Battle for the future of the Pacific tuna fishery
Is the huge amount of money being made by the tuna industry in the Pacific a disincentive to getting distant water fishing nations to agree to aggressive conservation measures that ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery? It appears so.
The tuna catch in the Pacific set a record in 2012, both in value — US$7 billion — and in volume — 2.65 million tons. But scientists have warned for several years that bigeye tuna is being overfished and yellowfin tuna is at its maximum level of sustainable exploitation. The message is clear: reductions in effort, meaning fewer boats, and cutbacks in tonnage caught must be implemented to ensure the Pacific’s tuna fishery remains vibrant for years to come.
Next week Monday, December 2, the annual meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) opens in Cairns, Australia and by all expectations, it will a showdown between island members of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and some distant water fishing nations.
According to FFA Deputy Director Wez Norris, since earlier in the year when Japan, the Philippines and the eight island members of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) endorsed a joint conservation proposal to be put to the WCPFC meeting next week, positions on catch reductions and conservation measures have ‘polarized and have moved apart.’ This 10-nation ‘joint proposal’ is a ‘viable way for the WCPFC to achieve substantial reductions in bigeye over-fishing in a way that does not shoulder a disproportionate burden onto small island developing states (SIDS) and sets up avenues for more equitable fisheries management in the long term,’ Norris points out. ’All FFA members have agreed to support the proposal as a way forward so there is a high degree of agreement going into the meeting.’
The problem, however, is substantial opposition from a number of the developed nation members of the WCPFC. The WCPFC has 25 members, including the European Union as a group, and operates by consensus. Those countries opposing the joint measure from PNA, Japan and Philippines are among the primary beneficiaries of the bigeye fishery but want management measures that will minimize impact on their longline fleets while placing additional conservation burdens on fisheries that occur in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of Pacific nations.
For example, FFA members have been calling for additional longline management for several years. There has been opposition from the major fleets that this management would apply to, and a strong tendency for them to push the onus of bigeye conservation onto the purse seine fishery. Norris makes the point that while ‘it is unquestionable that the purse seine fishery must contribute to conservation, it simply cannot do so alone.’ He also points out that FFA members are flexible, but want to see alternative proposals for action if theirs are not supported by the distant water fleet.
‘For the current proposal to have any prospect for agreement, there will need to be a genuine spirit of compromise and negotiation,’ says Norris. ’FFA members will be looking to other developed countries to follow the lead that Japan has set in moving away from traditional positions and seeking arrangements that will work.’ But with world market tuna prices over US$2,000 a ton in 2013 — more than double what they were just several years ago — there is more pressure than ever on tuna stocks by the fishing industry.
The joint tuna conservation proposal focuses on bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Recommendations on the table next week include reducing the catch of bigeye by longliners by 45 percent of 2004 levels by 2017, and for skipjack, to expand an annual ban on use of fish aggregation devices (FADs) by purse seiners from the current three months to four months starting in 2014 and to five months beginning in 2017. In addition to conservation measures in the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of PNA nations, it seeks to cap the number of fishing days allowed annually on the high seas.
Executive Director of the WCPFC Glenn Hurry warned Forum island leaders in September about the urgent need for fisheries management action. Despite scientific evidence that bigeye tuna is being over-fished, Hurry said the WCPFC has been unable to get agreement from its membership to reduce bigeye catches. Hurry said the number of vessels fishing for tuna continue to increase in the Pacific, with last year’s 297 purse seiners setting an all-time high — and more are being built. The increasing number of vessels will ‘cause sustainability problems in the fishery,’ he said. ‘What we now see from the 2012 fishing data is more boats in the fishery, higher overall catches, smaller fish sizes, and the lowest ever levels of fisheries biomass for these tuna stocks.’
Marshall Islands fisheries Director Glen Joseph told me the situation is worse even than Hurry’s comments suggest. ‘It’s not just bigeye tuna raising concern,’ he said. ‘Swordfish catches are raising a red flag.’ And yellowfin tuna is reported by scientists to be at its maximum sustainable yield. ‘If distant water fishing nations support sustainability of the resource, then they need to commit to a 30 percent reduction in catches,’ Joseph said. ‘It’s not a question of should they do it or not. They have to do it or face the consequences.’
