After two years, Jesús, a fisherman whom we will call that for safety, is about to have the fine of 220,000 pesos (12,000 dollars) imposed on him by the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission (Conapesca) annulled through a challenge filed with the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA), an institution that resolves disputes in the public administration.
Jesús was accused of transporting illegal fishing gear because he did not have the Turtle Excluding Device (DET) in place, a device for sea turtles to escape when they are caught by fishing nets. Jesús's version is that when Conapesca personnel inspected him, he was in transit and wasn't fishing.
His lawyer argues that there were deficiencies during the inspection and in the Administrative Sanctioning Process (PAS). The latter is the procedure that aims to sanction violations of the General Law on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (LGPAS) with fines, seizures of the product, vehicles and even the cancellation of the fishing permit.
According to the lawyer, the record not drawn up at the inspection site and without the inclusion of Jesus' arguments were the main irregularities in the case.
To find out how many Conapesca sanctions have been challenged and to quantify how much money is left uncharged for errors and irregularities in the PAS, Mongabay Latam asked Conapesca, through the National Transparency Platform, for the resolutions imposed and challenged before the TFJA in the last seven years.
Among the most frequent violations for which Conapesca has opened a PAS and which constitute illegal fishing are: fishing without concession or permission; extracting a larger volume of species than authorized; not carrying a concession or permit on board; using or transporting prohibited fishing gear; and catching, transporting and trading species that are banned or that do not meet the size.
From 2019 to November 2025, 101 sanctions imposed by Conapesca were challenged. In 12% of the cases, the TFJA agreed with the fishing agency and supported the sanction, however, in 63% of the cases it annulled them. For 25% of the remaining challenges, the resolution is unknown.
Despite these data, Olaf Bermúdez, head of the Legal Affairs Unit of Conapesca, assures that, most of the time, the TJFA confirms the resolutions imposed by Conapesca or orders the PAS to be corrected to obtain a new resolution, while, on the other hand, many of Conapesca's sanctions are not even challenged by offenders.
However, Bermúdez recognizes that there are resolutions that identify defects in the process that give rise to nullity, while in other cases the nullity is related to the criteria applied by the TFJA.
“It is important to note that there are courts that use very particular criteria that we do not share and that obviously do not correspond to the regulations in force on the fishing issue. In the face of that, we no longer have defense elements. The criteria they have are very variable, so what you see as being well done, they determine is wrong,” he explains without detailing what type of criteria.
As a result of the cancellations, 9,113,448 pesos (equivalent to 500 000 dollars) in fines were rescinded.
“Issuing a fine does not mean that the person does not have a right of defense and that they will end up in a collection because on many occasions [during] the integration of the files there are some failures and when it comes before a judge, the case is lost,” explains José Luis Carrillo, president of the Mexican Confederation of Fisheries and Aquaculture Cooperatives (Conmecoop).
Weaknesses of the Administrative Sanctioning Process
Jesús says that he had been at sea for 16 days and had another 15 days left until the end of the trip aboard the shrimp boat where he was captain. It was noon and the vessel was in transit when they were intercepted by two frigates with personnel from Conapesca and the Secretariat of the Navy (Semar), the latter being responsible for protecting the country's resources, interests and sovereignty in maritime territory.
At the time of the inspection, he says, the crew was removing the DET from one network to put it on another. Despite this, the authorities ordered him to go to the nearest port where they drew up the inspection report.
Despite this, he says, the authorities ordered him to go to the nearest port where they drew up the inspection report.
Based on the act drawn up by the Federal Fisheries Officers, the Legal Affairs Unit initiated a PAS that imposed a fine of 220,000 pesos. However, Jesus challenged it for alleged irregularities.
According to his lawyer, Antonio Bautista, the irregularities began during the inspection process, since the inspectors had to draw up the record at the inspection site and, in addition, Jesus' arguments were not considered in the record.
“Our vision is not to promote illegal fishing, but to combat irregularities within the administrative procedure. Most clients don't bring an illegal product and want to release it, but because there were a lot of errors or defects in the PAS,” says the lawyer.
According to Bautista, these irregularities occur mainly due to the lack of personnel to carry out inspection and surveillance tasks. In his opinion, that causes officers to have long days at night or under the sun. Haste and tiredness would influence how they draw up the minutes.
“The fishing officer has to detail the facts and omissions during the act as required by law, because otherwise they drop the inspection report or the administrative procedure,” says Bautista.
In Mexico, there are 60 boats, 103 vehicles and 166 Federal Fisheries Officers responsible for ensuring compliance with fishing laws, combating illegal fishing and protecting the marine and aquaculture resources of 11,122 kilometers of the national coastline. This equates to five inspectors, two boats and three vehicles per state.
