If you read my blogs, you may be aware of my interest in issues around plastics at sea, particularly when they come from fishing, goes back in time. and here is a potential consulting opportunity for someone with the right background to join me on a tender for a job assessing plastic waste disposal options and practices for FV in the central and western pacific. You bring your experience and I add my one on fishing and the region.
lots of it
Read below and if you still keen, get in touch!
The adoption of the WCPFC Conservation Management Measure (CMM) 17/04 on Marine Pollution, (championed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands) coming into effect on 1 January 2019m was a big win for the pacific island countries
Clause 2 of the CMM specifically states:
CCMs shall prohibit their fishing vessels operating in the WCPFC Convention area from discharging any plastic (including plastic packaging, items containing plastic and polystyrene) but not including fishing gear.
As of January 1, 2019, all fishing vessels operating in the WCPFC Convention Area are explicitly prohibited from dumping any plastics into the ocean. This is potentially an excellent step towards curbing drastic levels of plastic marine pollution. However, the reality of current plastic disposal methods is in stark contrast to the intention of the measure.
As I wrote before: A typical tuna longline vessel will set around 3000 hooks per set. The hooks are baited via 10-kilogram boxes which contain 100 – 120 pieces of bait. The boxes are waxed cardboard and each has a plastic liner to contain the bait and two plastic straps to seal the box. Therefore, with each set using around 30 boxes of bait for each set of 3000 hooks there are 90 pieces of plastic generated, to make numbers easier let’s assume only 1000 longliners setting every day (in reality there are more than that), that represents conservatively 90,000 pieces of plastic per day or 630,000 pieces of plastic per week and 2,520,000 per month, as well as 30+ pieces of waxed cardboard overboard for each vessel each day!
As far as has currently been ascertained, outside of Australia and New Zealand, only Fiji has licensing provisions that require the retention of plastic waste on board locally based and licensed vessels for disposal onshore.
It can only be concluded that a considerable number of high seas longline vessels dump plastic waste from bait boxes in the ocean every day. Furthermore, plastic pollution from fishing vessels, particularly plastic strapping from bait boxes, is implicated in direct impacts on numerous endangered, threatened, or protected species.
The problem of plastic waste disposal at sea is not limited to just longline vessels. FFA/SPC recently coordinated a focused Observer trip on board a Vanuatu Flagged Taiwanese Carrier vessel undertaking transshipment with longline vessels operating on the high seas. The subsequent trip report noted as follows:
“Unfortunately, pollution incidents were common. MARPOL signage was abundant, but plastics were continuously thrown into the sea. There were properly marked bins on deck, but they were not emptied when we were in port. A poignant moment was watching three juvenile oceanic whitetip sharks chewing on the kitchen waste, which included plastics”.
With the exception of clause 2, the majority of the language in the measure is well-intentioned, but light in the use of directive terminology, using terms such as “CCMs are encouraged” or “shall encourage” and “CCMs are requested.” In addition, the measure lacks a clause to define enforcement of clause 2 such as inclusion in any compliance monitoring scenario beyond flag state reporting.
For pacific island countries, we can potentially utilise license conditions or regulatory inclusion of text in support of clause 2 of the measure or consider the adoption of clause 2 enforcement as an addition to Harmonised Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) we all share.
However, this does not account for high seas operations unless DWFN CCMs also move to adopt mechanisms to enforce clause 2. It would be an imbalance to place restrictions on domestic based vessels, which do not apply to the high seas.
The standard argument against this is likely to be that there is just no means for high seas vessels to dispose of plastic bait box waste other than into the ocean. However, in reality, this is potentially not the case.
In the case of domestic-based vessels, waste can possibly either be disposed of on return from sea or prior to departure. Consider the scenario where bait boxes are emptied into bins (such as are standard storage containers on most vessels), then these bins can be stored with 3 boxes of bait per bin and stowed in the freezer to be used as required.
There would also seem to be potential for this to apply to carrier vessels loading bait for delivery to longline vessels, but this could involve the large plastic bins commonly utilised for fish holding on vessels and in ports. Significantly, this could also provide additional leverage to improve observer coverage and reporting on transshipment or carrier vessels as well.
In another scenario, the suppliers of bait boxes could be encouraged to use waxed paper box liners and bind boxes with twine or tape which can be more easily stowed on board with the bait boxes and liners being burnt
The job:
The aims of the study at hand are to undertake research, investigation, and consultation to provide a detailed analysis of the following:
An estimate of the amounts of plastic waste generated on a per vessel basis by vessel type and operation.
A summary of current fishing vessel plastic waste disposal practices in FFA Member Countries and adjacent high seas areas.
An estimate of the volumes of fishing vessel plastic waste that is being directly dumped into the ocean and a review of the potential impacts of this practice.
A summary of the range of mechanisms for plastic waste disposal from fishing vessels other than oceanic dumping and how these could potentially be applied.
Consideration and recommendation of practices that could be adopted to mitigate oceanic plastic waste disposal from fishing vessels, the associated costs, and how these practices might be applied.
In considering mitigation practices, take account of the current and potential impact on port waste disposal infrastructure using three examples of high fishing vessel traffic ports such as Suva, Noro, Majuro or Pohnpei.
Provide consideration as to possible strategies and actions that could be taken at both national and regional levels to eliminate all plastic waste disposal at sea.
The output will be a detailed technical report and associated appendices
We will be required to submit a draft report for comment and review, and take account of comments before compiling the final report.
So yea… if you keen… Let me know