Earlier this week we reported on the arrest of two Guyanese fishermen by the police and army in Suriname. According to Waterkant, a Suri-name media outlet, the officers had stopped what was described as a green-lacquered wooden fishing vessel which should have had a coastal licence but on inspection was found to have none. The boat with four crew members had been intercepted around 5 am, and had sailed from the direction of Gadaboe in Suriname. It was deemed to have entered the country illegally, and eventually two Guyanese on board were taken to the base of the Maritime Police.
Two immediate questions arise, the first being why did the vessel not have a licence and the second, rather more fundamental question, why were the crew fishing in Surinamese rather than Guyanese waters in the first place. Leaving the initial question aside for the moment, according to a knowledgeable source the short answer to the second is that the fisheries stock in Guyana is depleted. We were informed that the Suriname stock is not as depleted and the authorities there are trying to develop a sustainable system of management for it.
That said it might be noted that the pressure on our own marine resources has come not so much from local artisanal fishermen, as on the innumerable interlopers who have been exploiting our fish stocks over the decades. Chief among these in the past have been the fishermen from Venezuela and Suriname, as then Chief of Staff Godfrey Bess observed three years ago. The Venezuelans in particular have operated as if our maritime space were theirs, and have on occasion arrested our fishermen in our waters claiming they were fishing illegally in “waters under the full sovereignty and jurisdiction of Vene-zuela.” We have also traditionally lacked the capacity to interdict intruders, although it may be that recent investment in the Coast Guard played a role in the arrest of three Venezuelan pirates in rough waters off the North-West coast last year.
At the end of last year too Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha made public a report on illegal fishing in our marine space which said that in 2021 there were 19,000 vessel-days when foreign-flagged fishing boats were recorded within Guyana’s EEZ. According to the report over 2,600 of these originated from Caricom member states. Our situation does not differ substantially from what obtains in most countries of the world, since according to the Economist more than 90% of the world’s fish stocks have either been fully fished or overfished. The chief offenders responsible for this situation are the Chinese, whose industrial fishing practices are causing serious depredations worldwide, although not in Guyana. It is an industry which is said to receive some US$7 billion a year in government subsidies from Beijing.
If it is indeed the case that Guyanese fish stocks are becoming depleted, but that Suriname ones are less so, are we to assume that this is a relatively recent development considering that the authorities here have accused Suriname boats in the past of trespassing in our waters in order to fish? It is conceivable, of course, that Suriname operators are going far out into our EEZ, whereas our artisanal fisherman are confined to areas more immediately offshore, where fish are now far less plentiful than they used to be.
Whatever the case, Suriname requires a licence before fishermen, local or foreign, can operate in its coastal waters. We have been told that on average 450 coastal licences are issued annually to three categories of vessels: 100% Surinamese owned (SA licence); 50% local and 50% foreign owned (SB licence) and 100% foreign owned (SC licence). The last-named category requires a bilateral agreement between Suriname and the foreign country, and it is in relation to these licences that Guyana was anticipating the neighbouring authorities would have issued 150 to our fishermen. As is well known, it hasn’t happened.
This newspaper understands that the Suriname fisheries sector is governed by the Sea Fisheries Act of 1980, which requires the government to publish guidelines for the number of licences annually, a number which is calculated on the basis of available technical information. The number of vessel permits is announced at the beginning of each year, although the Minister has some discretion in relation to the number of permits which are issued.
There are other regulations too, such as the non-transferability of licences, although a licensee may use the same licence for more than one vessel providing they are not both at sea at the same time. Our source told us that this is a requirement that is sometimes breached, representing a clear illegality. Furthermore, all fishermen are required to “predominantly” deliver their catch to designated landing areas where the necessary data can be recorded for official purposes. This has been a particular irritant to those Guyanese fishermen who do have licences, because they want to sell their catch in Guyana, where prices are higher than in Suriname.
Unfortunately for them, it is understandable that the Paramaribo authorities would want to ensure any fish caught in their waters were sold locally and not in some foreign state. In order to enforce this requirement they stipulate that all fishing vessels must be equipped with a Vessel Monitoring System which will provide information on the ID, position, speed and direction of the vessel, among other things.
Under the current law Guyana also requires all its vessels to carry a Vessel Monitoring System, but this has not been universally adopted owing to the high cost for artisanal fishermen of acquiring the equipment. While we reported last year that a consultation had been held to promote the adoption of the system, it was not clear at the time how this would be paid for.
In the case of Suriname it may be that the unlicensed vessel which was detained by the Paramaribo authorities could not have afforded a Vessel Monitoring System, but if so, that was almost certainly not the major expense its owners baulked at.
As we have reported before Surinamers mostly based in Nickerie who did not go out to fish themselves would buy the official annual fishing licences for US$50 and would then rent these to Guyanese fishermen for anything between US$4,000 and US$6,000. Although this was not spelt out precisely by our source, it has to be presumed that these are SA licences which can only be given to Surinamese residents, when Guyanese from Guyana should only qualify for an SC licence. As stated earlier, this requires an agreement with a foreign state. The fishermen caught by the police and army presumably were taking risks because there were not enough fish in Guyana’s coastal waters for them to make a living, and they could not afford the illegal licence fee.
What Guyana has been negotiating for is SC licences, although there is no breakthrough as yet. The source told this newspaper that illegal practices were undermining the ability of the Suriname government to manage its fisheries sustainably, and that such violations risked its export allowance to the European Union. An agreement with Guyana on the SC licences would not just help this country, but would also do Suriname a favour by stopping the illegal trade in SA licences. The matter of the misuse of licences for two vessels simultaneously at sea, cited above, would have to be addressed independently.
The problem, however, as indicated by the source, is that some within the sector in Suriname are satisfied with the status quo, because they make so much money through illegal licence sales. In addition, they retain control of the sector. While President Ali keeps promising the Corentyne fisherman he will promote their case with Paramaribo, the reality is there is little he can do until the Suriname government feels strong enough to make a move against illegalities in its fishing industry.
