According to a report by the General Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish), the set of hake able to reproduce in Argentine waters "is at critical levels, indicating that resource exploitation is not sustainable."

The watchdog reviewed the work of the Secretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture (SAPYA, for its acronym in Spanish) and found that "decisions on catch quotas do not respect the recommendations made by the technical entity," referring to the National Institute for Fisheries Research and Development (INIDEP, for its acronym in Spanish). The AGN had detected irregularities in previous audits (one adopted in 2002 and another follow-up in 2008). In this new report they state that those recommendations were most partially remedied. However, some of the problems observed before "have deepened and the monitoring and control system has inconsistencies in several points."

In order to "avoid excessive exploitation and ensure their long-term preservation," the watchdog identifies two indicators "key for sustainable fisheries management" means the biologically acceptable -CBA- catch annually estimated by the INIDEP and the indicator maximum allowable catch -CMP, which must take into account the values of the CBA.

According to the report, "the maximum catch recommended does not yet meet the acceptable biological catch recommended by the INIDEP". In fact, the agency emphasizes that since 2000, "reproductive biomass remains 40% below the minimum critical level", estimated at 130 thousand tons. And, with the exception of 2008, "the fisheries administration has set higher than those recommended by scientific research investigation".

In this regard, the AGN concluded that the reduction of fishing hake needs to be reduced urgently "to recover total and reproductive biomass, and prevent collapse in a relatively short time." The watchdog considers "necessary the implementation of a recovery plan for hake stocks that include the INIDEP’s recommendations and come up with a plan control and effective monitoring of the fishery."

What's more, the research adds to the internal difficulties within the INIDEP "affected the quality of scientific data on which the estimate is based on biological catch."

Reports

The Audit added that "in recent years there was a significant delay in delivery" this comes from INIDEP’s reports. For example, in 2006, the work of the entity was not published in 2008 but was published four months later.

In previous reports, the AGN detected "delays between the date of the alleged violation to the formal summons (a) the shipping company responsible for the ship" and that the inquisitorial system was extensive and "inefficient." In the latest audit a sample of 170 trial investigation records were taken and it was found that one out of every four cases the alleged offender was not notified, and that 45% were reported within six months into the report, so the auditors conclude that the process is still long, with an "approximate duration of 745 days."

Furthermore, the audit noted that "since a violation is found until the resolution of the case" only 4.4% were resolved within six months and 53.6% had not yet been resolved.

The AGN indicates that "sanctions to the offending shipping companies remains ineffective" nearly $ 72 million had to be charged for penalties during the audit period, however, only 18.5% were in fact charged.
On-Board Checks 

The Audit had pointed out that the reports of the inspectors who boarded the ships had several irregularities, because "they didn’t write the minutes and distorted the record of responsible fisheries" thus invalidating the inspector's report as evidence. In response, the AGN considered "clear need to accurately track the performance of the inspectors in order to punish those who act in bad faith or not properly fulfill their duties."

Bad Treatment

The agency detected "problems with the inspectors’ payments, they receive them with a 2 month delay" and that the allegations made by the inspectors themselves to the ill-treatment on board "have no formal response from the institutions, except those actions that prevent the inspector from boarding the same ship or the same company. "