New analysis shows where fish transfers that can obscure illegal catches happen
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
yes, this is how Russian/USSR sea fishing industry has been organized for decades - a group of smaller fishing vessels around a large fish processing factory ship (similar to US aircraft carrier groups :). Russian illegal fishing is organized differently though - in particular it is usually smaller operations not involving transshipping.
Are the systems the article is referring to AIS transponders [1]? If so, we should probably use caution in cracking down on transshipping of illegal catches - incentivizing vessels to turn off their transponders may pose safety risks.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_Syste...
I think the worry here is that they'll endanger others by going around with transponders off.
However, I agree that this data is valuable and should probably be used; I merely espouse caution in how we apply it, as there may be ways to use it without posing undue danger for fishermen, or alternate lower risk data sources (such as the satellite analysis mentioned in the article). There is relatively little cost in putting together a risk analysis prior to implementing any policies or law enforcement strategies from these analyses.
On the one hand, I feel there is some fear mongering in it. The equating of transshipping with standing in a dark alley waiting for someone to conduct an illegal transaction is disingenuous. It is what it is.
The concept of International waters recognizes that there is no one claimant with authority over the high seas. It isn't a case of a lack of political will. It's that any overt political will by one actor alone would be perceived as aggression by other major nations. International cooperation is essential difficult to build, and easy to have fall apart with the ebb and flow of popular sentiment.
Trying to reason from satellite and AIS data alone only illustrates operational patterns. Not whether the operation going on at the time is illegal or not unless the illegality is provable by geographic presence alone.
Anything that incentivizes non-participation in broadcasting a navigational aid is more than "appeal to possibility". It is a certainty that someone will eventually end up smacking into a shit running dark. It"s just like the Big Sky Fallacy. Yes there is a lot of sea out there, but there are a lot of vessels as well.
This is good exploratory work, but I would look at getting boots on the ground in terms of joining up with fishing crews to weed out illegal fishing behavior before doing anything drastic that may jeopardize the integrity of an incredibly valuable navigational aid.
Red spots are where two AIS transponders got close enough for a transfer between their vessels. Black spots are where one AIS transponder slowed or stopped long enough for a transfer with a non-transponder vessel.
A lot of the spots can be explained by completely legitimate floating factory ships, or cargo-ferrying vessels that bring the fish back to port while the fishing boats stay where the fish are.
You would need a second data set, containing known-legitimate transfers, to filter out results from the first. As it is now, it's just a map of where fishing activity typically happens. Of course there will be shady transactions somewhere in there, using the massive amount of above-board activity as cover. It's about as useful as saying that one of the fast-food employees at a gigantic food court might also be selling marijuana.