Mapping interests in the tuna fisheries of the western and Central Pacific ocean

One thing I really like about fisheries is that it attracts a diversity of people, many against it of course, some (like me) that work on it, either as regulators, industry, service and tech providers, capacity and institutional support providers… and then the academics 

And here you also have two main groups: have the scientists that work providing services (stock, climate modeling, primary productivity, bio-economists, social scientist, etc) normally as part of different types of institutions … so to an extent, we are all stakeholders. But then you have the academics that work for universities and study aspects of fisheries.

These guys are an interesting lot… because they have (to an extent) or should have a higher and perhaps more detached and neutral opportunity to “see” things those of us more inserted may not see. In another life, I would like to be a more traditional academic and be paid to study things like many of these guys do…

Said so there is a full range in this group too… from total idiots that obviously have no clue of what they are talking about and don't understand how fishing works, or fully biased and bring a position with them, and then those few that do really engage study, collaborate and contribute with unique knowledge that explains things and/or add vison to the general understanding. 

I really like when I read one of these papers… and here is one: Mapping interests in the tuna fisheries of the western and Central Pacific ocean. By Kamal Azmi and Quentin Hanich, from the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, Australia

I’m not surprise is a good paper because I know and collaborated in the past with both authors and have lots of respect for their work, and from what I have seen, they are genuinely nice people, and that really counts in my book. Furthermore, I kind of envy them for their jobs… to be paid to think and anise stuff, drawn conclusions and so on… I guess I do the same at a lower level with my work… but we all know the grass is always greener in the field next door!

In any case, great insight if you are tuna in the WCPFC nerd… which let’s agree may not be a huge group… but chances are that if reading this blog… you definitively are one! So the different interest-driven dynamics of the players in the WCPO fishery is something you’ll be keen to further undersytand!

As usual, read the original (great graphs), in the meantime, I just quote the abstract, a bit of the discussion, and the conclusions!

Abstract
Fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks are complex, featuring multiple species targeted by different gear types across several national jurisdictions and high seas areas. They require effective cooperation to manage sustainably, typically through a regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO). However, diverse interests in different species and gear types among participating states and fishing entities, many of which are developing, mean that cooperation can be difficult to achieve, with severe consequences for fish stocks, the economies of states with an interest in those stocks, and the livelihoods of communities that depend on them.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages some of the world’s largest tuna fisheries and exemplifies these challenges. We argue that a prerequisite for effective cooperation is an understanding of the interests of each participant in each species and gear type to ensure that conservation and management measures take into account the differential impacts on each one, including whether measures place a disproportionate burden on developing states. This paper uses catch value data for four key tuna species of the WCPFC convention area to illustrate the diversity of interests of participants in these fisheries, with a view to enhancing delegations’ understanding of those interests and to inform more effective cooperation.

Discussion (last part)
There are many conclusions that can be drawn from the foregoing analysis. We identify three examples of concern in the WCPFC in which new measures will have differential impacts on various interests. First, the determination of whether a disproportionate burden is likely to be placed on developing CCMs by a new measure needs to take account of any new measure’s impact on each species and gear type. For example, tropical SIDS′ strong interests in purse seine fisheries are likely to be affected by measures to restrict purse seine fishing in order to protect bigeye stocks. This has been a longstanding point of tension in the WCPFC. Second, compared to the tropical purse seine fishery, power in the tropical longline fishery is tilted more toward large, well-resourced distant water fleets, which tend to operate more commonly on the high seas.

High seas limits must recognise the particular circumstances of SIDS that rely on catches of the same stocks within their waters. This also requires giving practical meaning to the compatibility requirements of UNFSA and the WCPFC’s founding Convention. Third, the ongoing delays in restricting longline catches of albacore in order to improve the profitability of the southern longline fishery, are likely to favour distant water fishing states with substantial resources compared to SIDS. But in the absence of restrictions for the high seas, SIDS struggle to agree on restrictions for their EEZs.

 Conclusion 
In 2017, the WCPFC achieved a breakthrough when the Commission agreed that it would begin a process to establish hard limits for the high seas purse seine fisheries, and a framework to allocate these limits (WCPFC, 2018, paragraph 29), thereby implicitly recognising the sovereign rights of coastal States over fisheries within their EEZs and their own domestic limits for purse seine. The Commission would also establish hard limits and allocation frameworks for bigeye catches by longline vessels, but apply these across high seas and EEZs (WCPFC, 2018, paragraph 39). This process began in 2018, but has now been stalled by the COVID- 19 outbreak as travel bans impact on decision making. In the meantime, the WCPFC tropical tuna CMM, which was to expire in February 2021, has been extended for a further year through the adoption of CMM 2020- 01.

This paper has sought to identify the key interests among flag states and coastal states, both developed and developing, in the key species and gear types that are subject to the CMMs of the WCPFC. It did so by building on similar previous analyses of the same fisheries with more recent data and further refining the analytical framework. Steps taken in recent years to strengthen measures to conserve and manage these species have been positive but incremental.

The entrenchment of coalitions within the WCPFC, such as the FFA and the PNA, have demonstrated that gains can be made by groups of like-minded participants. The incorporation of some of their positions in key WCPFC measures – most notably various iterations of the tropical tuna measure (WCPFC, 2018) – has demonstrated that such coalitions can stimulate cooperation among a broader, more diverse group of interested participants. This case study offers both a rich line of inquiry for the study of approaches such as cooperative games (Munro, 2008) and an opportunity for RFMO negotiators to progress the sustainable management of the stocks under their stewardship. As for the WCPFC, once negotiations resume, it will be critical that the WCPFC understands and considers the interests identified in this paper.

A clear understanding of the interests of each CCM in each species and each gear type, and whether as a flag State or a coastal State, will help to ensure that new CMMs take into account the differential impacts on each participant, including whether they will place a disproportionate burden on developing States. In doing so, RFMOs will be more likely to achieve an outcome, and that outcome is more likely to be an enduring and effective one that is also more likely to move toward SDG14.

Flag state interests in distant water fishing: catch value, all gear types, all species 2016–2018. This chart plots each WCPFC flag state against two dimensions – _the vertical axis indicates the state’s GDP per capita as a measure of the level of development, while the horizontal axis indicates the proportion of the value of catches by the state’s national fleets that is caught beyond the waters of the flag state. The latter is inferred from FFA value of catch data for each national fleet less the value of catches by vessels flying the flag of the coastal state in which the fish are caught. A third dimension – _the value of the total catch by each national fleet in both national waters and beyond national waters – _is illustrated by the size of the bubble for each coastal state. Datapoints represented red bubbles are FFA members, and blue bubbles represent non-FFA members.