Chile is in the process of drafting a new fisheries law after President Gabriel Boric’s government presented a bill proposing the law for legislative consideration at the end of 2023. The proposed law primarily aims to restore confidence in regulations governing the fishing industry, as the current fisheries law was passed against the backdrop of one of the biggest political corruption scandals in the country’s history. The new law should be “based on ethical standards that do not call its legitimacy into question,” the undersecretariat of fisheries stated on its website.
However, debate over the new bill has been rumbling on in Congress since January, and there are signs that, once again, the private sector’s possible influence on congressional discussion should be closely monitored.
An investigation released by the Santiago-based Center for Journalistic Investigation (CIPER) in June revealed that 76% of the legislative recommendations made by three congressmen, more than 200 recommendations in all, were taken from a report by Chile’s National Fishing Society (SONAPESCA), the fishing industry’s umbrella organization. The congressmen are Sergio Bobadilla, Cristhian Moreira and Bernardo Berger from the right-wing Independent Democratic Union and National Renewal party.
To learn about the environmental implications of the congressmen’s proposals, Mongabay Latam spoke with scientists, fisheries experts and representatives of environmental organizations. Of all the recommendations, one was particularly concerning to the experts: The removal of the new bill’s Article 19, which proposes to curb bottom trawling, giving the undersecretariat of fisheries (SUBPESCA) the authority to limit and restrict this type of fishing. This is a key provision of the bill, aimed at preventing trawlers from fishing in new areas in order to protect untouched marine habitats.
Bottom trawling is among the fishing methods considered most damaging to marine ecosystems. It involves dragging huge nets along the seabed to catch mainly fish and crustaceans. In doing so, the nets remove the substrate and damage or destroy any habitat structures or organisms living there.
The congressmen’s recommendations, which align with those made in the SONAPESCA report by the Southern Austral Industrial Fisheries Federation (FIPES), a SONAPESCA member, would give binding powers to the comités de manejo, or fisheries management committees. These committees include representatives from Chile’s various fishing industries, and the removal of Article 19 would mean they, rather than the government, would have the last word on prohibiting or limiting certain types of fishing.
What concerns experts most is that these committees have come under strong criticism in the last decade for pushing for increased quotas in overexploited fisheries, against scientific recommendations.
Industry recommendations
Other components of the proposed bill also aim to protect Chilean waters from trawling. Article 22 would put the undersecretariat of fisheries in charge of totally or partially limiting the use of high-impact fishing gear in areas adjacent to marine protected areas, vulnerable marine ecosystems and the nesting sites of protected animals.
Similarly, Article 21 proposes a special ban on the use of explosives, noxious and toxic substances and electronic means to extract marine resources, as well as all those the undersecretariat determines cause damage to the aquatic environment.
In response to this proposed regulation from Chile’s executive branch, FIPES, which represents fishing companies in the south of the country that mainly catch southern hake (Merluccius australis) with trawl nets, was quick to express its objections to the Chamber of Deputies’ Commission on Fisheries, Aquaculture and Maritime Interests.
On May 31, representatives from five FIPES member companies made presentations to the commission. They argued that “measures that prohibit, restrict or limit the use of fishing methods cannot be subject to the discretionary power of the authority,” and proposed that, in order to establish such measures, a technical report should be requested from the management committees.
Facing industry pressure, congressmen Bobadilla, Moreira and Berger proposed simply removing Article 19 from the bill and making the management committees an intermediary in any restrictive decision the undersecretariat of fisheries might make in relation to Articles 21 and 22.
But why are these proposed amendments causing such concern among experts?
Management committees’ concerning history
In Chile, each fishery has a management committee made up of representatives from government institutions — for example, the undersecretariat of fisheries and the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (SERNAPESCA) — as well as from small-scale and industrial fisheries and from processing plants. The management committees were created to introduce fisheries governance concepts into decision-making and to develop plans for each fishery. But this role is purely advisory, with final decisions made by the undersecretariat of fisheries, as explained on the undersecretariat’s website.
The management committees, however, and in particular the southern hake management committee, have been strongly criticized by fisheries experts and marine conservation organizations.
The current law states that when a fishery is in a state of overexploitation, recovery programs must be developed. But although there are 16 overexploited and depleted fisheries in Chile, there is currently only one recovery program in progress, according to data from the undersecretariat of fisheries. Moreover, the experts Mongabay Latam spoke to said management committees have pushed to increase fishing quotas in some overfished areas, going against recommendations from scientific committees.
This is what happened in 2019 with the southern hake when, following demands from the management committee, the undersecretariat of fisheries increased its risk percentage. This figure relates to the estimated time it takes a fish stock to recover from exploitation; stocks with higher risk percentages are expected to recover more quickly and thus can undergo more intensive fishing. The undersecretariat’s move triggered an increase in the annual southern hake fishing quota from 14,800 to 19,537 tons, even though the southern hake was already overexploited, which went against scientific committee recommendations.
The NGO Oceana Chile filed a complaint against the undersecretariat at the Second Environmental Court, which ruled in the NGO’s favor and declared the quota increase to be illegal.