“It's too understaffed to cover the entire expanse of territory across the routes. Most of the cases they prosecute are some infraganti, but most of them are through complaints,” says Rodrigo Elizarrará, CEO of Humint Mx, a consultancy firm specialized in the analysis of social, political and security risks.
Alejandro Olivera, representative in Mexico of the Center for Biological Diversity, points out that if there are no minimum conditions, such as personnel and tools, the system for sanctioning fishing violations fails.
In his experience working in the Legal Affairs Unit of Conapesca until 2018, Bautista experienced the overload of work that the staff has and, according to him, affects the evaluation of the file and its resolution.
This precariousness is also perceived by Fishing and Aquaculture Cooperatives. “Conapesca has no legal capacity or human capital to carry out investigations, so there is a delay in legal and administrative procedures, due to personal lack,” says José Luis Carrillo, the president of Conmecoop.
Currently, there are 22 people attached to the Legal Affairs Unit who are responsible for dealing with the legal matters of Conapesca, of whom only eight are responsible for dealing with and resolving fishing offences, according to a request for information.
“The Legal Affairs Unit has always been understaffed. The basic staff is there and they are reinforced with temporary staff, but every year it is not known if there will be a budget to hire them. So, in that period, then comes the overload of work: they don't review the files, the evidence, the documentation submitted and they come up with an administrative procedure that's all done wrong,” Bautista points out.
It is unknown how many PAS cases were initiated between 2019 and November 2025. What is known is that during this period, Conapesca resolved 4,848 administrative sanctioning proceedings.
So far in 2025, each of these eight people has studied and resolved 127 cases, or one file approximately every three days, but it is unknown how long the resolved cases date back. This is a good number in the eyes of Bautista and Elizarrará, however, both agree that it is necessary to know how many PAS files have not received a resolution to analyze the backlog that exists in issuing resolutions.
Although there may be simpler cases, eight people are too few to handle all cases, according to Rodrigo Elizarrará, although he recognizes that there are courts that work with fewer staff and that is an average burden in the country. “How many cases are piling up there?” , he wonders. Surely, “there is a significant backlog,” he adds.
“Conapesca is a completely outdated institution for more than 11,000 kilometers of coastline. An unimportant legal area in terms of resources is a recipe for poor surveillance and fragile files that can be easily challenged,” Olivera points out.
Bermúdez, from Conapesca, recognizes that, in addition to the workload, they also depend on other external bodies to advance in the resolution of cases.
“[The workload] means that we are always a little at a disadvantage compared to what we have to process and what continues to come to us day by day. The purpose is to try to resolve, not to get out of step and to adjust as much as possible to what the law establishes for this purpose. But it's not just the question of administrative procedure as such, but it involves other areas and that unfortunately delays us,” he explains.
The problem is that these factors contribute to the fact that reporting, inspection and surveillance efforts end up being annulled in the TFJA.
“There are many small factors that are very fragile within the administrative process and a judicial authority easily dismisses it because it does not have the elements and annuls the case. I think that in most cases, with a good lawyer, you can find the flaws in due process and then tear it down,” Elizarrará points out.
According to Olivera, if the system for sanctioning fishing violations is weak, there is no deterrence for those who fish illegally, and that ends up affecting mainly fishing resources and those who live on them.
“The annulment of cases fuels impunity because the message it sends is that it is easy to evade sanctions and eliminates deterrence. If sanctions fall, basic management measures weaken and those who end up paying all the cost are the species, the fishery resources and the trust of the communities,” Olivera points out.
Towards remedying the weaknesses of the PAS
Currently, there are initiatives to help resolve staff irregularities and errors in the Inspection and Surveillance Unit, such as the incorporation of fishermen affiliated with Conmecoop into the tours.
“We carry out operations in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Navy and Conapesca. We have Community Inspection and Surveillance Committees that allow us to pressure so that the PAS is correct and that the conditions can be met for the corresponding sanctions to be applied,” says Carrillo.
However, for Bautista, fundamentally, it is necessary to increase the staff of the Inspection and Surveillance and Legal Affairs Unit of Conapesca and train them to do the right thing.
In this regard, Bermúdez said that they have already asked the head of Conapesca, Rigoberto Salgado, to increase the number of personnel responsible for legal processes in the field of fishing.
“We see that they are very saturated with work and the moment we can count on a couple of more or three elements, whatever the circumstances allow, that will help us, since they will not be so pressured and that will allow for a more analytical and more precise work,” he said.
He added that it is also necessary to address legal loopholes that exist within the law that regulates fishing in Mexico. He assured that for this reason they are working on a reform project that would avoid the risk of sanctions being reversed in the TFJA.
Comentarios (0)