Back in PNG working with the catch certification system

I have been coming to work in Papua New Guinea since 1999, and even if I have seen incredible changes in Port Moresby and parts of the country… as soon as you get out of the main town, it still strikes me how beautiful and “raw” the place still is.

Paper instruction of how to work on computers... thanks due diligence!

Nowhere else that I have been are “yesterday and tomorrow” so close.

Let me explain: I’m in an office working on operating procedures aimed to produce the results of information being live fed into databases directly from fishing vessels via on board connectivity or tethering devices where fisheries observers do all their data gathering via apps in tablets, which can then be followed up during unloading by port monitors that confirm in their own tablets the catch composition and volumes, initiating that way a complete catch traceability to the point of export. The companies are required to log in inventory movements, so all catch is included.

None of the EU countries I have ever worked in has anything like this.

I’m doing this work with my local colleagues whose parents may not had the chance to have an education and traditional believes (snubbedly called sorcery) still remain a huge element of daily life. For the observers and catch documentation crew I’m working with, the tablets and internet are a basic tool, for some of their parents, this is not even a concept.

One of the guys I work, has to do 6 to 8hs by open boat to get back to his village to visit their family, as there are no roads or airports in the region... no other person I know and work a equal level with me has a story like that.

I see a crew at the side of the road digging to put in fibre optic cables, while a group of highland ladies that may not have electricity or roads at home walk by… I see a local with feet that have never been on a shoe, walking among reddish beetle nut spit besides the latest 100000 dollars worth Toyota Landcruiser.

What other society made up of more than 780 cultures could come to the tenuous concept of nationhood (with independence in 1975) and face challenges like this?

None that I know, and I will never know… as there is no other place like PNG, simple as that.

The Lae Catch Certification team earning a session of PNG's best pizza as thank you for trusting me with their work... (They are the responsible, I just advice! ). Coolest crew around.

People tell me: “I heard is really dangerous”… but so are Australia, China or the US, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time… at least here you could find reasons behind based on the impact that such an accelerated rate of cultural transition has had in some sectors of society… which cannot be said about those other countries.

I go for a 7 km run around 6am, and yes there are potholes, rubbish and general lack of maintenance… same as in other "new countries" but then I cross with 30-40 random people, and everyone says  hello and smiles… my running shoes may be worth a week of their wages… and I have never felt threatened.

Yes, independent tourism is difficult, because infrastructure is scarce, moving along can be expensive … but if you really want to see a place like no other on earth and that will stay in your brain forever. Aim here, is beyond unique.

Polynesia "embraces" satellite tracking of illegal fishing

Much has been made on the media of the “embracement” by some pacific countries (The Polynesian Leadership Group) of the Eyes on the Sea utility.

And as my colleague Tim Adams from FFA in Honiara commented in a specialist forum:

Is nice to see "Eyes on the Sea" finally acknowledge that FFA member countries already (which include all the countries in the group except French Polynesia) have this capability in place. And we have yet to see what additional functionality this new initiative will provide. If it does add something useful then it will be extremely welcome, but everything that has been described so far - AIS, linked vessel information databases, flagging of vessels-of-interest, etc. - is already part of the existing system stretching across the Pacific Islands region. As well as assisting national fisheries authorities it also informs multi-country collaborative surveillance operations. 

Unlike the Pew Charitable Trusts, FFA not normally advertise our activities in the global press. We're trying to catch offenders, not just deter them. However, if there is a danger of wheels being unnecessarily reinvented then a higher level of awareness may be necessary. Don't get me wrong - sometimes more wheels are necessary to help spread a heavy load. But they work best if they are all pointing in the same direction.

 French Polynesia and New Caledonia have domestic regulations that require all fishing vessels - including unlicenced vessels transiting the EEZ - to provide EEZ entry and exit reports, including details of weight and type of fish on board. This reporting requirement does not interfere with the right of passage across the EEZ. However the information improves boarding and inspection efficiency, since they are able to zero in on the vessels which appear on the surveillance picture, but haven't reported, and deprioritise those who have. 