Dentro de los compromisos asumidos por Chile en la última conferencia mundial Our Ocean 2018, realizada en Bali en octubre pasado, está concretar el congelamiento de la huella de arrastre de fondo antes de fin de año. Foto: Oceana-Mauricio Altamirano
“The Environmental Court’s ruling was clear and established that the quota was illegally decreed, as not all the necessary scientific information was available,” Javiera Calisto, Oceana Chile’s legal director, said on the NGO’s website. “Any modification of the quota is the responsibility of the Scientific Committee, and not the Management Committee. On this, the current law is clear. …”
At the same time, Oceana also filed a complaint with the comptroller general of the republic, Chile’s highest supervisory body, to review the illegal actions taken by the ministry of economy, via the undersecretary of fisheries, in increasing quotas for the southern hake, as well as the Chilean common hake (Merluccius gayi gayi) and the pink cusk-eel (Genypterus blacodes). These species are all overfished with no signs of recovery, and yet the plans submitted by the management committees outline increased risk percentages that would trigger higher fishing quotas.
“When we examined the history of these fisheries, we saw that recommendations from independent scientists were being ignored, which is a matter of concern, especially given the fragile state of these species,” Calisto said.
In response, the undersecretariat of fisheries told Mongabay Latam that the ruling that declared the increase in the hake quota illegal meant that the increased risk percentage did not take effect, so it was lowered from 42% to 36%, and thus corrected. However, the undersecretariat also stated that the risk percentage was subsequently increased again to 50%, which keeps the southern hake fishery at a catch quota of 19,253 tons for 2024.
Industry presence on management committees
“Given the background and powers that the management committees have, it is worrying that industry proposals were accepted by congressmen and presented as recommendations intended to give power to a merely consultative body on issues related to determining fishing methods,” Manuel Martinez, a scientific adviser on fisheries issues, told Mongabay Latam. “This is the specific and exclusive responsibility of SUBPESCA [the undersecretariat] … with the help of technical reports drawn up by scientists.”
Furthermore, Martínez said, when it comes to the southern hake, the management committee “is co-opted by Friosur,” the leading southern hake fishing company. “All representatives in this management committee depend in some way on the company,” he said.
Both industry representatives as well as the processing plant representative, a position that goes to the company that processes the most fish in a fishery, are Friosur employees, Martinez said. And the law currently allows small-scale fishers to transfer 100% of their quota, so the two representatives from Aysén region and the two from Magallanes region “also depend on Friosur, given that, in both cases, they transfer all their fishing to the large industry,” Martínez said. “This means that, in the southern hake fishery, industry runs the management committee.”
With this in mind, he said, it is easy to understand why FIPES is making recommendations to the Chamber of Deputies’ Commission on Fisheries, Aquaculture and Maritime Interests.
The Chamber of Deputies’ Fisheries Commission. Image courtesy of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies.
Valeria Carvajal, a general manager at FIPES, was part of the team that presented the industry’s proposals to the Fisheries Commission on May 31. When it comes to the industry’s recommendations to give greater powers to the management committee over the undersecretariat of fisheries, “it is not a matter of prioritizing the management committee over the undersecretariat, but rather of avoiding one-sided discretion in the decision-making process, and always including consultation,” Carvajal told Mongabay Latam. “The management committee, as part of the institutional framework for co-management and defined as a partner to the undersecretariat in the bill, is the relevant party to be consulted regarding the provisions being considered in Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the bill.”
Carvajal denied Manuel Martinez’s assertions about the industry’s co-opting the southern hake management committee, saying, “I believe that people making such statements are unaware of the rules governing how management committees are formed. These rules state that their members should include representatives from the industrial fishing sector that hold a title regulated by law at the fishery in question, as well as representatives of small-scale fishers registered with that fishery.”
Carvajal said limiting the trawling footprint in Chilean Patagonia “does not seem to be a sound move, in the form it is proposed in the bill.”
Friosur did not respond to Mongabay Latam’s request for comment by the time the original version of this story was published on Aug. 1.
Congress members angered by obstruction
The Fisheries Commission is still in session. “None of the recommendations [from Bobadilla, Moreira and Berger] have been approved by the Fisheries Commission so far,” Congresswoman Daniella Cicardini from the Socialist Party told Mongabay Latam. “In fact, the recommendation introduced by Bobadilla has not had any support within the commission.”
Meanwhile, Fisheries Commission members have accused Bobadilla of obstruction and delay. “When we are voting, he requests as much time as possible, and he has asked for a separate vote on all the articles and clauses,” Cicardini said. “The kind of trickery Congressman Bobadilla is employing only shows that there is a particular interest in this bill not being passed.”
Concerning the decision to base the bill’s recommendations on SONAPESCA reports, Bobadilla told CIPER that “members of Congress do nothing more than gather together, after a thorough analysis of the report, the recommendations for which they feel most affinity.”
For its part, SONAPESCA stated that it seemed obvious that commission members should consider the observations made in a report submitted to the commission and have supported them because the proposed law has important shortcomings and structural flaws.
Recalling the climate of corruption under which the current fisheries law was passed, Hernán Cortés, president of the Council for the Defense of Fishing Heritage, told Mongabay Latam that “there are actors who are repeating the same legislative processes that led to the current law, where they worked to suit their own ends, and now they are defending these interests.”
The difference, Cortés said, is that now “there are opportunities to observe the discussions taking place, which makes it possible to identify the problems that come with defending industry, and which we have been able to see earlier in the process.”
