No doubt about it: bigeye tuna are in trouble in the central and western Pacific Ocean. Targeted by longliners when they are adult, trapped in purse seine nets when they are young, bigeye are in a steep decline, with fisheries scientists agreeing that their numbers are heading into the dreaded \u201cred\u201d zone of management charts \u2013 where the amount of fish caught annually exceeds the species\u2019 ability to rebound.<\/p>\n
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is the international organization charged with regulating fishing for bigeye and other highly migratory fish species throughout the region. But its six-day meeting in Honolulu last month concluded without any significant action to stave off further harm to bigeye populations.<\/p>\n
Several measures were proposed, any one of which would have probably had a positive impact on the conservation of bigeye:<\/p>\n
\u2022Japan wanted to put a moratorium on any increase in fishing capacity, on the theory that a ban on new purse seiners would cap effort at current levels. That failed.<\/p>\n
\u2022A coalition of eight island states representing the bulk of the territorial seas fished by the purse seiners proposed hat the commission ban purse seining on some 4.5 million square miles of equatorial open ocean in the eastern part of the commission\u2019s jurisdiction. Again, that failed to win the commission\u2019s support.<\/p>\n
\u2022The European Union wanted to impose a three-month ban on fishing by purse seiners and the larger longline fleets. Once more, the measure failed.<\/p>\n
Many of the arguments against further conservation measures relied on claims that the commission\u2019s efforts in 2008 to address overfishing of bigeye and, to a lesser degree, yellowfin tuna in a comprehensive conservation and management measure (CMM 2008-01) had not run their course. To achieve the 30 percent reduction in the catch of bigeye that scientists said was the minimum needed to restore stocks to health, CMM 2008-01 called generally for limiting purse seine effort through a variety of measures (including restricted fishing days, restricted fishing on fish aggregating devices, or FADs, and closure of western high seas pockets, among them) and cuts of 10 percent a year for three years in the longline catch of bigeye from a baseline calculated from catch levels in the first half of the decade.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As sound as the arguments against further conservation efforts may have been, there was no arguing with the conclusions of the commission\u2019s scientific committee: \u201cEven if fully implemented and complied with,\u201d it found, \u201cCMM-2008-01 is extremely unlikely to achieve its most important objective: reducing fishing mortality on the [Western and Central Pacific Ocean] bigeye tuna stock\u201d by 30 percent from the baseline levels.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
The Political Economy of Tuna<\/b><\/p>\n
In 2009, the region under the WCPFC\u2019s jurisdiction was the source of 2.5 million metric tons of tuna into the world market, accounting for 58 percent of the global tuna catch. More than three quarters of this was caught by purse seiners, and most of the catch consisted of skipjack tuna. Longliners (including those in Hawai`i) accounted for 9 percent of the total.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
While the purse seiners target skipjack, they also catch yellowfin tuna and juvenile bigeye, which tend to join skipjack schools that collect around large floating objects. These can be natural (logs, large whale sharks, cetaceans) or manmade (fish aggregating devices, buoys, or navigational guides).<\/p>\n
Therein lies the heart of the bigeye problem. The growing haul of tuna by purse seiners includes large numbers of juvenile bigeye. While bigeye account for around 5 percent (about 120,000 metric tons) of the total volume of tuna caught in the WCPFC area, this represents a huge increase over the proportion of bigeye taken thirty years ago, when the catch of bigeye was virtually nil. In recent years, with the increasing use of FADs, the purse seiners have taken almost as much bigeye (by weight) as the longliners, with practically all of that being juvenile fish. Even though total bigeye catch in 2009 actually fell to the lowest level since 2003 (attributed to a drop in longline catch), the fishing effort still exceeds the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the bigeye by more than 60 percent.<\/p>\n
Much of the growth in purse seining activity has been fueled by industrialized nations, represented in the WCPFC by Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, with China, the United States, and the European Union participating to a lesser extent. To create a groundwork for a more equitable distribution of economic benefit from the exploited fish stocks, the founding documents of the WCPFC give deference to the economic needs of the so-called small island developing states (SIDS). In CMM 2008-01, for example, the same limits on fishing activity imposed on the developed nations\u2019 fleets do not apply to the SIDS, leaving them free to order large new purse seiners, often with financial help from foreign fishing interests.<\/p>\n
