Paul Watson 3 hrs · Commentary on an article in The Conversation by Captain Paul Watson Sea Shepherd’s toothfish mission bites off more than it can chew Captain Paul Watson: Catchy Title, but hey Sea Shepherd always bites off more than we can chew. That’s what we do so, at least the headline is true. All of my professional life I have listened to politicians, bureaucrats, academics and scientists carry on about how Sea Shepherd can not, should not, and must not be involved in actively opposing illegal exploitation on the high seas. The pretend to have all the answers and they love to attend conferences and write papers. They also tend to side with exploitation. The problem is that they don’t actually do anything to physically address the problem. And when an NGO like Sea Shepherd sets out to actually address the problem, the reaction from the paper pushers is that we don’t have the experience or the authority to intervene. This article appeared in the Conversation written by Indi Hodgson-Johnston and Julia Jabour. The Conversation is certainly the appropriate name for this journal. This is their criticism of Operation Icefish with my comments: Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: This morning, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessels leave port to pursue a new campaign in the Southern Ocean — but this time, it’s not all about whales. Operation Icefish will target vessels fishing for Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfish. These fish are slow to mature, live on the oceanic rises near Antarctica, and grow up to 2.2 metres in length. They are a popular fish in many restaurants, and due to their high market price they have been described as “white gold”. That makes them vulnerable to poaching. A Sea Shepherd media release stated that the group will target the “illegal fishing of Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfish in the Southern Ocean” to “fill a law enforcement void”. But when it comes to the law and toothfish, Sea Shepherd may have to be careful it doesn’t end up on the wrong side. Captain Paul Watson: A good start. They admit there is a poaching problem. And in their infinite wisdom they warn Sea Shepherd to stay on the right side of the law. Sea Shepherd is on the side of conservation and the law in opposing vessels that are flagrantly violating international conservation law. In accordance with the principles established by the United Nations World Charter for Nature, Sea Shepherd has every legal right to intervene to uphold international conservation law. Toothfish fishing Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources governs the toothfish fishery in the Southern Ocean. The convention is a relatively successful instrument and the Australian toothfish fishery has achieved eco-certification under its rules. Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd is not arguing with the Australian toothfish fishery although we believe it is irresponsible to have a toothfish fishery by anyone because of this slow breeding species simply cannot compete with human catch levels. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: This uses an ecosystem approach to set catch limits, and the formula includes estimating the illegal and unreported catches. In the 2013/14 season, a licensed catch of 11,366 tonnes of toothfish was reported within the convention’s area. Captain Paul Watson: 11,366 tons is a lot of fish and 11,366 tons to many. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: While it is nearly impossible to accurately estimate the extent of illegal, unreported and unregulated toothfish fishing, it was assessed to be 30-50 tonnes in 2012. Captain Paul Watson: First they say it is impossible to estimate the extent of illegal, unreported and unregulated toothfish poaching and then they state that the amount is assessed to 30-50 tons. Obviously a number pulled from someone’s hat. There is no scientific credibility to this assessment. If there are 6 known illegal fishing operations in the Southern Ocean and they are taking between 30 and 50 tons that works out to only 5 to 8 tons per vessel. This is not a realistic assessment. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Some toothfish populations are found in the exclusive economic zones of sub-Antarctic islands, such as Australia’s Heard Island. The laws of those countries apply, and any vessel fishing, unlicensed by the country, is fishing illegally and can be arrested. Captain Paul Watson: Sounds good in practice but they are fishing there and they are not being arrested. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Among the efforts being made to police these unregulated vessels are sparse on-water patrols, vessel monitoring systems, catch documentation schemes, and high-profile apprehensions such as the FV Viarsa chase in 2003. Captain Paul Watson: A case that was a total failure by the prosecution and that was over a decade ago. I’m surprised they could say “sparse on-water” patrols with a straight face because this means no real patrols at all. You can’t monitor a vessel that does not want to be monitored and the high profile apprehension sited was the only apprehension and it was a total failure. So in short no efforts have been made to police the Southern Ocean. In 2008 Sea Shepherd reported illegal toothfish operations to Australian authorities. They were not interested. The only real patrols have been by the French Navy but restricted to waters near the Kergulen Islands. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: A vessel whose flag state is a party to the convention (24 states, including Australia) is bound by its strict ecosystem approach to fishing. This law is only enforceable against states parties to the convention and is not enforceable against vessels of states that are not. Captain Paul Watson: That is a failure in the system. What is the point of having laws enforceable only against those who obey the laws? Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: While fishing for toothfish outside of the convention is undesirable on many environmental levels, it might not be illegal. Rather, vessels operating outside the law, but not against the law, are deemed to be unregulated. Captain Paul Watson: It is the position of Sea Shepherd that taking fish in the Antarctic Treaty Zone by unregulated fisheries is illegal under international treaties like CITES. If they insist that there is nothing wrong with unregulated fishing than there should be nothing wrong with unregulated intervention of unregulated fishing. Law of the Sea Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Fishing vessels from states outside the Antarctic marine life convention are governed by the Law of the Sea. The actions of fishing vessels under the law are the responsibility of the countries from where they come — known as the flag state. Generally unregulated fishing vessels have flag states such as Togo, Vanuatu and Panama, that have little capacity or desire to enforce laws pertaining to sustainable high seas fishing on their fleet. Captain Paul Watson: Precisely. They have little desire to enforce the laws but they also have very little desire to defend the unethical and illegal actions of the vessels that fly their flags. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Furthermore, vessels are often in poor condition, frequently change ownership and flag state to avoid detection, and contravene basic international labour laws. Captain Paul Watson: And here they admit that the vessels are in fact unlawful Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: INTERPOL rates illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as a form of organised crime and it is fair to assume that some vessels will be armed and prepared to defend themselves. Captain Paul Watson: I believe organized crime is a criminal activity. Any interference with a fishing vessel on the high seas, especially one not flagged to a member of the convention, is fraught with legal difficulty and raises serious concerns about safety and environmental protection. Captain Paul Watson: Well if it wasn’t risky, there would be no need for Sea Shepherd intervention. We could send in Greenpeace or WWF. They would simply hold up a banner and request that the poachers cease and desist. Enter the Netherlands Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: The Netherlands is the flag state of the Sea Shepherd vessels MV Bob Barker and MV Sam Simon. The Law of the Sea states that, among other duties of the flag state, the Netherlands “shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters”. The Netherlands must insist that the Sea Shepherd vessels abide by any relevant law, such as that which regulates the actions of protest vessels. Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd ships report all activity to the Netherlands in accordance with our responsibility to abide by international laws. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Australia and New Zealand are also going to be casting an eye to the south, as Operation Icefish is likely to operate within their search and rescue zones. With treacherous conditions and behaviour, the risk of an expensive and long rescue is likely. Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd has 12 years of experience in these high rick waters without once requiring search and rescue assistance. In fact Sea Shepherd has provided search and rescue assistance at the request of the New Zealand government. I wish Australia and New Zealand would cast an eye to the South and perhaps throw in a ship or two to actually do something about the problems. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: The Sea Shepherd have stated that they will “document, report and confront” toothfish vessels. Documenting and reporting such activity is important for intelligence agencies and should be the absolute focus of any such voyage to the Southern Ocean. However, confrontation will lead to legal difficulties for Sea Shepherd and the Netherlands. Captain Paul Watson: If illegally set longlines are found, they will be confiscated. Sea Shepherd has a long history of confiscating long lines including Antarctic toothfish longlines in the Southern Ocean. Pirates or vigilantes? Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Acts by Sea Shepherd involving the chasing or boarding of a vessel may result in charges of piracy or trespass by the flag state of the fishing vessel, or more appropriately by the Netherlands. Captain Paul Watson: Let me see, a pirate fishing operation is going to charge Sea Shepherd with piracy for intervening against their illegal activities? The Maltese tried that without much success. Anyhow Sea Shepherd has no problem with fighting poachers both on the sea and in the courts. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Piracy is a charge often mentioned in relation to Sea Shepherd, and opinion is split as to whether they are technically pirates should they board a vessel without permission. Captain Paul Watson: Lucky for us that opinions are simply opinions. Opinions are not the basis for law. If opinions had any value at all, Tony Abbott would no longer be Prime Minister. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: While Japan avoided this definitional problem by charging Pete Bethune with trespass, Russia applied the Law of the Sea definition of piracy in the case of the Greenpeace protesters. The flag state has discretion over the type of charge — if any — that protesters may face. Captain Paul Watson: Japan avoided answering to the law for destroying the Ady Gil by simply refusing to cooperate with the Australian and New Zealand investigations. The Ady Gil was a New Zealand boat and the Japanese were never charged for the loss of that boat. It would have been amusing for Japan to have charged Sea Shepherd with piracy considering that Japanese whalers are in contempt of the Australian Federal Court, they have been accused of bogus science by the ICJ and their whaling operations do not have the approval of the IWC. The Russians by the way did not charge Greenpeace with piracy. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Damaging fishing gear or ramming another vessel may also result in criminal charges of vandalism under Dutch law, or violations of various international pollution laws, collision regulations and Antarctic Treaty System laws to which the Netherlands is a party. Captain Paul Watson: It seems that Hodgson-Johnston and Jabour are more concerned with potential damage to the property of poachers than they are to protecting a vulnerable species. Sea Shepherd documents all activity and thus provides evidence of all actions. I am sure the Dutch would be interested in taking action to uphold their responsibilities under the Antarctic Treaty System. