COLTO was sent a copy of commentary from Captain Paul Watson from his official Facebook page, and would like to provide some responses publicly. This note was also sent to Sea Shepherd with permission to post on their own Facebook page.
To explain the fomatting below, the original article is in black font, all the comments from Captain Paul Watson are in red, and COLTO responses to Captain Watson underneath them in blue.
Commentary on an article in The Conversation by Captain Paul Watson
Article Title: 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:
COLTO: This is a Sea Shepherd perspective.
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.
COLTO: I would be interested to know what international law allows “..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.
COLTO: Scientific assessment of toothfish stock status and health takes into account the fish age at capture, how long they take to breed, how fast or slow they grow, where the fish move to and from, and many other environmental and biological aspects. The toothfish fisheries in Australia are reviewed by CCAMLR scientists, as well as being independently reviewed and certified by scientists as well managed and sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. In addition, the fisheries in Australia have been independently reviewed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program scientists and conservation partners, and rated “best choice” for consumers.
The fishery is effectively, and rigorously, managed and controlled by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, along with other government agencies such as the Australian Antarctic Division, and Border Protection Command.
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.
COLTO: Clearly Sea Shepherd do not believe in the operation of sustainable, legal fisheries, which is disappointing.
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.
COLTO: Sea Shepherd is correct here – and COLTO also corrected the error in that article.
COLTO estimated the IUU catch in 2012/2013 at closer to 2,500 tonnes. That IUU catch estimate dropped in 2013/14 to 1,500 tonnes and current expectations are the IUU catch for 2014/15 will be less than 500 tonnes (as there is now only a single IUU vessel thought to be operating in CCAMLR waters).
There is only one known IUU vessel left, following the sinking of the IUU carrier vessel the Tiantai in early 2014; the arrest of two IUU vessels by Malaysia also in early 2014, and the removal by the owners of another 3 vessels to the northern hemisphere in April 2014. I have previously provided this advice to Sea Shepherd operations.
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.
COLTO: This is an incorrect statement by Sea Shepherd. There has been zero illegal fishing inside the Australian EEZ (or any other sub Antarctic EEZ) since 2006. That has been evidenced through various measures including remote and/or satellite surveillance; on water patrols; legal fishing vessel reports; and other sources of information. And in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s when there were illegal vessels in the Australian waters, they were arrested and prosecuted.
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.
COLTO: I agree with Sea Shepherd in part here – the Viarsa case was a poor example, as the boat was able to avoid penalty in the end. That said, the actions by Australia were fundamental at changing the fight against IUU fishing for toothfish, internationally, and should be applauded.
While the Viarsa did escape final prosecution, it was removed from fishing for three year during that process; the officers from the boat were penalised; and the boat was eventually scrapped. Further, Australian legislation was changed to ensure that ‘legal technicalities’ could not be used to avoid prosecution in future years.
Captain Paul Watson: I’m surprised they could say “sparse on-water” patrols with a straight face because this means no real patrols at all.
COLTO: This is incorrect. Australia has run numerous patrols in the region both independently, and in conjunction with the French authorities over the years. Australia was instrumental in running naval patrols to the region in the late 1990’s, and civilian patrols both armed, and not armed, over many years as well.
It is true that, in the past two years there has been no “on the water” Australian flagged vessel patrols and, as legal industry, we have complained about that too. But we acknowledge the French cooperation arrangement has meant that on the water patrols have been continuing with Australian officers aboard, and that there has been substantial targeted surveillance and enforcement action on land by Australian authorities, which has been equally effective at containing and eliminating IUU fishing.
Captain Paul Watson: 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.
COLTO: As noted above, this statement by Sea Shepherd is incorrect. Boats such as the Big Star, Salvora, Lena, Volga, to mention a few, were apprehended and prosecuted by Australian agencies at the peak of illegal fishing in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s.
More were apprehended and prosecuted by the French and other authorities (eg the United Kingdom, New Zealand) over the same time period. The deterrent effect is largely the reason there has been zero illegal fishing in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zones since 2006.
Captain Paul Watson: So in short no efforts have been made to police the Southern Ocean.
COLTO: This is patently incorrect, and denigrates the huge efforts made by the Australian government agencies, legal industry, conservation groups, and compliance officers, amongst others, to ensure the Southern Ocean is adequately policed, and to combat IUU fishing for toothfish.
Captain Paul Watson: In 2008 Sea Shepherd reported illegal toothfish operations to Australian authorities. They were not interested.
COLTO: I am not aware of the report in 2008 by Sea Shepherd on IUU fishing for toothfish. If they had reported that information to the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators, we could have investigated and provided additional details to authorities if available.
Captain Paul Watson: The only real patrols have been by the French Navy but restricted to waters near the Kergulen Islands.
COLTO: This is not correct. Australia and France have been jointly patrolling the region using a combination of fisheries vessels, as well as naval vessels. Fishing industry vessels have also undertaken patrol work in conjunction with Authorities, following information on possible IUU activities from other sources than ‘on water’ patrols.
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?
COLTO: I agree with this in principle. However, that is international law at present. It needs to be changed, so that it makes it even more difficult for IUU vessels to operate.
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.
COLTO: The position of Sea Shepherd differs to my understanding of international law. CITES does not apply to toothfish.
Captain Paul Watson: 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
COLTO: Unregulated fishing is wrong. The problem is that international law does not recognise it as wrong.