To maximize their income, the South Pacific island states sell access to their Exclusive Economic Zones, or EEZs. Purse seiners fishing under these arrangements usually receive an allotment of so-called vessel days (days in which a vessel can fish inside the EEZ of the island state). The South Pacific states thus have an economic interest in pushing effort into their EEZs and out of the high seas. (The United States, which separately has a treaty arrangement with South Pacific states, is not bound by the vessel-day scheme. According to a report by the eight island states that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement, however, U.S. purse seiners fished about 7,500 vessel days in the PNA area in 2009.) Last year, amid concerns that the vessel-day scheme was allowing too many unused days to carry over from one year to the next, the PNA set a hard cap on vessel days of 28,469 per year and bans further carry-over.<\/p>\n
The vessel-day scheme, however, does little to reduce the take of bigeye tuna by purse seiners. To accomplish that, the commission has embraced an approach that bans setting on FADs for two months. Purse seiners can continue fishing, but they must avoid setting on FADs, which in theory means that fewer juvenile bigeye will be caught in their nets. In practice, this has been difficult to enforce.<\/p>\n
By the time the commission meeting closed, members were still unable to agree on any measure to bring about reductions in bigeye take. All they were able to accept was a plan on how to proceed with revisions to CMM 2008-01 over the next year while urging members to adopt voluntary measures to mitigate \u201cthe impact of their fishing activities on the sustainability of bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna.\u201d<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
The Japanese Gambit<\/b><\/p>\n
Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal to address the crisis in bigeye was that of the Japanese, calling for a cap on the capacity of purse seiners operating in the area under WCPFC jurisdiction. In a formal proposal submitted in November to the commission, Japan called for member nations to \u201censure that the level of purse seine fishing capacity in the number of their flagged vessel fishing on the high seas does not increase from the current level, and to ensure that the level of purse seine fishing effort in days fished on the high seas does not increase\u201d beyond either the level that existed in 2004 or the average level from years 2001-2004.<\/p>\n
The proposal also called on the island states whose EEZs make up the bulk of the seas fished by the purse seiners \u2013 the so-called coastal states \u2013 to make sure that the number of purse seiners within their EEZs would remain at current levels.<\/p>\n
At the outset of the meeting, however, Masanori Miyahara, head of the Japanese delegation, simplified his country\u2019s proposal to where it was a one sentence, imposing a cap on purse seine vessels in the region. Miyahara noted that purse seine effort had expanded 30 to 40 percent over the last three years, and that if nothing were done in the coming yea
\nr, the situation of tuna stocks would be far more difficult to deal with at the next WCPFC meeting.<\/p>\n
China\u2019s head of delegation, Liu Xiaobing, said that while China respects the \u201cdevelopment aspirations of small island countries,\u2026 if there\u2019s no controlled growth of purse seiners, it creates huge problems. \u201c He noted that his government has recently been receiving reports from its industry of governments in the PNA placing orders for new purse seine vessels. \u201cSo we feel puzzled,\u201d he said. \u201cAccording to the WCPFC rules, we cannot block such applications.\u201d On the other hand, if the vessels \u2013 \u201c$20 million each,\u201d he noted \u2013 start fishing in this area, \u201cthere will be a huge amount of catch\u2026. So we strongly urge this organization to form guidelines for this development.\u201d<\/p>\n
Roberto Cesari, head of the European Union delegation, supported the freeze, as did the United States and France.<\/p>\n
Tim Adams, head of the delegation from Nauru, objected. \u201cNauru is not in favor of capacity limits if this is just a return to the past,\u201d he said. Controlling effort, on the other hand \u2013 as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement attempt to do through the vessel-day scheme \u2013 allows coastal states \u201cmore control over who fishes in our waters, he noted. \u201cWe\u2019re not against capacity management as such, but just against turning back the clock.\u201d If any scheme to limit capacity is adopted, he said, \u201cit should not limit the right of coastal states to choose which vessels are in our waters.