Industrial fishing and ecosystem protection cannot coexist in the same space
En las costas de Perú, donde el mar ha sostenido comunidades por generaciones, el Tribunal Supremo ha reafirmado que ciertos espacios deben permanecer fuera del alcance de la extracción industrial. Al rechazar el desafío de la Sociedad Nacional de Pesquería a una prohibición vigente por más de dos décadas, el fallo reconoce que la conservación y la pesca a gran escala no pueden compartir el mismo horizonte, y que los derechos de las comunidades artesanales sobre los recursos marinos no son negociables ante los intereses corporativos.
- La Sociedad Nacional de Pesquería intentó desmantelar una prohibición de más de veinte años para abrir reservas como Paracas a la extracción industrial, poniendo en riesgo ecosistemas costeros únicos.
- El fallo del Tribunal Supremo cierra definitivamente la vía judicial para la industria pesquera, confirmando que la pesca industrial es incompatible con los objetivos de conservación en áreas protegidas.
- Comunidades artesanales que dependen del mar para su sustento mantienen el acceso protegido a recursos marinos que habrían quedado devastados por operaciones a escala industrial.
- Sin embargo, expertos advierten que la sentencia es solo el primer paso: Perú ya ha visto pesca industrial ilegal dentro de reservas protegidas, como en la Reserva Nacional Dorsal de Nazca, evidenciando una brecha crítica entre la ley y su aplicación.
- La verdadera batalla, señalan los especialistas, se libra ahora en el terreno de la fiscalización y el monitoreo efectivo por parte de las autoridades competentes.
El Tribunal Supremo de Perú ha puesto fin a un intento de la industria pesquera de operar dentro de reservas marinas protegidas, ratificando una prohibición que lleva más de dos décadas en vigor. La Sociedad Nacional de Pesquería había presentado una demanda en enero de 2024 contra la agencia peruana de áreas naturales protegidas, argumentando que la directiva que prohíbe la pesca industrial en estas zonas era inconstitucional. La sociedad buscaba no solo eliminar la prohibición, sino también suprimir las sanciones administrativas y los requisitos operativos que limitan la actividad empresarial en reservas como Paracas, una de las áreas costeras más importantes del país.
El Tribunal Constitucional de Lima rechazó el desafío en mayo de 2024, y el Tribunal Supremo acaba de confirmar esa decisión de manera definitiva, sin que queden recursos judiciales disponibles para la industria. El fallo establece que, si bien la ley permite cierta extracción de recursos en áreas protegidas, estas actividades deben beneficiar primero a las poblaciones locales y operar bajo planes de manejo estrictos. La pesca industrial, determinó el tribunal, no cumple con ese estándar.
El abogado ambientalista Carlos Ipenza celebró la resolución como una defensa necesaria frente a la presión creciente del sector pesquero, que buscaba acceso precisamente a las pocas zonas donde la biodiversidad está resguardada y la pesca artesanal —sustento de comunidades locales— está permitida. No obstante, Ipenza advirtió que una sentencia judicial no es garantía suficiente: Perú ya ha registrado casos de pesca industrial ilegal dentro de reservas protegidas, como en la Dorsal de Nazca, lo que demuestra que sin fiscalización real, las palabras del tribunal corren el riesgo de quedarse en papel.
Peru's highest court has closed the door on a bid by the country's industrial fishing lobby to operate inside protected marine reserves. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's rejection of the National Fishing Society's challenge to a prohibition that has stood for more than two decades, ruling that large-scale commercial fishing remains incompatible with conservation in these sensitive zones.
The case began in January 2024, when the National Fishing Society filed suit against Peru's agency for protected natural areas, arguing that a directive banning industrial fishing in these reserves was unconstitutional. The society wanted to overturn the ban, eliminate administrative penalties, and remove operational requirements that currently restrict what companies could do within protected zones. The stakes were substantial: a successful challenge would have opened reserves like Paracas—one of Peru's most ecologically important coastal areas—to industrial extraction.
Lima's Constitutional Court rejected the challenge in May 2024, and now the Supreme Court has affirmed that decision. The ruling is final; there are no further judicial avenues available to the fishing industry. The court found that while the law does allow resource extraction in some protected areas, such activities must serve local populations first and operate under strict management plans. Industrial fishing, the court determined, does not meet that standard. Because the original directive applies across all of Peru's protected natural areas, the ruling's effect is nationwide.
The National Fishing Society has not yet formally received notification of the Supreme Court's decision and declined to comment on its substance, saying it would be improper to respond without access to the full text. But the legal battle is over.
Environmental lawyer Carlos Ipenza, who welcomed the ruling, framed it as a necessary defense against mounting pressure from the fishing sector. He noted that industrial operators have been pushing not just for access to open ocean but specifically for entry into the few remaining zones where biodiversity is protected and artisanal fishing—the kind that sustains local communities—is permitted. The court's decision, he said, affirms what should have been obvious: industrial-scale operations and ecosystem conservation cannot coexist in the same space.
Yet Ipenza also sounded a note of caution. A court ruling, he emphasized, is not enough. Peru has already seen cases where industrial fishing has occurred in protected reserves despite legal prohibitions—he cited the Nazca Ridge National Reserve as an example of enforcement failure. Without adequate oversight and genuine compliance monitoring by government authorities, judicial decisions remain merely words on paper. The real work of protection, he argued, falls to the agencies responsible for enforcing the law and ensuring that Peru's marine wealth continues to benefit the people who depend on it.
Citações Notáveis
Industrial fishing must be prohibited in protected areas because of the impacts this activity can have on ecosystems. The fishing sector wants not just the open ocean but also the few zones where biodiversity is protected.— Carlos Ipenza, environmental lawyer
This decision alone does not guarantee the protection of protected areas or the marine species living there. Authorities must enforce the law and ensure these resources remain for the benefit of local populations.— Carlos Ipenza, environmental lawyer
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the fishing industry think it had a case here? The ban had been in place for over twenty years.
Because the law technically allows resource extraction in protected areas under certain conditions. They argued those conditions could include industrial operations, and that the blanket prohibition was too broad. It was a narrow legal argument, but in a country where fishing is economically important, it was worth trying.
And the court disagreed entirely?
Not just disagreed—said the two things are fundamentally incompatible. Industrial fishing and ecosystem protection cannot happen in the same place. The court was quite clear about that.
So this is the end of it?
Legally, yes. There are no more appeals. But the lawyer I spoke with pointed out that the real test comes now—whether the government actually enforces what the court has decided. They've already found cases where industrial fishing happened in protected reserves anyway.
So the ruling is only as strong as the enforcement?
Exactly. A piece of paper doesn't stop a boat. You need inspectors, penalties that matter, and political will to actually say no when someone with money wants to fish.