Photo: Revista Puerto/FIS

Fisheries Conflict Over Shrimp: Business Chambers Demand 50% Tails Onboard and Threaten to Go to the Supreme Court

ARGENTINA
Monday, November 10, 2025, 00:10 (GMT + 9)

CAPECA, CAPIP, CEPA, and Conarpesa have filed a reconsideration request with the Federal Fisheries Council (CFP), sharply criticizing the arguments from CAABPA, ALFA, and SOMU that blocked the measure. The dispute centers on the alleged impact on the inter-fleet balance and the risks of under-declaration of catches.

According to Karina Fernández of Revista Puerto, the Federal Fisheries Council took note of the reconsideration request filed by the business chambers CAPECA (Argentine Chamber of Exporting Fishing Companies), CAPIP (Chamber of Argentine Freezer and Fishing Vessel Owners), CEPA (Chamber of Argentine Fishing Entrepreneurs), and the company Conarpesa.

Photo: Revista Puerto

The goal of the request is to reverse Resolution 11 of the current year, which raised the limit for the production of shrimp tails onboard from 30% to 36%, and to achieve the approval of the initially requested 50%. The entities challenge the CFP for having dismissed a technical recommendation from INIDEP (National Institute for Fisheries Research and Development) and, instead, accepting the objections presented by the Mar del Plata Shipowners' Chamber (CAABPA), CAPEAR-ALFA, and the union SOMU (United Maritime Workers' Union).

Cross-Questioning and Representation at Stake

The document submitted by CAPECA, CAPIP, CEPA, and Conarpesa seeks to refute point by point the oppositions of their detractors, who had argued for a possible "impact on the inter-fleet balance," an "increase in the risk of under-declaration," an "adverse socio-economic impact on onshore processing plants," and a "direct impact on the fishing effort by increasing the biomass extracted per unit."

The proposing chambers stated they represent the largest share of shrimp processing plants and dependent personnel on land. They ironically questioned the representativeness of CAABPA and ALFA regarding processing plants and onshore personnel, suggesting that "such alleged harm does not exist." They maintained that processing onboard and onshore targets "differential products and markets," which would nullify the supposed damage.

The Controversy over Inter-Fleet Balance

Regarding the alteration of the inter-fleet balance, the entities argued that it has been "altered for a long time now," not by the freezer fleet, but by authorizing shrimp fishing to vessels without specific permits for the species. They cited the following examples:

• The approval of the Environmental Fisheries Fund (FAP).

• The authorization for ships with permits for surplus species to fish for shrimp.

• The allocation of social/provincial fishing quotas.

• The possibility of the multiplier being applied to permits for non-quota species.

They also mentioned the authorization of 20% bycatch (incidental catch) of shrimp in the offshore hake fleet, which, they denounced, often appears "in practice" to be target fishing.

Photo: Stockfile/FIS

Risk of Under-Declaration and Biological Basis

Regarding the risk of under-declaration, the request labeled the argument as "malice and intent," pointing out that the production of 2-kilogram boxes onboard leaves no room for such maneuvers. Conversely, they counterattacked by stating that the fleet represented by CAABPA requires more rigorous inspection to verify the kilograms per box (plus the 20% bycatch).

Concerning the impact on biomass, the criticism was directed at the enforcement authority and the CFP itself. They quoted INIDEP's response, which indicated that, under current conditions, the requested increase would not imply "a significant increase in fishing effort," given that the freezer fleet has a smaller share of catches (20%) and tail processing requires more working time onboard.

The chambers expressed "surprise" that biological factors are being alleged when the scientific authority (INIDEP) provides statements that support their 50% position.

Photo: Stockfile/FIS

Ultimatum to the Federal Fisheries Council

After formally requesting the annulment of Resolution 11 and the approval of the 50% limit for tail production, the chambers noted that this measure is demanded by markets and would "contribute to the development of the fishery," which is one of the CFP's objectives.

Although the CFP acknowledged the request yesterday without yet providing an answer (which is expected in the next meeting), the entities firmly warned that, under the "hypothetical and improbable assumption that the claim is not granted," "express reservation is made to appeal to the National Supreme Court of Justice."

editorial@seafood.media
www.seafood.media

Print