{"id":953,"date":"2014-08-29T00:14:15","date_gmt":"2014-08-29T00:14:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/EH\/?p=953"},"modified":"2015-01-29T19:35:28","modified_gmt":"2015-01-29T19:35:28","slug":"open-hostility-among-members-apparent-in-recent-wespac-meeting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=953","title":{"rendered":"Open Hostility Among Members Apparent in Recent Wespac Meeting"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which recommends management measures for fisheries in the U.S. waters of the western and central Pacific Ocean, is finding that as resources diminish, managing what remains is getting harder and harder.<\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

The discussions over several hot topics at the council\u2019s most recent meeting (June 28-July 1) often erupted in harsh exchanges.\u00a0Most times, the sparring occurred between Peter Young, a council member from Hawai`i whose positions are often at odds with the council majority, and Manny Duenas, council member from Guam. Duenas has become a favorite of council executive director Kitty Simonds, who often sends him to meetings around the world to represent the council\u2019s interests. His frequent rants \u2013 against purse seiners, against the U.S. military, against environmentalists, against the National Marine Fisheries Service \u2013 have become a feature of council meetings.<\/p>\n

Young, on the other hand, vainly attempted to rein in the council when its recommendations for fisheries management were viewed by him as exceeding what was prudent or supported by science. His lone partisan on the council was Laura Thielen, who has a seat at the table by virtue of her position as head of the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources.<\/p>\n

In the end, over Young\u2019s strenuous objections, the council voted to recommend no change in the total allowable catch for bottomfish in the coming catch year (starting September 1); to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to bless chartering arrangements in the territories that would allow them to assign part of their quotas for increasingly distressed bigeye tuna stocks to vessels based elsewhere in the United States; and to reiterate its strong objections to the inscription of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument on the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites.<\/p>\n

* * *
\nBottomfish<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sam Pooley, head of the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, began his presentation on bottomfish with an abject apology. \u201cOn behalf of the Division of Aquatic Resources and the National Marine Fisheries Service, I apologize to the council and to fishermen for basically mis-forecasting when the [bottomfish] fishery should be closed. We know this has an impact on the boats. Frankly, our staffs are pretty aghast. We made a mistake in data processing. We\u2019d like to say it will never happen again, but forecasting a [Total Allowable Catch] is always difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n

What Pooley was referring to was the closure of the 2009-2010 bottomfish season before fishers had reached the limit for the year. When the closure occurred (April 20), the actual catch stood at 208,412 pounds. With a TAC limit of 254,050 pounds, fishers were shorted roughly 46,000 pounds \u2013 about 18 percent.<\/p>\n

Pooley outlined several factors that contributed to the early closure. \u201cFirst, always, data reporting lags,\u201d he noted. \u201cFishermen are only required to report on a monthly basis, but we have to do projections [of future catches] on a weekly basis\u2026. Two, there are potential issues with forecasting itself. Nobody ever knows, including individual fishermen, who\u2019s going fishing when\u2026. We\u2019re trying to think ahead at least two weeks, sometimes a month, about what fishing will be like\u2026. So there\u2019s inherent problems\u2026 exacerbated by double-counting\u201d about 10,000 pounds of the catch.<\/p>\n

But, Pooley pointed out, there was \u201cone slight bit of good news\u201d resulting from under-shooting the target this year: total catch for the three years in which bottomfish TACs have been set now comes in a little bit under the target, offsetting the amount by which TACs were exceeded the first two years.<\/p>\n

The council\u2019s Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended that the TAC for 2010-2011 be set at 244,000 pounds \u2013 a level that would carry with it a 29 percent risk of overfishing in 2011. On the other hand, the council\u2019s Plan Team pushed for a TAC of 269,000 pounds, with a 49 percent risk of overfishing. (Overfishing occurs when fish are removed at a rate that jeopardizes the fishery\u2019s long-term productivity.)<\/p>\n

In the end, the council approved a motion that the TAC for bottomfish be set for 2010-2011 at the same level it was for the previous year: 254,050 pounds, with a 33 percent risk of overfishing. But before getting to the vote, an at-times heated exchange developed, sparked by a comment from Young.<\/p>\n

Young, arguing against the proposed TAC, raised the point that under the federal law governing fisheries management, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, councils are not allowed to approve of catch limits that exceed the recommendations of their Scientific and Statistical Committees, \u201cso if we approve this, we\u2019ll be violating the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fred Tucher, general counsel to the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, replied that this requirement applied to Annual Catch Limits, or ACLs. \u201cI want to point out that an ACL is not a TAC\u2026 They can be the same, but not necessarily so\u2026. What you have here is not an ACL.\u201d The difference is subtle: An ACL, which must be set by the Scientific and Statistical Committee following a rigorous protocol, will be used starting in 2011 to manage the fishery; councils may not exceed the ACL in setting catch limits. The SSC\u2019s recommendations on a TAC, on the other hand, is not developed in the same way.<\/p>\n