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.
COLTO: Precisely. That’s the reason international law needs to be changed. Until then, they are legally operating as unregulated vessels.
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
COLTO: The vessels are lawful under international law, which is why it is so difficult to stamp out unregulated fishing. But we’ve made huge inroads to do that through other measures, such as requiring catch documentation, legal vessel satellite monitoring systems, controls on catch unloading and government observers on every legal fishing boat operating in toothfish fisheries, every day of their operation.
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.
COLTO: As do I, as do the authors.
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.
COLTO: It’s entirely up to Sea Shepherd if they wish to breach international law to achieve their goals. I do not support any illegal activity.
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.
COLTO: This is very positive news, as I assume that Sea Shepherd would not fish unless they had been legally licensed by the Netherlands to do so.
That would mean, by my understanding of legal fishing, that Sea Shepherd will not interfere with any fishing gear they find in CCAMLR waters – irrespective of whether they consider toothfish fisheries to be a good thing or not.
There are many legal, sustainable, fishing operators in the region, and we would not want to be harassed by someone illegally interfering with our legal and sustainable fishing operations.
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.
COLTO: It is positive to hear that Sea Shepherd will maintain safe operations in the region.
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.
COLTO: It would be highly unusual to find any ‘illegally set longlines’ on the high seas in CCAMLR waters. The problem in recent years has been that of ‘unregulated’ fishing, which is legal under international law, but a problem we have all been working together to fix – and it is so very close to being fixed now, without Sea Shepherd involvement.
As mentioned above, I believe any boat hauling fishing lines would constitute ‘fishing’ by that boat, and so would require a license from their flag state to do so.
Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd has a long history of confiscating long lines including Antarctic toothfish longlines in the Southern Ocean.
COLTO: I have not heard of Sea Shepherd ‘confiscating’ Antarctic toothfish longlines.
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.
COLTO: It is admirable to tackle IUU fishing. Doing so legally is what separates us from the illegal operators.
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.
COLTO: Denigrating Australia’s democratically elected Prime Minister does not assist in any way the goal of eliminating IUU fishing for toothfish.
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.
COLTO: No comment.
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.
COLTO: I read it as saying that Sea Shepherd need to be cautious and remain legal in any approach that they intend to take.
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.
COLTO: We investigated a similar approach, for citizens arrest where a vessel is clearly illegal (for example, operating inside the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone without a license). There are possibilities under Admiralty Law to sue for “damage done by a ship” with Citizens Arrest but our legal advice was that it was not likely to succeed in court. That’s a very different situation to that of ‘unregulated’ fishing, where there is no basis in international or national law to effect a ‘citizen’s arrest’.
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.
COLTO: I have no idea where the Sea Shepherd ships may sail. It is worth noting that a longliner is not a trawler, as incorrectly stated by Sea Shepherd.
If Sea Shepherd did haul a long line in the CCAMLR region, then it would have been fishing without a license – which makes that action at least unregulated fishing.
Depending on the flag state of the Sea Shepherd vessel at the time, if that flag state was a member of CCAMLR and the vessel was not licensed to fish in CCAMLR waters, then the action of hauling a longline would, strictly speaking, be illegal.
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.
COLTO: I assume Sea Shepherd will know that none of the IUU vessels have ice strengthened hulls, so won’t be found inside the ice regions of Ross Sea, and the past experience of Sea Shepherd operating in those regions would say they can safely operate.
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.
COLTO: Hauling of fishing lines in CCAMLR waters would constitute ‘fishing’.
The future of toothfish
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.
COLTO: Actually, the port state measures have worked extremely well at blocking illegal trade of toothfish, while it’s also true they can always be improved. The most recent positive example would be Uruguay, which refused, as a port state, to allow the unloading of an IUU vessel. And there are many such examples.
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.
COLTO: Agreed that it’s a good thing to continue to develop measures to eliminate IUU fishing. CCAMLR did not pull an estimate “..out of the hat” – that was a number incorrectly stated by the authors.
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.
COLTO: This is a Sea Shepherd political statement.
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.
COLTO: I applaud the desire of Sea Shepherd to help authorities, scientists, conservation groups and industry who have all been working to eliminate IUU from toothfish fisheries.
IUU catches have been reduced by over 95% in the past decade, and are virtually zero now, so perhaps the help of Sea Shepherd has come a bit late.
IUU fishing for toothfish was indeed a major problem – but Sea Shepherd are now arriving, after the problem has been virtually eliminated.
Captain Paul Watson: 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.
COLTO: Rather than denigrate others, I would say that the actions of our combined, collaborative, group have been extremely successful.
I applaud the international members of CCAMLR (25 nations plus many other supporters), along with the bureaucrats, the navy, the compliance officers, the scientists, the many conservation groups, the legal industry, fisheries managers, and the many active members of the public who recognise the value of legal, sustainable, fishing operations and are prepared to support them.
A plea to Sea Shepherd to consider the fact that the legal operators fishing for toothfish in the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic are working just as hard as anyone to eliminate IUU fishing for toothfish. Creating ‘hype’ and ‘negativity’ around toothfish fisheries where the IUU situation has never been more under control, simply takes away from all the great work that those people have undertaken over the past 15 years.
By all means tackle IUU fishing, but not at the expense of the work that so very many people have undertaken to ensure sustainable, healthy, legal toothfish fisheries can continue to exist.
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.