Argentina's Federal Fisheries Council Rejects Union Appeal, Upholds Six-Knot Presumption Rule in Closed Areas

In Minutes No. 27/2026 of its October 15 meeting, Argentina's Federal Fisheries Council (CFP) rejected the appeal filed by the Centro de Patrones y Oficiales Fluviales, de Pesca y de Cabotaje Marítimo (Center of River, Fishing and Coastal Shipping Masters and Officers), finding that the current rules do not constitute discriminatory treatment against Argentine-flagged vessels and that the body's regulations are appropriate. The decision was unanimous, and the CFP also decided to make no changes to the challenged rules.

The union filed a formal appeal on August 26 seeking adjustments to CFP Resolutions No. 1/2002, No. 26/2009 and No. 7/2018. Its basis was a comparison of the requirements of those resolutions with SSRAyP (Undersecretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture) Provision No. 20/2026: for foreign vessels not holding a national fishing permit, the latter, as a general standard, treats speeds below six knots combined with tracks or maneuvering consistent with fishing operations as determinative, and recognizes that the vessel may submit documents to justify the navigation in question.

The union argued that the difference lies in CFP Resolution No. 1/2002. Within its scope, in the bottom-trawl closed areas, the resolution presumes that speeds below six knots constitute fishing activity. Within those areas, transit without fishing is allowed, provided gear is stowed on deck and speed is not less than six knots. The rule also provides for immediate return to port and a preventive suspension of up to 60 days, directly affecting masters and, in particular, vessel-owning companies.

The union's appeal described several situations familiar to the fleet: a fishing vessel operating near a closed area may need to haul its nets because of a breakdown, exposing it to drift and/or set caused by wind or current; or it may be forced to slow down while crossing a restricted zone because of bad weather, a breakdown or navigational safety, a discretion the master is entitled to exercise under the Navigation Law.

On Argentine-flagged vessels, such situations must be properly documented. The master must report the situation in advance to the Argentine Naval Prefecture (Prefectura Naval Argentina) coast station in the jurisdiction, leave a record via GFH, which serves as a sworn statement by the master to the authorities, and note in the Navigation Log the position, course, speed and the reason that led to the initial breach of the rules in force, while communicating with the Naval Prefecture by VHF, in order to rule out any criminal or administrative proceedings. These records can prove that the vessel was navigating at a speed compatible with fishing operations for justified reasons, even if the vessel was carrying out reasonable maneuvering. The assessment is made by the competent authority on a case-by-case basis and under the applicable regime. So can an Argentine-flagged fishing vessel navigate at a speed compatible with fishing operations in a closed area? The answer is yes, and no penalty applies once the justified reason has been reported to the Naval Prefecture. Even after the vessel reaches port, the master may make a supplementary statement in person explaining the reason for this "sporadic" anomaly.

The union also recalled that Resolution No. 1/2002 was issued while the MONPESAT satellite system was out of service. The union argued that existing tools, including the Guardacostas system, can reconstruct tracks, speeds and maneuvering, making it possible to distinguish legitimate navigation from fishing operations. As a precedent, the union cited the shrimp regime as amended by CFP Resolution No. 6/2025, which expressly provides that satellite records incompatible with fishing operations should be taken into account when assessing the presumption of nighttime fishing activity.

The CFP's response focused on the scope of application of the respective rules. The 2026 provision governs inspections of foreign vessels without a national fishing permit in Argentina's exclusive economic zone, whereas the CFP resolutions set special restrictions for closed areas that apply to both Argentine-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels. In support of this position, the CFP cited Article 8 of Resolution No. 26/2009, which applies to all types of vessels, and explained that navigation conditions in closed areas are stricter than those in areas where fishing is permitted. The CFP also distinguished the infringement investigation procedures initiated according to flag, under Articles 49 and 50 of Law No. 24.922, and recalled that the final decision rests with the competent authority.