Licencing Illegal Fishing To Catch Patagonian & Antarctic Toothfish

A fisheries management body has written to the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to report that many Parties are failing to co-operate with its trade regulations and even licencing illegal fishing vessels that catch Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfish in its waters.

Illegal fishing is putting both Atlantic and Patagonian Toothfish, which are caught in deep sea areas regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), at risk.

Now CCAMLR has named the 21 non-member countries that have not co-operated with use of the Commission’s catch documentation scheme and the 11 who have licenced illegal fishing vessels. All of the former and all but one of the latter are Parties to CITES.

In 2002, both toothfish species were proposed for listing under CITES but these were withdrawn when Parties instead committed to comply with CCAMLR regulations.

Almost 15 years later CCAMLR has detailed a serious lack of co-operation from a large number of CITES Parties.

“It’s an international disgrace that promises of co-operation with CCAMLR to end illegal toothfish trade made under CITES have been broken,” said Markus Burgener, Senior Programme Officer with TRAFFIC.

In 2002, TRAFFIC reported that at least half the toothfish trade was illegally caught, and while the level of illegal catch has been significantly reduced it still remains a significant threat to their conservation status.

Particularly concerning is that illegal fishers generally use deepwater bottom set gillnets, which have been banned in the CCAMLR area since 2004 because of the serious threat they pose to species particularly susceptible to over-exploitation such as sharks, skates and rays. The vast nets are often over 100 kilometres long and are set more than 1.5 km below the surface.

“A number of countries, including South Africa and its neighbours, have worked tirelessly to reduce illegal catch and trade in toothfish. Despite their positive impacts, the failure of those countries identified in the CCAMLR report is disappointing and remains a thorn in the side of legal and sustainable toothfish trade,” said Theressa Frantz, head of Environmental Programmes for WWF South Africa.

During today’s meeting, both New Zealand and the EU spoke up in favour of draft decisions urging all CITES Parties catching and trading toothfish to do so in accordance with CCAMLR provisions and to provide recommendations on how to improve their implementation of CCAMLR at the 18th Conference of the Parties.

“We are left wondering whether listing of toothfish under CITES back in 2002 might in fact have helped prompt much more effective action to stop illegal fishing, which is what prompted TRAFFIC today to call upon Parties to consider the merits of listing toothfish in CITES in the future,” said Burgener.

Toothfish are commonly sold as Chilean Sea Bass.

The non-CCAMLR countries reported to licence illegal vessels possibly engaged in the illegal catch of toothfish are Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Islamic Republic of Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mauritania, Nigeria, Panama, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Togo. All except the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are members of CITES.

The non-CCAMLR countries named for failing to participate in the CCAMLR catch and documentation scheme are: Antigua and Barbuda, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam. All are members of CITES.

CCAMLR has 25 member States: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay.

SOUTH AFRICA: Southern Africa Holds Africa To Ransom Over Ivory Trade

South Africa, along with Namibia and Zimbabwe, will not be joining 29 other African nations in calling for a total ban on ivory sales – in fact, they are about to do the opposite.

In a proposal to be submitted at the 17th Conference of the Parties (CoP17) of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) to be held in September-October in Johannesburg, South Africa, the three nations are pushing instead to establish a process for an international trade in ivory – demanding minimal regulation of trade with limited safeguards for the continent’s beleaguered elephants.

In contrast, and in an effort to afford elephants the highest protection under international law, the coalition of 29 African countries, a body that represents over 70% of the 37 African elephant range states, will be presenting a comprehensive suite of five proposals at CoP17.

At a meeting in Montreux, Switzerland, from 24 to 26 June, the 29 concerned African countries, united as the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), have issued a manifesto asking the rest of Africa, and world, to join them in saving Africa’s elephants.

“The Montreux Manifesto shows that our message is clear,” says Bourama Niagaté from Mali, a member of the Council of the Elders for the Coalition. “We need to all pull together for the sake of Africa’s elephants.”

Among other things, the AEC countries are proposing that all African elephant populations and their range States fall under the CITES Appendix I listing, which effectively bans any commercial trade in elephant products.

About half the continental population was lost in the decade before the Appendix I listing in 1989, and a dramatic spike occurred again after a “one-off” ivory sale in 2008 to China and Japan. The sale was the second since Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe were granted a special Appendix II listing in 1997 followed by South Africa in 2000; the first “one-off” sale took place in 1999 before monitoring systems had been established.

Vera Weber, president of the Swiss-based Fondation Franz Weber, a partner organisation of the AEC, which facilitated the meeting points out that, “CITES saved African elephants from certain extinction 27 years ago by listing them on Appendix I. It ended the poaching crisis and elephant populations began to recover, until their protection under CITES was weakened, causing poaching to escalate again.”

A recently report published by National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts reveals there was a 71% increase in illegal ivory smuggling out of Africa since 2008. The “one-time legal sale of ivory stocks in 2008 was designed as an experiment,” the report states, adding that its global impact had not been properly evaluated beforehand and concludes: “We find that international announcement of the legal ivory sale in 2008 corresponds with an abrupt increase in illegal ivory production”

“The one-off sales were opposed by most African nations,” says Patrick Ormondi, Co-Chair of the AEC, “it was granted. It hasn’t worked. So now we have an opportunity to do it the other way round.”

Even Southern Africa, the long-viewed bastion of African elephants, is witnessing a steady rise in poaching with notable hotspots in northern Zimbabwe, and the surrounding area of Namibia’s Zambezi Region that includes southern Zambia and south-eastern Angola. These countries are now facing a renewed threat from criminal syndicates.

South Africa too has seen an exponential increase in elephant poaching, especially in the Kruger Park. Until 2014 there had not been a single poaching incident for a decade. In that year there were suddenly two poaching-related deaths. This increased to 22 elephants last year. Already in 2016, according to Kruger’s Chief Ranger, Nicholus Funda, “the numbers have been steadily increasing.”

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting a total ban with an Appendix I listing, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia will be submitting their counter-proposals for deliberation at CoP17 effectively calling on the CITES Standing Committee to permit unrestricted commercial exports of ivory.

“A divided message will spell doom for Africa’s elephants,” warns Patricia Awori the Secretariat of the AEC, who “longs for a time when all Africans unite to save its elephant heritage for future posterity.”

Awori fears that the opposing proposals submitted by South Africa and its near-neighbours in Johannesburg in September could block an uplisting of African elephants, and open the door for more disastrous one-off sales.

“For too long the Southern African tail has been wagging the African dog,” says Dr. Keith Lindsay, a technical expert for the AEC, “it’s time to restore the natural order.”

“Ours is a clear and simple message,” says Awori, “a vote for Appendix I is a vote for Africa’s elephants.”