involved in policing fisheries. If it did, says Poncet, who regularly sails these waters, they 鈥渃ould largely eradicate poaching鈥�.
In theory, Britain has recourse to the convention members, which include the main nations fishing in the Southern Ocean. But the CCAMLR has no teeth. It only requires countries to report possible infringements of fishing rules to the 鈥渇lag states鈥� of the ships, who are then responsible for taking disciplinary action.
鈥淭he CCAMLR system replies crucially on flag states doing their duty to control their registered vessels,鈥� says Graeme Parkes of the Renewable Resources Assessment Group at Imperial College, London, who was a British delegate to the last meeting of the CCAMLR. But many states do not. 鈥淭he Chileans have done a lot, with fines of up to $1 million imposed. But some Chilean longliners have now re-registered as Argentinian vessels.鈥� In Argentina, prosecutions are rare.
The Argentinian government claims that its fishing ships may be passing through the South Georgian waters, though it is less clear about where they are going to. It told the CCAMLR in November that its own inspectors had been to sea but 鈥渦nfortunately, sea or bad weather conditions at the time of encountering or sighting fishing vessels had prevented inspections being carried out鈥�.
In August, the UN agreed a treaty on conservation of international fisheries that encourages regional fisheries organisations such as the CCAMLR to introduce tougher enforcement regimes. In November, Britain pushed for formal prior notification of all ship movements in the CCAMLR area. Australia and New Zealand backed using satellites to keep track of ships, but Argentina and Chile said the schemes would infringe their 鈥渞ight of free passage鈥� in the Southern Ocean.
The British replied that such objections 鈥渨ere baseless鈥� and blamed 鈥渢he inability of certain flag states to deal effectively with infringements鈥� for the 鈥渜uite unacceptably high levels of illegal fishing鈥�.
Given that the CCAMLR is essentially impotent, Britain has little alternative, if it is serious about protecting South Georgia鈥檚 fish stocks, but to bolster its patrols to enforce the fisheries law. But it hesitates.
The Foreign Office told New 杏吧原创 it is 鈥渦nfortunate鈥� that the South Georgia government has no fisheries protection vessel. It claims that the current system of occasionally hiring the Cordella 鈥渨ill go some way towards deterring poachers鈥�.
Sadly, few others see much evidence of deterrence. Parkes agrees it is 鈥渙dd鈥� that patrolling is restricted to around one week a year. 鈥淭hey could do a lot more,鈥� he agrees. 鈥淏ut it is expensive.鈥� The Cordella costs 拢3000 a day to hire. In the Falklands, there is growing anger at the situation. Councillor Norma Edwards told the November meeting of the Falklands legislative council: 鈥淚t is high time that the British government, which has been collecting licences for a number of years down there, put that money to provide a patrol ship.鈥�
Despite the government鈥檚 overflowing coffers, Shelton says regular patrolling is too expensive. Cox at Consolidated Fisheries, who currently has the two toothfish licences for the Falklands waters, has proposed a solution. He says that his company would finance full-time patrolling of the South Georgian waters in return for a monopoly on the licences to legal fishing. He was turned down.
How threatened are the Patagonian toothfish? Despite its commercial importance, scientists know little about it. The toothfish is currently caught in three places: off Argentina, round the Falklands and off South Georgia.
But according to Conor Nolan, senior scientist at the Falklands fisheries department, 鈥渨e don鈥檛 yet know whether these stocks are separate or whether the fish migrate between locations鈥�. Nobody knows how fast they reproduce or how many there are. As Paul Rodhouse, a fisheries specialist at the British Antarctic Survey, says: 鈥淚n the nature of these things, the research is rarely done before the fishery starts. I want to set up a team to look at it.鈥�
In the Falklands, says Nolan, the government deliberately set very conservative limits when the fishery was launched in 1994, 鈥渂ecause so little is known about the fish鈥�. The 1995 Falklands catch was around 3000 tonnes. Argentina has a limit of 11 000 tonnes. But according to Parkes, it has too many longliners for such a catch. Many of them head for the unpoliced waters off South Georgia.
Remarkably, the South Georgia government is planning to increase its legally allowed catch in 1996. Shelton has approved a 40 per cent increase in the catch to 4000 tonnes 鈥� despite a South Georgian law which says that the director of fisheries cannot grant a licence if doing so would be 鈥渋nconsistent with conservation鈥�.
Many people in the area believe the crucial factor in Britain鈥檚 reluctance to police the waters of South Georgia is political. Britain and Argentina have reached an uneasy truce over the waters round the Falklands. Under the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission, they cooperate on fisheries research, and Argentinian fishing boats are generally careful not to enter Falklands waters.
But there is no understanding for the waters around South Georgia. Many, particularly in the Falklands, will not believe Britain is serious about protecting the fishery until pirate Argentinian ships are arrested.