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cesari replied by intimating that if limits weren\u2019t put into place, the European Union could sanction tuna products from the region. \u201cWe have some doubts, as the European Union, on some of the effectiveness of elements now in force. We are worried that, as a market state, we don\u2019t think that we are fulfilling our responsibilities in terms of conservation\u2026 We have the responsibility to look at what kind of products are getting to our market.\u201d Referring to European limits on swordfish fishing, Cesari noted that what was done there was to cap the number of vessels, \u201cand that species is not in as much danger as tropical tunas. I don\u2019t understand why we should not take the same action on more endangered stocks.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adams agreed that the problem of capacity needed to be addressed, and that Nauru was committed \u201cto halting or even reversing the expansion of purse seiners in this region. We just don\u2019t feel it should be frozen in its current balance, in a form where most vessels are in foreign hands.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chair Satya Nandan weighed in on the topic as well: \u201cI\u2019ve been for some time hearing that there were at least 40 more purse seiners being built. They were all going to be larger than ones we have at the moment\u2026 This is a very serious thing. It does address, affect the credibility of this organization. We take decisions, but don\u2019t implement them. Everyone goes back and it\u2019s business as usual in terms of catches. Let\u2019s admit it. We have failed in the first step we took toward the reduction of catch. Miserably failed. It was touted very widely that we have taken this very important step, cut 30 percent over three years, and I regret to say that we\u2019ve failed\u2026. We have too many boats chasing too few fish.\u201d<\/p>\n
Addressing concerns of the SIDS, he added that any measure to cap capacity has to include a provision that allows capacity to be transferred to the developing countries. \u201cAt the moment, the distant water fishing nations are taking the fish, and there\u2019s very limited capacity for the developing countries, but there has to be a serious effort made to transfer capacity.\u201d He urged delegates to work out a compromise and bring it back for consideration the following day.<\/p>\n
Glen Joseph, head of the Marshall Islands delegation, said that this might be a problem. \u201cWe may find ourselves in a bit of a compromised situation here,\u201d he said, \u201cespecially when we have two vessels in Chinese Taipei to be built and two more in China\u2026 So if I agree with you, I would probably find myself locked out\u201d of home on his return to Majuro.<\/p>\n
China\u2019s Liu Xiaobing affirmed the Marshalls\u2019 order for two vessels, but added: \u201cWe need transparency. We need for all PNA countries [to] let us know what your plan is\u2026 We are very worried about \u2026 maybe more than 100 purse seiners will be constructed.\u201d As concerned as his government was about the protection of highly migratory species, he said, he was \u201calso talking about the security of the investment. We should insure that Chinese investment is secure, so new purse seine vessels built by us will be accepted.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Close the Bus!<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The next day, which was also the last, Japan again tried to push for adoption of its proposed freeze on purse seine vessels. \u201cAs I mentioned again and again,\u201d Miyahara said, \u201cwe have to take this measure. Otherwise the situation will be much worse, uncontrollable next year\u2026. If we don\u2019t take any action this year, it will be the shame of this commission. Last year, we didn\u2019t take any measure, any effective measure to control fishing effort by purse seiners. And effort increased 40 percent and is still growing at a rapid pace. Stocks are getting worse and worse.\u201d<\/p>\n
Papua New Guinea threw the matter back into the laps of the industrialized countries. \u201cCapacity is a contentious issue. The distant water fishing nations must also tell this commission how they\u2019re going to reduce their existing capacity,\u201d the representative of the delegation stated. Japan\u2019s proposal, he said, \u201ccalls into doubt the commitment of FFA members to long-term conservation.\u201d (The South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency consists of nearly all South Pacific states within the WCPFC area of jurisdiction.) \u201cFFA members face the fact every day that without sustainable fisheries, our economies cannot develop and our people cannot enjoy better standards of living\u2026 We are growing tired of having to continually defend rights that we have under international law and [Conservation and Management Measure] 2008-01. We are tired of having to defend ourselves against \u2026 others who have already depleted our resources and \u2026 infringed on our sovereignty.\u201d<\/p>\n