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Sea Shepherd also states it will make a citizen’s arrest of any “illegal” toothfish vessel it finds. Citizens’ arrests are not recognised in international law. Any “arrest” on the high seas carried out by a private organisation like Sea Shepherd will be unenforceable and is therefore futile. Captain Paul Watson: Hodgson-Johnston and Jabour would rather that no one do anything it seems. There is always the possibility of a precedent and if nothing else arresting a poacher would get international media. This would hardly be futile. Finding ‘illegal’ fishers Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: There is a logistical problem with finding the unregulated toothfish vessels. The Ross Sea area into which Sea Shepherd plans to sail in pursuit is not known for the presence of unregulated fishers, as this is a highly productive area targeted by licensed vessels. Captain Paul Watson: These two know-it-alls seem to even think they know the sailing plans for the Sea Shepherd ships. They don’t. In the past we have actually confiscated a long line near the Ross Sea. The trawler saw us and ran in the other direction. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Information on which vessels have been licensed, and others that have been put on a non-compliance list is publicly available to Sea Shepherd. However finding and differentiating between licenced and unregulated vessels and equipment is problematic given the ice-laden waters, and limitations of radar. Captain Paul Watson: That is Sea Shepherd’s responsibility and Sea Shepherd officers are quite confident about the logistics of this campaign. Sea Shepherd is well aware of who is regulated and who is not, so I don’t see how ice and radar have any bearing on differentiating between the two. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Further, the retrieval equipment for the various types of fishing gear (e.g longlines and gillnets) that unregulated fishing vessels use, and that the MV Sam Simon has recently installed, is specialised, inherently dangerous and possibly unsuitable for the relatively inexperienced Sea Shepherd crew. Captain Paul Watson: Again these two seem to know what the experience of the Sea Shepherd crew consists of. Fact: Sea Shepherd has spent 12 years in these waters. Fact: Captain Hammarstedt has spent 10 years in these waters. Fact: In 12 years Sea Shepherd has not suffered a single fatality or serious injury unlike the whalers and the toothfish poachers. Since 1987 Sea Shepherd has confiscated hundreds of miles of drift netters and longlines in the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. We’re not exactly new to this activity. The future of tooth fish Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: Other means of preventing unregulated fishing continue. Ports that offload toothfish are the focus of new “port-state” laws, where toothfish vessels are prevented from offloading their unreported catches and entering them into the market. Captain Paul Watson: That seems to be working quite well – Not! If ports prevent the off-loading of illegally caught toothfish, it is hardly a difficult thing to find a port where the fish can be offloaded either legally or illegally. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is launching a pilot satellite program to monitor and detect unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean that will improve estimates of unregulated catch. Captain Paul Watson: Good for them? Maybe they can get a more accurate estimate than the one they pulled out of the hat. Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour: As Sea Shepherd prepare to leave Hobart and Wellington in search of toothfish vessels deep in the Antarctic sea-ice, the legal, environmental and safety risks for the organisation should it choose to go beyond intelligence gathering, are higher than the chance it will rid the Antarctic of unregulated fishing. Captain Paul Watson: Risk are what we take because the entire global oceanic eco-system is at risk and action is needed. Governments have the power to intervene but they don’t. Sea Shepherd exists because governments refuse to uphold international conservation law simply because there is no economic or political advantage in doing so. Captain Paul Watson: It seems to me that Hodgson-Johnston/Jabour believe Sea Shepherd should just do nothing. Or perhaps we could take some pictures, hold up a protest sign and write a paper or maybe start a petition. What they fail to understand is that Sea Shepherd measures success by lives saved and in this case it is the lives of toothfish. We do not see stocks or tons, we see individual fish that should not have their long life spans snuffed out so some corporate mouthpiece can have an expensive Chilean Sea Bass dinner at Nobu as they discuss the business of destroying the planet. We see each fish as a link in the integrity of the eco-systems of the Southern Ocean. Sea Shepherd ventures into these risky waters for the fish and we want them alive. These fish are our clients and as such it is worth the risks we take to defend them. I’m not sure what the point of this article is, other than to scold the sixty volunteers on the Bob Barker and the Sam Simon for investing their time and their skills into opposing poachers. Why they would do this is a mystery other than the fact that bureaucrats absolutely hate activists because in a world of talk, actions tend to speak louder than words and bureaucrats hate having their empty rhetoric submerged in a sea of activism. It exposes them for what they are – irrelevant. This article was written by: 1. Indi Hodgson-Johnston Sessional Lecturer, Tutor & PhD Candidate (International Law) at University of Tasmania 2. Julia Jabour Senior Lecturer, Ocean and Antarctic Governance Research Program at University of Tasmania DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Indi Hodgson-Johnston is affiliated with and receives scholarship funding from the University of Tasmania and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. Julia Jabour has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is a contributed researcher to the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:55:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015