All WCPFC members (implicitly including all fishing vessels in the western and central Pacific) are aware of these regulations, which were notified to the Commission several years ago. It has apparently been accepted that foreign vessels that are entering the EEZ for the legitimate purpose of transit have nothing to hide, and that the provision of this border-crossing information actually helps protect them from hassle. Anyone who doesn't report immediately becomes a vessel of interest. 

France, with the support of FFA member countries, attempted to persuade the WCPFC membership to enact compatible domestic regulations in 2010, but this was not agreed by the entire membership. FFA members subsequently included this requirement (for all foreign fishing vessels entering the EEZ) in their harmonised "Minimum Terms and Conditions for Access" (as MTC 12), and this is progressively being included in national legislative updates. 

One thing WCPFC did agree to was enhanced "EEZ boundary crossing reporting" requirements for vessels accessing the "Eastern High Seas Pocket" enclosed by the French Polynesia, Cook Islands and the Kiribati Line Islands EEZ boundaries (WCPFC CMM 2010-02).

Reports by LICENCED fishing vessels have always been part of the system - time and place of entry or exit, fish on board, observer_ID etc as well as daily catch/effort (logsheet) recording and VMS (track) reporting. It is the application of this catch-on-board reporting requirement to UNLICENCED vessels transiting the EEZ that is relatively new (although automatic VMS transponder reporting, for all fishing vessels on the FFA register and WCPFC list that are present in the EEZ, has been in place for some time).

A good story of people working in the fishing industry in the Pacific

By chance I came across this article by Matthew Dornan (Research Fellow at the Development Policy Centre). As I always struggle to find good stories on the potential positive impact fisheries can have, i will transcribe it here. Furthermore, two other issue I like: 1) Is about fisheries observers, one of the hardest jobs in the industry and a bedrock of fisheries management that gets very little recognition, and 2) is that infers what small disadvantaged countries can do when they go beyond relaying on foreign assistance.

Labour and fish: making the most of the Pacific’s tuna resource

I met Ali on the flight from Suva to Funafuti. He was on his way home to Tuvalu from Korea, having completed four months as a fisheries observer on a Korean tuna fishing vessel. Sitting across from Ali was another observer on his way home. He had been away for longer (five months), on a Spanish vessel staffed by Ecuadorian crew, and was flying back from Kirimati island, Kiribati.

Ali is one of 50 Tuvaluan fisheries observers whose job it is to monitor the activities of vessels from distant water fishing nations. These vessels pay for the privilege of fishing in Tuvalu’s waters. As one of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) – along with Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Palau – Tuvalu’s license fees are set as part of the vessel day scheme. Vessels pay for the days in which they are allowed to fish, with (tradable) days allocated to PNA member countries according to an agreed formula. Fees were US$6,000 per day in 2013 (triple the charge in 2009), and are expected to average US$8,000 in 2015.

The vessel day scheme is controversial in some circles. PNA have effectively closed fishing in the ‘high seas’ pockets of the international waters that lie between member states, by mandating that any vessel that fishes in PNA waters must abstain from fishing in the high seas. Given that about 60 per cent of tuna from the western and central Pacific ocean is caught in the exclusive economic zone of PNA members, the majority of vessels abide by PNA rules.

By flexing its collective muscle, the PNA ‘tuna cartel’ – which is the source of over 50 per cent of the world’s tuna cannery supply – has been able to generate significant benefits for members. Access fees or their equivalent (in benefits from domestic processing or aid) were an estimated US$218 million in 2013 and US$91 million in 2009, after the vessel day scheme was introduced, compared with US$60 million, US$67 million, and US$71 million in 1999, 2006, and 2007, before the scheme was introduced.

Such revenues are very significant in microstates like Tuvalu. Revenue from fisheries in Tuvalu reached an all-time high in 2013, measuring A$18.2 million, or 55 per cent of domestic revenue. This revenue, which admittedly is unusually high, was greater than the A$11.3 million received as grants from development partners – placing in question the appropriateness of labelling Tuvalu a MIRAB economy.