Japan wasn\u2019t buying it. \u201cI think we have to do something now,\u201d Miyahara said. \u201cWe are not saying we should interfere with any coastal state\u2026 It is coastal states, definitely, who decide who should fish and how much\u2026 That\u2019s something you can do\u2026 If you want to increase your fleet, then you have to exclude distant water fishing nations from your zone. That\u2019s fine. But you have to show your strong will to control your fishery. This is a too-crowded bus. Passengers are coming and coming and coming, and nobody is getting off. It is you who decide who should get off\u2026 Please, we already have too many boats.\u201d<\/p>\n
The New Zealand head of delegation, Matthew Hooper, stated that FFA members had met to discuss the Japan proposal but, \u201cafter some careful consideration, FFA members were not able to find a basis for support.\u201d However, he added, \u201cI think FFA members really want to emphasize that\u2026 we are certainly interested in further limiting capacity to complement and support the vessel-day scheme.\u201d To Miyahara, he indicated a willingness to meet later in the day to see what could be achieved before the meeting closed, but the Marshall Islands representative was firm. \u201cThis is the last day and we have other important issues,\u201d said the Marshall Islands\u2019 Joseph. \u201cAlthough this is very important, we\u2019re not prepared to deal with it any further.\u201d The Solomon Islands and Kiribati delegations joined in the sentiment.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not making headway,\u201d said Nandan. \u201cThe proposal is to postpone it until next session. That\u2019s where we are.\u201d<\/p>\n
Miyahara expressed his thanks for the \u201ccandid statements\u201d of the Pacific islanders. \u201cIf this is the case,\u201d he added, \u201cyou have to accept the near future consequences from the northern zone. We cannot accept products coming from this region as sustainable produc
\nts any more. So you have to take the consequences. It\u2019s a very very hard thing to see this meeting show the incompetence of this organization\u2026. That is very disappointing.\u201d<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
High Seas Closure Is Nixed<\/b><\/p>\n
Last year, the eight island states forming the Parties to the Nauru Agreement agreed that, as a condition of receiving a license to fish in their exclusive economic zones, purse seine vessels would be required to avoid fishing in some 4.5 million square miles of equatorial open ocean in the eastern part of the area under WCPFC jurisdiction. It then proposed that the full commission extend the ban to vessels belonging to all parties to the WCPFC.<\/p>\n
Because of the U.S. tuna treaty, however, the PNA measure does not apply to the 36 U.S.-flagged purse seiners fishing in the Western Pacific.<\/p>\n
The European Union had no objection to the PNA requirement. \u201cWe don\u2019t contest your right to take your measure,\u201d Cesari said. But he went on to express some skepticism about the conservation value. \u201cWe have already seen there\u2019s not a big value in a high seas pocket closure,\u201d he said. Effort doesn\u2019t disappear, he said, it simply shifts. The closure by WCPFC of two high seas pockets in the Western Pacific had not yet been shown to have any impact, he said.<\/p>\n
Charles Karnella, head of the U.S. delegation, voiced a similar position. \u201cWe\u2019re most interested to hear about \u2026 the scientific justification,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The PNA proposal did not gain much traction at the meeting, even though some conservation groups \u2013 most notably Greenpeace \u2013 advocated strongly for its adoption.<\/p>\n
What the commission did agree to was a proposal to beef up controls over a much smaller 45,000-square-mile high seas pocket surrounded by the territorial waters of Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and Kiribati. The Cook Islands delegation stated that the area was a zone where illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing was occurring, with frequent incursions into territorial waters and transshipment of catches. \u201cThis suggests to us that catches are being misrepresented,\u201d the head of the delegation stated. \u201cAside from the illegality of this issue, it undermines the science the commission is required to provide for sustainable management measures.\u201d<\/p>\n
Korea and Chinese Taipei were alone in their objections, but eventually an agreement was worked out. The member countries are to adopt regulations implementing the new controls by July 1 of this year.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Little Support for Three-Month Moratorium<\/b><\/p>\n
Roberto Cesari argued in favor of the European Union\u2019s proposal to close off most WCPFC waters to all fishing by purse seiners and most by longliners for a full three months. CMM 2008-01, he noted, has not been \u201cparticularly effective. \u2026 What we have in place now doesn\u2019t work. We saw that when you close an area, the effort shifts. You close another area, and the effort shifts again.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The beauty of the EU proposal, he said, lies in the fact that it will have \u201ccertain and sure results, with transparency, and the possibility to monitor clearly what is happening.\u201d<\/p>\n