Some observers see a disturbing trend at recent WCPFC annual meetings with the focus of discussions shifting from the high seas, which the Commission was established to manage, to in-zone, which is the jurisdiction of the individual FFA members. Joseph says this has derailed urgently needed implementation of fishing rules on the high seas — the area that is under jurisdiction of the WCPFC. ‘There has been a major effort at conservation and management in-zone,’ said Joseph. ‘But less so on the high seas.’
In-zone measures, such as those put forward by PNA, often get the most debate at WCPFC meetings because the islands are actively working to conserve the resource. ‘But the Commission should be focused on the high seas and it starts from the provision of catch and effort data,’ Joseph said, adding that for seven year most of the distant water fishing nations have not delivered on a promise to provide catch data from high seas fishing. ‘Coastal states are trying to comply (with WCPFC rules). We’re developing monitoring, control and surveillance measures to enforce rules, we are participating in the regional observer program, and we are providing catch and effort data.’
But, said Joseph, the islands’ management measures ‘become the subject of scrutiny and debate at Commission meetings and the high seas gets left off the agenda.’
As this year’s annual WCPFC meeting approaches, Joseph said PNA and coastal states ‘have to be optimistic (about the Commission taking action) because we have something on the table. We have to capitalize on it. If our measure is rejected, it will be a rejection by distant water fishing nations of coastal states’ interests and a breach of the WCPFC treaty’s Article 30 (which requires the WCPFC to ‘give full recognition to the special requirements of developing states parties to this Convention, in particular small island developing states’).’
Norris notes that an agreement ‘is certainly possible and the proposal on the table provides an excellent platform for discussion. But it requires all members to act positively, proactively, cooperatively and with a long-term view.’
There is precedent for WCPFC to affirm conservation measures. In 2008, PNA members agreed to enforce a series of measures for their own EEZs — three-month moratorium on using fish aggregation devices (FADs) annually, a halt to fishing in high seas ‘pockets’ as a license requirement to fish in EEZs, use of a new ‘vessel day scheme’ — and then took these to the WCPFC. Norris explains that the WCPFC ‘did the right thing and introduced compatible measures in other areas and complemented that with longline management. It was an excellent outcome and one that sadly did not get the praise it deserved.’
But what started out as a strong set of measures supporting sustainable fishing has been revised twice by WCPFC membership since 2008 such that the balance has shifted away from the interests of many FFA members. ‘High seas management has been substantially weakened, control and authority of purse seine measures have been vested in flag states, even when operating in EEZs, closures have been removed and there has been no additional longline management,’ said Norris. ’Time is running short for the WCPFC as a whole to demonstrate that it is capable of breaking new ground, as it did in 2008 and finalizing an agreement that will last more than 12 months.’
Failure on the part of the WCPFC to adopt strong conservation measures that include a reduction in tuna catches will simply embolden the islands to adopt their own measures that will cover the majority of the fishery. A lack of action by the WCPFC next week will undermine its role as a credible regional fisheries management organization, particularly if island nations see they cannot get collaborative action from distant water fishing nations to support sustainability of the resource.
Commission Executive Director Hurry issued an ultimatum recently. All Commission members, including Forum islands, ‘must demonstrate this year that they are capable of taking hard decisions for the management of the region’s tuna stocks,’ Hurry said. ‘These decisions will mean reduced levels of catch for bigeye tuna, it will mean agreeing to management arrangements for the catch of yellowfin and skipjack tuna, and it will mean capping and reducing the number of vessels in the fishery.’
‘If we as coastal nations want to sustain the resource for the next 50 years,’ said Joseph, ‘we must insist on a 30 percent reduction in effort and mortality by key tuna species of concern.’
These are decisions that can no longer be delayed, but whether the WCPFC annual meeting next week can reach agreement is far from guaranteed as the member countries prepare to meet.