Observation of the efforts of tuna fisheries is also a source of employment for Tuvaluans. Fifty observers may not sound like many, but in a country with a formal sector of only 2,000 workers, observers make up 2.5 per cent of the formal workforce. That makes fisheries observation as significant as the mining industry [pdf] in Australia, in terms of its share of formal sector employment.

There is more that PNA members could do to maximise the benefits from tuna. Past efforts to develop domestic processing of tuna were without success, and despite ongoing efforts, should not be trialled again (with PNG being an exception given its ability to achieve economies of scale). But there is scope to use Pacific island labour on foreign fishing fleets.

A requirement that 10 per cent of the crew on purse seine vessels be from PNA member countries has already been agreed to in principle by PNA fisheries ministers as part of the Bikenibeu Declaration in 2009 (this figure would rise to 20 per cent over five years). However, implementation has been stalled in the past by opposition from some countries, which do not have maritime training institutes where nationals could be trained to work on tuna fishing vessels. Last November, PNA ministers reiterated their support for such a measure, which would begin in 2016, and would include the option of paying a waiver fee for vessels unable to find local crew. Details on how that scheme will function, including waiver fees, should emerge at the next PNA meeting, in two weeks’ time.

Skills development will clearly be important for maximising the benefit of any local crewing requirements. In the case of Tuvalu, the maritime training institute could offer training appropriate for tuna fisheries, rather than their current focus on freight vessels (employment on which is becoming harder to find, given competition from countries like the Philippines). It is not difficult to picture a tuna fishing industry with large numbers of Tuvaluans, or I-Kiribati, working on vessels in PNA waters, generating employment opportunities and remittances in their respective countries. The Director of Fisheries in Tuvalu recently estimated that a 10 per cent local crewing requirement could lead to employment for 900 Tuvaluans; a massive 45 per cent of the current domestic workforce in the formal sector (and 9 per cent of the entire population).

Tuna, the only significant economic resource in countries like Tuvalu, would therefore not only provide resource rents (in the form of license fees) for government, but significant employment and income earning opportunities for Tuvaluan workers.

Government-paid observers, like Ali, would continue to be important. Without them, the government would be unable to independently verify the fishing activities of foreign vessels. But employment in fisheries for Tuvaluans would not be limited to observers.

The most difficult part of Ali’s job? Communication. Four months on a boat where none of the crew, except the Captain, speak English (or Tuvaluan), is a long time. When we said our goodbyes, Ali was about to spend two weeks in Tuvalu with his family. After that, he was to board another foreign vessel, for another four months of watching people fish.

Catch Certification Schemes as a way to combat IUU fishing

Trade-based measures consist of actions directed toward the movements of products of IUU fishing and may include banning products from trade if found to be undermining fishery management regulations, or rejecting individual shipments which lack documentation required to establish their legal provenance. No proof of legality no trade… quite simple... in principle.

only part of the picture

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools such as lists of vessels authorised to fish, high seas boarding and inspection programmes, observer programmes, and vessel monitoring systems have recently been bolstered by the creation of a variety of vessel blacklists by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and individual countries, these tools are designed to prevent IUU fishing before or as it occurs.

Downstream measures, designed to penalize products of IUU fishing activities not caught at sea, have also been developed in the form of port State and trade-based measures such as Catch Certification Schemes (CCS). 

Port State measures consist of actions directed toward vessels in port. These may consist of refusing port access and services to vessels believed to have violated regulations or requiring prior notice and clearance of all landings from a given fishery as a matter of course. 

The legally-binding Port State Measures was agreed a few years ago by a group of 91 countries and now awaits ratification by 25 States before entering into force, however there are some serious concerns in terms of the disproportionate burden that many of those obligations impose in least developed countries. These initiative complements other ones like the potential development of a global record of fishing vessels and a permanent IMO# for fishing vessels. 