Once more, South Pacific island states objected. The Solomon Islands delegation noted that a total closure, instead of merely the existing two-month ban on FAD sets, \u201cinvolves substantial losses to purse seine fleets,\u201d including domestic vessels. This, he added, \u201cundermines the sovereign rights of coastal states.\u201d What\u2019s more, he said, the FAD closure is more targeted to addressing bigeye overfishing than is an outright ban on fishing.<\/p>\n
Nauru\u2019s Tim Adams agreed, adding that the closure would also disrupt operations of canneries. However, Adams said, the PNA might be agreeable to a closure on the high seas coinciding with the two-month FAD ban. \u201cIf you think there is too much purse seine effort,\u201d he told Cesari, \u201cthen tie up your boats.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cesari could not let that pass. \u201cIf someone thinks the E.U. has too many vessels on the grounds, \u2026 maybe there\u2019s too many fish in our market coming from this area. It\u2019s not exactly well managed in a sustainable way\u2026 It is in the interests of market states to get sustainable fish on our markets,\u201d he said. He noted that the E.U. had been cooperating with many of the island nations in this and other areas, \u201cquite successfully. But, obviously, there is an evaluation that has to be done in Brussels about how the areas are being managed for conservation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Japan was sympathetic, but could not go along with the E.U. option. \u201cIf we close for three months,\u201d he said, \u201csome fishing fleets can move from west to east to continue fishing activities and then catch the same stock.\u201d Instead, he said, \u201cJapan would like to see establishment of catch limits\u2026 for purse seiners. This is the only assured way of reducing the actual catch.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seeing no resolution, Nandan again put the proposal off to next year.\u00a0<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Whale Sharks, Cetaceans Await Protection<\/b><\/p>\n
Australia proposed a measure that would ban the deliberate encirclement of cetaceans by purse seiners. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, on behalf of South Pacific members of the Forum Fisheries Agency, proposed banning sets on whale sharks. Neither measure won approval.<\/p>\n
Japan strongly objected to both measures. During the discussion of the cetacean proposal, Miyahara put forth his country\u2019s position: \u201cThe cetacean is kind of a sensitive issue for Japanese government. We have lots of concerned people\u2026. We don\u2019t take whales in purse seine fishery. We will do every effort to release the whales alive, unhurt, and that is the purpose of the Japanese fishermen and rules of Japanese government. Please give us time.\u201d<\/p>\n
China objected as well, with the head of its delegation wanting to defer this to the International Whaling Commission. \u201cOur position,\u201d he said, \u201cis [that] we don\u2019t talk about any issue relating to cetaceans. Sorry, we cannot accept this proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n
Among the Asian nations, Korea alone spoke in support, joining the United States and all the South Pacific states.<\/p>\n
But no vote was taken on the measure. Instead, Nandan noted that this was a situation \u201cwhere there is some opposition to continuing with this item today.\u201d He deferred it until the next commission meeting, in December 2011.<\/p>\n
The proposal to ban purse seine sets on whale sharks was opposed by all six Asian nations: Japan, China, Chinese Taipei (as Taiwan is called in the WCPFC), Korea, Philippines, and Indonesia. Speaking on behalf of the bloc, Miyahara noted that they could support it only if the first four paragraphs of the measure were deleted, effectively gutting the measure.<\/p>\n
South Pacific states expressed their strong support for the whale shark set ban, which had already been adopted in September by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement for purse seiners in their EEZs. The head of the delegation from the Republic of the Marshall Islands requested that a photograph of a whale shark hauled up with a purse seine net be shown on the large screens surrounding the meeting hall. That, however, failed to sway the Asian bloc.<\/p>\n
Once again, the chairman punted: \u201cI see no movement on this. Let\u2019s leave it on the table. It can be picked up next session.\u201d<\/p>\n
Patricia Tummons<\/b><\/p>\n
Volume 21, Number 7 — January 2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
No doubt about it: bigeye tuna are in trouble in the central and western Pacific Ocean. Targeted by longliners when they are adult, trapped in purse seine nets when they are young, bigeye are in a steep decline, with fisheries … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-january-2011"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/747","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=747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}