|
|
|
STUDIES ARE STILL BEING CARRIED OUTThe fishing vessels
satellite monitoring system enforcement has been suspended
Nearly
three months since the new fisheries authorities have been appointed, the
satellite monitoring system for fishing vessels –among other important issues-
is still not operating and the re launch date, which was supposed to be
fixed for 31st August by Regulation No. 3/2003, has been postponed
and no other date has been fixed for the moment. It
is a fact that Regulation No. 3 has errors and has encouraged ship owners and
potential firms rendering the private service of satellite monitoring
implemented by such a regulation to make legitimate demands. However, these
errors could have been corrected without altering the deadline for putting the
system into operation. Nevertheless,
there seems to prevail, once more, the improvisation and lack of determination
to bell the cat and organize minimally high-seas fisheries. As
yet, CeDePesca had decided to remain prudently silent on this issue, after
having an initial meeting of about two hours with the Undersecretary for
Fisheries, while waiting for the new authorities’ first factual steps. It has
to be kept in mind that President Kirchner’s mandate creates favourable
expectations in the population –to which we belong- to understand
CeDePesca’s attitude. Likewise,
we take note not only of the delegation of powers from the Secretary for
Agriculture to the Undersecretary, an as yet unknown fact granting wide
independent management competence to the fisheries authority, but also of
the direct access the Undersecretary for Fisheries seems to have to the
Nation President. However, the fact of the matter is that the single sure measure adopted by the new administration, the positioning system for fishing vessels, and for which an implementation date had been fixed, could not be enforced in due course and form. Let us see why Firstly,
it was surprising that the first paragraph of the Regulation No. 3 statements
revealed that “the opportunely applied Satellite Monitoring System of the
Fishing Fleet –MonPeSat- has gone out of use since the beginning of 2002, and
there is no precise date for its reintroduction”. This is an appropriate
phrase for an impartial observer, but not for the Undersecretary for Fisheries,
who is the person in charge of fixing that precise date.
Likewise,
those statements include references to the convenience to have “different
firms rendering the service, since this situation encourages
healthy competition which, in turn, allows the gradually obtaining
of a better quality in the rendering of the service”. This is an as
ideological as questionable opinion in its practical results that it complements
the argument according to which “the immediate implementation of a system
which is practical, effective and free of charge to the National Treasury
is considered appropriate for matters of opportunity, merit and convenience”. The
apparently appealing argument for the lack of costs to the National Treasury is
not justified at all from the moment the State collects –through extraction
fees- funds which have to be earmarked for this purpose, among other things. Anyway,
let us consider thoroughly the “practicality” and “effectiveness” of the
system sought to be implemented. To
begin with, article 6 of the annexe about the requisites to be fulfilled
provides that “the firm rendering the service will give this Undersecretariat
the tools or applications necessary for making the enquiries and reprogramming
of the on board mobile equipment”. Therefore, it is possible that each firm
rendering the service uses different software and, as a result, the
Undersecretariat would be forced to change the programme each time it wants to
work with position signals from different firms. Article
4 of the annexe mentioned above determines that the frequency of the position
signals will be of one per hour, which seems an unnecessary exaggeration. The
original system operated with a signal every 8 hours. During the re
introduction of the system in 2000, the frequency was raised to a signal every 3
hours, with an alarm for warning of closeness to banned zones, making it
possible to raise the frequency as much as wanted in order to monitor closely
the vessel evolution. Last year, the Federal Fisheries Council required a
minimum frequency of a signal every 6 hours. The
problem detected when having a too high signal frequency is related to the
ability to process so much information and to the unnecessary price increase in
the service. On the other hand, article 8 of the annexe provides that if two
consecutive signals are not received, the vessel will be forced to return to
port. That mean it is given two hours to repair any damage, on pain of
cancellation of the fishing trip with the evident costs of such a decision. The
regulations in force also stipulated two consecutive signals, but a margin of
six hours was given instead. However, this excess of severity seems
counterbalanced by discretionary powers that the authority reserves to exempt
some vessel from the immediate return journey. In fact, that decision could
be made if the lack of signals results from a “fortuitous case” –article
9- , and the fortuitous case is defined as “the natural event that is
exceptional due to its intensity, taking into account the season in which it
occurs and depending on what is decided by this Undersecretariat”. This
combination of excessive severity and discretionary powers was harshly
questioned by representatives of business chambers, who forced the
Undersecretariat to agree to consider a new writing of the Regulation,
thus postponing its compulsory enforcement date. On
the other hand, enthusiasm does not prevail among the potential firms rendering
the service. At an estimated monthly cost of 24 dollars per vessel, and assuming
control of a quarter of the potential market of about 700 vessels, we would be
referring to a monthly turnover of approximately 21,000 Argentine pesos.
Although it is not a negligible amount, there exists fear about the legal
consequences that damage to the signal transmitter equipment might have, if the
authority forces the vessel to return to port, as provided by the current
regulations. It is clear that a possible prosecution for damage from the ship
owner against the firm rendering the service could not be compensated through
this turnover level. Likewise,
the use of equipment of the MonPeSat system, which belong to the State, proves
problematic. Article 16 of the annexe authorizes ship owners to use it, and
article 17 reserves the right to require compensations, whereupon it is
possible that 350 pieces of equipment, which had recently been repaired and
adjusted, are no longer in operation simply to “save them trouble”. We
have always wondered whether so many turns and delays are justified, considering
the indefinite losses of natural capital involved. Instead, the simplest thing
would be for the State to put out to rapid tender the rendering of the satellite
signal service and to use the already on board equipment, as well as the
monitoring stations present in the Undersecretariat, the National Coast Guard,
the Navy and INIDEP (National Institute for Fisheries Research & Development),
without detriment to the possibility of widening not only the rendering of the
service to those vessels under 25 m in length, but also signal repetitions to
maritime littoral provinces. Nevertheless,
it seems that the three months devoted to “study” have not been enough, and
it is necessary to continue “studying”. The same happens with the hake
management measures, the nullity of the illegal fishing permits, or the update
on extraction fees. It is still trusted that, at some not
very distant moment, the authorities will stop studying and will seat for the
exam. However, some
impatience is already in the air.
CeDePesca 28/08/2003
|
|
|