RFMOs have provided ground for both trade bans and the development of catch and trade documentation schemes for some key species as well as the EU IUU regulation, requiring documentation proving the legality of the capture, for imports of all wild-caught, non-ornamental marine fish, and you all know my reservations about it.

The Pacific has been talking about this for a few years now, but complexities on the understanding, the fear of even more disproportionate burden, and the interference of some DWFN, plus the cost associated to the development of a electronic system have made advances very slow.

This week, I’m back in PNG working with them on issues around the EU IUU Catch Certification, but as well taking a bigger and wider approach on this issue, as many initiatives (as I posted before) are coinciding and gelling into a workable system.

A Catch Certification Scheme (CCS) ties up fisheries information management systems with MCS and trade, hence it is an incredible powerful tool, that equally needs an incredible amount of work to be a good tool and not a headache.

Today we agreed with a few of the most influential people in the region that have a role into these complex fields in a set of principles that will be the basis of a pacific wide CCS. We advanced in the last couple of days more than some former efforts advances in a few years, which is awesome!

And is just to show how good is to have good people, regional champions (like PNG), fresh ideas, a common factor approach and committed driving principles. I’m really proud and happy of what we achieved today! 

If you want to understand more about Catch Documentation Schemes, this report by Shelley Clarke for the WCPFC is one of the best I know.

Traceability of Fishery Products in different countries

This week I finished for FAO a study on the traceability systems of 10 countries... I believed I knew about traceability... but doing this study, made me realise that I was only scratching the surface...

Cool image by the lovely people at fishwise.org 

Traceability is not a trivial term, and the systematic analysis of the country reports shows that there is a lot of confusion and inconsistencies in the meaning, scope, legal status, implementation capacity and control of traceability systems. 

Traceability systems implementation was catalysed by market access requirements; which initially were the domain of the EU health certification and later on (after 2010) supplemented by the EU catch certification. However, most of the countries analysed have not legislated and standardised traceability as a requirement. Furthermore there seems to be little interaction in between the health CA and the fisheries CA in terms of their assessment of it.

It seems that efforts towards the implementation of traceability systems in the analysed countries and across countries have not been supported in an interdisciplinary and standardised way. Ensuring traceability through the seafood production chain can be only accomplished by careful planning, taking the time to gain consensus among the operators and authorities. In order to gain trust, the traceability system in place must meet the set standards. 

Traceability per se is difficult to achieve with little money, little human resources and lack of political will. It would be good if smaller steps are taken, steps that together will lead to implementing, at the end, effective traceability: clear definition of traceability in respective legislation, implementation of traceability requirements within companies and afterwards between companies, following in the beginning the one-step-up, one-step-down approach and afterwards moving to the integrated approach.

These initial steps should be defined by risk and start with the fisheries with higher IUU fishing and food safety risk profiles, but in a holistic way, so that other fisheries can be incorporated in the systems at a later point. 

We believe that FAO, as in other aspect of fisheries and seafood production, in its unique position can lead this standardization efforts by expanding on the work initiated by the “Draft Best Practice Guidelines on Traceability”  as requested by the thirteenth session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT) in Bergen, Norway, 24–28 February 2014. 

I cannot yet disclose the report, but a good introductory read on traceability for seafood products (in the US) in the this "white paper" by my friend Mariah Boyle form FishWise. They lend me the nice image that I put in this blog and in the cover of the report.

US Congress Report on Improving International Fisheries Management

The US Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) acknowledged the need for international cooperation to address fishing activities that have a deleterious effect on sustainable fisheries worldwide. The US Congress directed the Executive Branch to strengthen its leadership in international fisheries management and enforcement, particularly with regard to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and unsustainable fishing practices such as bycatch of protected living marine resources (PLMRs).

The US Congress requires the Secretary of Commerce every two years to identify countries whose fishing vessels were engaged in these activities, and to consult with those countries on improving their fisheries management and enforcement practices.

