Due to the threat of imminent and difficult-to-repair danger to marine ecosystems, Costa Rica’s Administrative and Civil Court declared that the new precautionary measure filed by the MarViva Foundation was admissible. This measure goes against the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA), and it seeks to suspend a study about shrimp fishing that sought to reactivate trawl fishing in the country’s waters.

Because of the process’s requirements, the Court decided during a hearing last Friday, February 9, to return the process to its initial stages since it was deemed necessary to include the participants of the industrial shrimp fishing sector. Adhering to the Court’s decision, MarViva filed a new precautionary measure, including a request to include the sector as a party, which was approved this Thursday.

The approval of this precautionary measure is in response to a series of irregularities and fallacies that directly infringe the regulatory provisions issued by the Constitutional Court on the subject: the project’s lack of technical soundness, flaws in its development, and environmental impact that could cause irreparable damage and violate the constitutional right established in Article 50 of the Constitution.

As part of the measure, it is ordered to entirely suspend fishing operations and any other act carried out by INCOPESCA that enables the execution of the study, including new fishing permits; this is until the lawsuit filed by MarViva, which is still pending, is resolved in its merits.

“For a second time, the courts have ruled in our favor, signifying a solid step towards protecting our marine ecosystems and defending the fishery resources on which thousands of artisanal fishermen and their families depend. Amid inconsistencies and lack of transparency, as well as some persistence, this “study” is loaded with technical and methodological gaps, representing a major risk to the sea, coastal economies, and public finances”,  said Katherine Arroyo, Executive Director of MarViva.

This new precautionary measure is in effect until a definitive ruling is given on the lawsuit presented by the Foundation, seeking to annul the “study” that aims to reactivate trawl fishing in Costa Rica.

New “studies” on shrimp fishing: inconsistencies from the start

President Rodrigo Chaves announced in September 2022, during the Government Council in Puntarenas, that the Government would carry out new technical studies to reactivate shrimp fishing in Costa Rican seas. According to the President, the studies had already been approved by INCOPESCA’s Board of Directors and would take place starting the first quarter of 2023.

From that moment on, and interested in learning more about the investigation, MarViva requested more detailed information. Intense challenges to the “studies” were not exclusive to MarViva, as the Academia, other conservationist organizations, and renowned scientists joined the effort. That situation shows that the study did not meet the minimum requirements.

Backed by a deficient research proposal, INCOPESCA granted fishing permits that authorized the commercial exploitation of shrimp using the trawling technique. MarViva accused INCOPESCA of formalizing this and other decisions through acts contrary to the legal system, such as illegal acts that should be declared null and void.

To MarViva, the proposal breaches the requirements demanded by the Constitutional Court in resolutions N°10540-2013, N°070978-2018, and N°14168-2018. These resolutions detail the minimum components that should be included in a scientific investigation that analyzes the social, economic, and environmental viability of trawling in Costa Rica. In such judgments, the Court reiterated that to reactivate trawl fishing, a significant reduction of bycatch needs to be demonstrated and its coherence with democratic sustainable development. It should also include aspects such as ecosystem interactions, pollution generated, regeneration capacity of the systems, and affected populations, among many others, all of which were ignored in the investigation.

“…And unfortunately, we were not wrong. During the first months of the study, the observers on board issued several statements that discredited the fishing data reported on landings and, therefore, the calculations on the accompanying fauna. In addition, the study’s methodological deficiencies were made clear, as well as the existence of conditions that endangered the physical well-being of those who carried out the fishing operations, including observers and the captains of the vessels themselves”, explained Arroyo.

Image: Lorna Marchena