The following day, Young made a motion to rescind the decision. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, he said, places \u201ca precautionary obligation \u2026 on fishery councils to protect the resources, so a rogue council does not exceed the level [recommended by] its science advisors\u2026. I believe our obligations are clear and, at least to me, the intent of Congress is clear: Councils can\u2019t set fishing levels higher than the recommendations of our scientists. But that\u2019s what we did, and that\u2019s why I made the motion to rescind.\u201d<\/p>\n

A raucous discussion followed, with Duenas declaring his resentment of Young\u2019s \u201ccharacterization of this as a rogue council.\u201d<\/p>\n

As several members called for the question, Young explained that he said \u201cCongress was trying to protect against\u00a0a<\/i>\u00a0rogue council. I wasn\u2019t saying\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0was a rogue council.\u201d<\/p>\n

His efforts went down in flames. He and Thielen alone voted in favor of the motion. Eleven other council members opposed it.<\/p>\n

* * *
\nBigeye Tuna<\/b><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

As every island resident knows, from Thanksgiving to New Year\u2019s Day is peak season for ahi. Last year the longline fleet was dangerously close to reaching its quota for bigeye tuna, source of the choicest ahi sashimi, in the productive seas of the western Pacific right in the middle of the peak holiday market. The quota was reached just a couple of days before New Year\u2019s Eve, and the much feared ahi closure had no effect. On January 1, a new quota year began, and the pressure was off \u2013 for the next 11 months, at any rate.<\/p>\n

As of July 1, the Honolulu NMFS office estimated that 1,919 tons of bigeye had been caught against the annual quota of 3,763 metric tons set by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). If bigeye were to continue to be caught at the same rate in the second half of the year, the quota would be reached once more just days short of the new year. At present, NMFS is estimating the fishery will be shut down around December 1.<\/p>\n

But under federal rules for the bigeye fishery, it\u2019s unlikely the longline operators as a whole will face any meaningful limit on their catches for years to come. The rules, approved last December, allow the 11 vessels holding longline permits in both Hawai`i and American Samoa to land fish in Hawai`i that will not be counted against the Hawai`i quota, so long as the fish are caught outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around Hawai`i.<\/p>\n

Last October, the council recommended that the territorial limits for bigeye tuna be set at 2,000 metric tons each. At its most recent meeting, in recognition that none of the territories has the capacity to catch this volume of fish, it recommended that NMFS develop \u201cfederal domestic chartering permits or similar mechanisms to provide appropriate oversight\u201d of charter agreements between the territories and U.S.-flagged fleets. It also proposed a recommendation to NMFS that it set a limit of 750 metric tons on each territory\u2019s allocations of bigeye to charter vessels. This followed up on a council recommendation last year that charter vessels need to make only three landings a year in the territory \u2013 averaging 4 tons per landing \u2013 in order to qualify as being an \u201cintegral\u201d part in the development of the territory\u2019s own fishery. Even then, the three landings would be required only when the island territory\u2019s infrastructure permitted.<\/p>\n

Young objected. \u201cI question how anyone says how 12 metric tons [three landings] of a total of 2,000 metric tons is an integral part of the fishery. If anyone could explain it, that would be profound\u2026. Are you suggesting that this is consistent with the commission\u2019s action, saying that these charter agreements and the vessels are an integral part of the domestic fleet?\u201d<\/p>\n

That opened the door for Duenas. \u201cKnowing the three island fisheries, which you\u2019re not aware [of], Guam has had 30 years of transshipment [of landed fish]. \u2026 Guam has the infrastructure. Six flights a day to Japan, if not more,\u201d he said. As for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, he said, \u201cthey have a two-prop plane. They can\u2019t even handle their medical people\u2026 And don\u2019t expect a fresh longliner to unload in American Samoa unless there\u2019s a flight that week.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t put your two cents in something you\u2019re unaware about,\u201d Duenas scolded Young. \u201cYou\u2019d rather see purse seiners catch bigeye as juveniles \u2026 and freeze it at forty cents a pound than a bigeye that would be put on plane and shipped to Hawai`i or someplace else at four dollars a pound.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both motions passed, over Young\u2019s objections.<\/p>\n

Changes to the Fishing Year:<\/b><\/i>\u00a0To avoid the prospect of an ahi-free New Year\u2019s party, council staff looked closely at what effect changing the catch year might have. The same amount of tuna could be taken, but the start-end dates would not coincide with the calendar year. The analysis turned up some surprising results.<\/p>\n

If the longliners were to target bigeye in the Eastern Pacific as soon as they reached their quota of bigeye in the Western Pacific, they could realize a substantial increase in their revenue, of up to $7 million a year (for a catch year starting September 1). On the other hand, if the catch year began in June, the net effect would be a loss of $146,000.<\/p>\n

The number of days that the fleet would be closed out of the Western Pacific varied widely as well. The current arrangement \u2013 with the calendar year coinciding with the catch year \u2013 accounted for the fewest closure days (45). If the Eastern Pacific was fished during that same time, the total net loss in revenues was estimated at $1.725 million. The catch year that was most lucrative (the one beginning September 1) was also the one that had the most Western Pacific closure days: 99.<\/p>\n

