At the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission (WCPFC) meeting last month in Apia, Samoa, the griping was constant and everywhere. In the hallways, at lunch tables, during tea breaks, on the shuttle rides back to hotels \u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cThe name should be changed to Western and Central Pacific Money Games<\/i>,\u201d one distraught attendee was heard saying to another. Indeed, the general unwillingness of commission members to suffer any more economic losses from measures aimed at conserving bigeye tuna stocks repeatedly halted negotiations throughout the week.<\/p>\n
By the meeting\u2019s close, the commission had passed not a single measure to reduce catches of bigeye tuna, a stock whose spawning biomass is now reported to be just 16 percent of its original, un-fished level. What\u2019s more, the commission also failed to adopt a measure to reduce any disproportionate burden its current tropical tuna conservation and management measure, CMM 2013-01, has on small island developing states (SIDS). That means a planned five-month closure of purse seine fishing around fish aggregating devices (FADS) in waters surrounding commission member countries will not go into effect this year or the next.<\/p>\n
And without the five-month FAD closure, CMM 2013-01 will fail to return bigeye spawning capacity to anything approaching a sustainable level and the stock will continue to decline, according to scientific modeling done for the commission.<\/p>\n
At the meeting\u2019s close, incoming commission chair Rhea Moss-Christian lamented the lack of progress that had been made. (Moss-Christian took over the meeting in the middle of the last day because outgoing chair Charles Karnella had scheduled an early flight home.)<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is unfortunate we are on the last day and we haven\u2019t resolved a lot of issues,\u201d she said before suggesting that commission members try to reach some middle ground before the commission meets again at the end of the year in Bali, Indonesia.<\/p>\n
She said addressing the tropical tuna issue was really the commission\u2019s main task.<\/p>\n
\u201cI note there is a measure of disappointment and\u201d \u2014 for those hoping to avoid greater quota cuts \u2014 \u201cmild satisfaction. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s something the commission should feel comfortable with,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Bubba Cook of the World Wildlife Fund, speaking on behalf of his organization, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and Greenpeace, had harsher words.<\/p>\n
Commission members cannot continue to engage in intractable posturing, he said, pointing out that they had also failed to reach agreement on proposed measures to increase protections for Pacific albacore, to improve the commission\u2019s compliance system, or to establish a harvest regime that would eventually include stock-specific target reference points triggering certain actions if they were exceeded.<\/p>\n
The harvest regime proposal was merely \u201ca plan to develop a plan,\u201d but even that appeared to be too much of a commitment for some members, he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we can\u2019t agree on something that simple, maybe there is no hope in the process,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Although the commission did manage to approve a measure to increase protections for severely overfished Pacific bluefin tuna, Cook took issue with one member state (the United States), which had pointed to that as an accomplishment.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s really hard to call that a success,\u201d Cook said. If it takes driving a stock down to four percent of its original spawning biomass for the commission to act, maybe it should suspend further meetings and wait until other stocks reach a critical state, so as to force the commission to do something, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cUntil then, we continue to waste everyone\u2019s time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Potential for Success<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Last year, when the commission\u2019s scientific committee released its assessment suggesting that the Western and Central Pacific bigeye tuna stock had likely become overfished, several conservation groups called for strong and swift action to be taken at the commission\u2019s December meeting.<\/p>\n
Greenpeace called for a ban on all FAD fishing, a reduction in both longline and purse seine quotas, and the closure to tuna fishing of all high seas pockets, among other things. (The high seas pockets are areas of international water completely surrounded by territorial waters.) The Pew Charitable Trusts focused more on CMM 2013-01\u2019s ineffective FAD closure requirement. Despite the required four-month FAD closure last year, purse seine catches of bigeye reached an all-time high. Pew suggested that the commission replace the FAD closure provisions with FAD set limits that, according to scientific advice, would reduce fishing mortality by 36 percent compared to 2008-2011 average levels.<\/p>\n
But by the time the commission met in December, it had received only a single proposal to amend CMM 2013-01. A group of eight commission member countries called the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, or PNA, had submitted a joint proposal with Tokelau that called for a broad range of management measures, including a limit on the number of FADS that can be deployed annually and a ban on night-setting during months when FADS are not to be used.<\/p>\n
When it came time to discuss amending CMM 2013-01, the United States and the European Union both argued that since it was adopted just a year ago, more time should be allowed to see if it will effectively reduce fishing mortality.<\/p>\n
A month before the commission meeting, its scientific committee issued a paper exploring the likelihood that CMM 2013-01, unamended, would increase bigeye spawning biomass to an acceptable level. In short, the committee found that maybe the measure could succeed, but it couldn\u2019t say for sure.<\/p>\n
One of the main problems with assessing the measure is that its \u201c \u2018either\/or\u2019 choices, exemptions, or exclusions and decisions yet to be made\u201d make it impossible to predict future levels of purse seine effort and longline catch, the committee states.<\/p>\n
For example, when it comes to purse seine fishing on FADS, countries have a choice of increasing the number of months vessels can\u2019t fish on FADS or reducing the number of FAD sets they make.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are a number of outcomes in terms of actual future catch-and-effort levels. We have made hopefully sensible assumptions, but there is obviously no certainty that they are correct,\u201d the committee states.<\/p>\n
Still, the committee report offers some hope: Based on recruitment rates from the past few years, CMM 2013-01 could potentially reduce the risk of overfishing bigeye to an \u201cacceptable\u201d four percent. At the WCPFC meeting, committee scientist John Hampton clarified that this scenario assumed that by the end of 2017, the five-month FAD closure predicted in CMM 2013-01 would be in effect.<\/p>\n
Disproportionate Burden<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The problem with pinning the success of CMM 2013-01 on the five-month FAD closure is that the measure includes a loophole that could prevent the extension of FAD closures beyond four months. Basically, it states, if the commission fails to pass a measure addressing the disproportionate burden that SIDS are shouldering as a result of the provisions within CMM 2013-01, the five-month FAD closure won\u2019t happen. SIDS, many of whose economies rely heavily on the sale of fishing access rights to foreign purse seine vessels, have argued that CMM 2013-01\u2019s limits on FAD fishing by those vessels imposes an unfair economic burden.<\/p>\n
Although the commission had held a workshop ahead of the December meeting to try to address the disproportionate burden issue, it had clearly not been resolved, given some of the discussion within the small working group on tropical tunas.<\/p>\n
A report from the workshop noted that Tokelau, at least, suffers a loss of $400,000 a month for each month closed to FAD fishing. Even so, Russell Smith, head of the U.S. delegation, questioned whether enough information had been provided to quantify the actual burden on all SIDS.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe still haven\u2019t answered the fundamental questions of disproportionate burden: What are the benefits, costs, across all CCMs? Which of the SIDS get impacts? That has to be quantified, then we have to figure out how to alleviate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The European Union\u2019s Angela Martini added, \u201cDespite what is being said that it\u2019s so clear there is a disproportionate burden, I don\u2019t think we agree on that.\u201d<\/p>\n
She noted that despite the claimed economic impacts of FAD closures, some SIDS suffered no loss in the number of fishing days they sold and, in fact, the price of those days had gone up.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe price of a vessel day at the moment is so high, several parties are considering not buying those days. It has nothing to do with the [FAD] closure. \u2026 It\u2019s not like less days have been sold at less price. \u2026 The arguments put forward are not so straightforward in our opinion,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
She argued for the development of a methodology that assesses the actual burden SIDS endure as a result of CMMs, but discussions toward that end eventually led to a long, uncomfortable silence.<\/p>\n
In fact, all attempts in the tropical tuna small working group to clarify limits on fleet capacity, to address the disproportionate burden issue, or to refine longline and purse seine fishing measures ended in one long silence after another.<\/p>\n
Lackluster Effort<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The tropical tuna small working group met three times during the course of the five-day WCPFC meeting. As one U.S. delegate put it, there seemed to be no appetite in the room for compromise. With negotiations repeatedly hitting dead ends, outgoing chair Charles Karnella halted the working group\u2019s discussions on the second to last day of the meeting.<\/p>\n
Despite the apparent gridlock, though, some attendees believed more could have been achieved. If the commission had had two more days, then maybe more progress could have been made on tropical tunas, one delegate told Environment Hawaii. And he was not alone in thinking that at least some of the limited progress was due to insufficient effort. As the days ticked by, Karnella noted repeatedly during the plenary that the commission was running out of time to decide on a revised topical tuna measure, yet he did not convene a working group for that agenda item until the middle of the week. And in the group\u2019s three meetings, some attendees said, Karnella seemed less inclined to facilitate discussion and more apt to leave the situation deadlocked.<\/p>\n
On the final day, as some delegates started again pointing fingers at one another for the failure to adopt a new tuna measure, one of Japan\u2019s main negotiators suggested that the entire commission was at fault.<\/p>\n
\u201cLast year, we had a five-day meeting, but we started the discussion [on tunas] one day before the meeting and we continued the meeting on the last day. Compared to last year\u2019s effort, this year, how much effort have we allocated for this discussion? Maybe only one or two days,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not wise to criticize each other. It\u2019s our fault.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indeed, when Karnella asked on the last day whether it would be worth reconvening the tropical tuna working group, no one spoke up.<\/p>\n
A Bright Spot?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
In the end, the only significant changes to CMM 2013-01 dealt with the provision of operational catch-and-effort data by six Asian countries that have consistently cited domestic restrictions as their reason for providing only aggregated catch data. Without operational data, many have said the commission is unable to create robust stock assessments.<\/p>\n
Based on a proposal from the Forum Fisheries Agency (a consortium of Pacific island states), Japan, China, Taiwan (or Chinese Taipei), Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines all agreed to start providing operational data. However, the agreement came with several conditions: The data would only be provided for fishing in waters south of 20 degrees North, or roughly the same latitude as Hawai`i, and would not include catch by artisanal, small-scale vessels. Also, the commission would keep the data confidential.<\/p>\n