The council made no recommendation on any change to the fishing year. Instead, staff were instructed to seek out the advice of the fishing community.<\/p>\n

* * *
\nPapahanaumokuakea UNESCO Designation<\/b><\/div>\n

On the last day of the council meeting, executive director Simonds raised the topic of the proposed inscription by UNESCO of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument onto its list of World Heritage Sites at its meeting in Brazil, scheduled for July 25 through August 3.<\/p>\n

Simonds reminded the council that as early as 2007, in commenting on the proposed designation, the council had \u201ccautioned against this being designated a site\u2026 What happens when these sites are designated is full-on tourism. Exactly what we didn\u2019t want to see happen up there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also, she said, the council objected in its comments on the failure to fully consult Hawaiian people about the proposal. \u201cWhy I brought this up,\u201d she said, \u201cis, I wanted to know if the council still maintains its objections to this designation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thielen took exception to Simonds\u2019 characterizations. \u201cAs the representative of one of the monument management teams \u2026 I need to correct for the record some of the statements on this,\u201d she said. \u201cWe have been working with a number of people. To say the Hawaiian people were not consulted is not correct. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the state representative of native Hawaiian interests, had set up early on in the process a kupuna group of advisory practitioners. And that group, after extensive discussion, totally supported the nomination. OHA worked with us step by step through the nomination process along with our federal partners\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Simonds insisted that at meetings of the National Marine Sanctuary program \u2013 \u201cnot here, but in DC\u201d \u2013 \u201cthere is a push to have tourism up there. Yes,\u201d she told Thielen, that has occurred \u201csince the monument was designated. When it happened, the whole idea was no-touch. Now you\u2019ve developed a management plan\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Thielen broke in: \u201cThe management plan does very much limit tourism to specific areas, specific activities,\u201d she said. If the council is concerned that safeguards against excessive tourism are weak, she added, \u201cthen the council should take the position that the monument managers should comply with the monument plan.\u201d<\/p>\n

Duenas then related an experience he had had while traveling for the council. \u201cI had the opportunity to attend a special recognition for Mr. [Jean-Michel] Cousteau in Washington, D.C., where I actually cried. Because he said out in public, and he\u2019s the grandfather of this whole idea [for designation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as a monument], that there will be three million tourists. You can ask the people there. I went to each one, and said, \u2018you\u2019re taking out eight fishing boats and putting in three million tourists.\u2019 I actually got drunk and cried\u2026. [O]ne of the participants in this whole exercise, a major player, was able to say this publicly, to share the wealth and experience of World War II, we\u2019re going to tie in Pearl Harbor to Midway with three million tourists a year.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thielen attempted to address Duenas\u2019 remarks. \u201cManny, you talk a lot about how the native people should have a say. Again, the kupuna group, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, sat down and looked over this very closely. What they felt was that having designation as a cultural heritage site, not just a resource site, would provide an opportunity to showcase their history and culture in that area.\u201d<\/p>\n

The management plan includes a permitting process for monument access for any purpose. \u201cIt has to go through not just a federal process, but a state process as well.\u2026 There\u2019s a tremendous amount of transparency, tremendous amount of involvement. I would welcome a position by this council that says you support the management plan and the restrictions on any tourism activity and that you would encourage the monument managers to make sure if the heritage nomination goes through to keep those restrictions in place and not to undo those in the face of any pressure that may come forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council then considered a formal motion that it \u201creiterate its concern about the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands UNESCO designation process \u2026 that calls into question the transparency of the process to include public participation, the need to clearly provide the purpose and need or objective of the designation, and the role of the National Park Service administrative authorities and related jurisdictional issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thielen spoke against the motion, noting again the transparency of the management process and the involvement of OHA in developing it. The management plan \u201cplaces strict limits on activities that can occur,\u201d she said. \u201cIf we were to open it up to activities beyond the scope of the management plan, we\u2019d be required under state law to do a new [environmental impact statement] before we could issue any new permits\u2026. I ask the council not to support this motion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Duenas repeated his concerns. \u201cYou didn\u2019t give consultation to the council,\u201d he said, addressing Thielen. \u201cEight fishing boats [lost]. One of those fishermen happened to be a native Hawaiian. Only five active boats up there. If you look at amount of fish that\u2019s going to be consumed, and again I\u2019m very disturbed \u2013 this monument was designated to be protected. No fish should be consumed by any inhabitant, scientist\u2026. Why is it [that] it\u2019s okay to play with fish, consume them if you\u2019re a scientist or resident\u2026. I don\u2019t care what OHA has to say, what the state of Hawai`i has to say\u2026. I don\u2019t care what kind of management plan you have.\u201d<\/p>\n

The motion passed. Thielen and Young were the sole votes opposed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Patricia Tummons<\/b><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Volume 21, Number 2 — August 2010<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which recommends management measures for fisheries in the U.S. waters of the western and central Pacific Ocean, is finding that as resources diminish, managing what remains is getting harder and harder.   The discussions … 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":[72,8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-august-2010","category-fisheries","category-marine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/953","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=953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}