One of the more concerning conditions was one that gave a three-year grace period to any of the countries that had a \u201cpractical difficulty\u201d in providing 2015 operational data. Such countries would have to supply the information only after domestic constraints were lifted. Indonesia\u2019s \u201cgrace period\u201d would be indefinite.<\/p>\n
The EU\u2019s Martini asked how a three-year grace period would help, given that CMM 2013-01 expires in 2017.<\/p>\n
Japan\u2019s delegate said the condition was simply \u201cthe outcome of compromise of almost 22 members.\u201d He added that, actually, only very few countries will use the grace period.<\/p>\n
Smith of the U.S. delegation acknowledged the measure as a step forward on the data issue, but stressed that it was, unfortunately, a small one.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m hoping this is a temporary solution and we can continue to work to make the data provided \u2026 more robust and achieve this in a rapid fashion,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Martini added, \u201cTo say the added value of this is very limited is an understatement.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, she, along with the rest of the commission, supported the adoption of the measure.<\/p>\n
Sharks received a bit more protection under a new measure approved by the commission. More might have been achieved but for resistance from certain countries that wish to continue shark finning.<\/p>\n
The FFA had proposed in November a measure that would have required detailed catch reporting, compliance with international shark conservation measures, and the landing of sharks caught with their fins attached, among other things. However, after tough negotiations in small working groups at the WCPFC meeting, the FFA wound up putting forth a \u201cvery simplistic measure that would take us to the next level of the conservation of sharks in the Western and Central Pacific,\u201d said one delegate from Palau, an FFA member country.<\/p>\n
The scaled-back measure has two parts. First, it prohibits longline vessels from using certain types of branch lines and leaders. Second, for longline fisheries that target sharks, the measure requires commission members to develop management plans that include specific authorizations to fish, such as a license and a catch limit or other measure to keep shark catches to acceptable levels. The plans must also demonstrate how fisheries avoid catch and maximize live release of severely depleted shark species such as silky and oceanic whitetip sharks.<\/p>\n
All shark management plans must be ready for commission review and approval by its next meeting in December.<\/p>\n
Angela Martini, the delegate for the European Union, lamented the fact that the original measure had been stripped of its stronger provisions. The EU had itself proposed a lengthy shark conservation measure that also sought to reduce shark finning, but, after the small working group discussions, chose not to push it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were very much in favor of fins naturally attached. No exceptions,\u201d she said. \u201cWe support the adoption of this measure, but, once again, we express our disappointment with those countries that continue to oppose significant progress in the protection of shark species \u2026 especially particularly vulnerable sharks.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Not only does WCPFC seem unable to adopt measures that will adequately protect tuna stocks, most of its members seem incapable of complying with the measures that are passed.<\/p>\n
According to Alexa Cole, chair of the commission\u2019s Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC), only a handful of the more than three dozen commission members were deemed last year to be compliant: Canada, Mexico, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Tonga and Tokelau. The rest, including the United States, would have been considered non-compliant, but now there seems to be another category: un-assessed.<\/p>\n
At the WCPFC meeting, Japan, in particular, vehemently argued that it had complied with all of WCPFC\u2019s conservation measures. And because Japan simply refused to accept the commission assessment of it as non-compliant, the commission decided instead to consider it as merely \u201cun-assessed,\u201d thus allowing the commission to approve the TCC compliance report.<\/p>\n
That so few countries actually follow the commission\u2019s measures seemed to dishearten the Nauru delegation. One of its members suggested the commission should approach the rampant non- compliance issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe try to get these things done properly. \u2026 It seems to me now the other group is more popular. I might be joining them next year. \u2026 Why do we do this process?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
Many have attributed the lax attitude toward compliance to the lack of penalties. When the commission created its compliance scheme, it bifurcated the process by passing an assessment framework, but not a penalty system.<\/p>\n
The commission struggled to get a penalty scheme adopted at the December meeting, but it was difficult given that so many members have now been assessed as non-compliant.<\/p>\n
The compliance measure proposed by the commission\u2019s chair suggested that members determined to be high-priority non-compliant could face a loss of quota or access to data, among other things. In the end, the proposal failed.<\/p>\n
For more on WCPFC, read our January 2014 pieces, \u201cFor Another Year, Pacific Bigeye Tuna Go Without Strong International Protection,\u201d and \u201cAs Commission Dithers, Tuna Decline.\u201d (Editorial) <\/i><\/p>\n
Both and more are available on our website, www.environment-hawaii.org.<\/p>\n
\u2014Teresa Dawson<\/i><\/p>\n
Volume 25, Number 7 January 2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
At the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission (WCPFC) meeting last month in Apia, Samoa, the griping was constant and everywhere. In the hallways, at lunch tables, during tea breaks, on the shuttle rides back to hotels … “The … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6158,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[323],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-6126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-january-2015","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6126\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}