This is an important document that influences countries engaging in IUU fishing. I was a bit disappointed this year that only Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nigeria, Nicaragua, and Portugal were identified, and Belize (that just came out of the EU's red card list), Costa Rica, Ghana, Guatemala, Spain identified as Countries “of Interest” but not Identified.

The definition of IUU fishing for the purposes of implementing this particular legislation is largely focused on flag state compliance with RFMO conservation measures, to which the US is involved. So that may explain the absence of as e.g. China, Taiwan) and Korea.

Again, these documents, may not have a direct impact... is not that that the US stop buying from these countries... and while "name and shame" has limited impact, is better that nothing!

The report can be downloaded from here

Lifetime Voices... Cook Islands elders talk about the changes in their fisheries

This documentary titled ‘A Lifetime of Change’ was part of the Rauti Para project carried out last year throughout most the Cook Islands, which was co-financed by the SPC EU Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Small Islands States project and the SRIC CC program.

The documentary is based on the changes in our marine resources that Cook Islands elders have noticed within their lifetime. 

The message of this documentary is clear and  resource managers, need to consider it before placing economical gains ahead of people's livelihood and culture

Damanzaihao (ex Lafayette) in the SPRFMO IUU Vessels List.

In late September las year I wrote about this Oil-tanker/Fishing Boat lingering in the south pacific under Peruvian flag. I'm happy to report that it has been included into the is on the final list of vessels marked as engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing drafted by the SPRFMO's (South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation) technical and compliance committee. Also on the list is Avrora, (Aurora), now  Russian-flagged trawler previously known as Pacific Conqueror under Peruvian flag, whose unlicensed activities I also mention in that post.

Length × Breadth: 228.61m × 32.24m... the smaller one is just a big fishing boat.

Last year Damanzaihao carried the name Lafayette, and was flying a Russian and then a Mongolian flag. It passed through New Zealand's exclusive economic zone. Later, in international waters east of the North Island, it met upwith four other fishing vessels and a fleet tanker. While the Aurora has been listed as an IUU vessel because of "fishing in the SPRFMO Convention Area without authorisation (air photographs from New Zealand and prolonged unauthorised presence in the SPRFMO Area (evidence from Chile)".

As I reported, the direct owner is listed as Sustainable Fishing Resources, with the email address belonging to the domain of the Peruvian fishmeal producer Copeinca, bought by China Fishery in late 2013).  China Fishery Group, is a Bermuda registered fishing company belonging to the Hong Kong-listed Pacific Andes International Holdings. And  Pacific Andes is a well know and extremely powerful mafia type Frozen Fish conglomerate with long time IUU allegations, as the linked OECD report from 2005 already shows.  

The owners said it was "disappointed" to be on the list. "We believe that inclusion on the IUU list is out of proportion with the minor nature of the allegation against the vessel" the company said, in a statement. "This support vessel has no capability to catch fish. The allegation made related only to the provision of food, water and fuel to authorized catcher vessels prior to the date on which the support vessel was authorized by the Peruvian government". Transshipment, however, is classified as a fishing activity by the SPRFMO.

Unfortunately Peru (a country I work with its medium size industry and like a lot- see here and here)  fought "very hard" to oppose the committee's decision. The country attended the meeting in Auckland with lawyers representing Pacific Andes and a minister.  However, until such time that acceptable sanctions have been put against the vessel, the ships should remain on the list, but surely what is "aceptable" for Peru may not be the same that aceptable for other countries... particularly in terms of the ingraining that these "players" seem to have in the Peruvian regulatory system, I reported these issues in early 2011 and 4 years later not much has changed.

The SPRFMO is a multinational fisheries management organization that came into force in 2012 in a bid to fend off a collapse of Pacific mackerel that has seen the stock fall from 30 million tonnes to just three million in two decades.

For a vessel to be removed from the IUU list, SPRRMO stipulates that the vessel's flag state needs to show it has adopted measures so that the vessel conforms with SPRFMO rules and that it will continue to effectively monitor and control the vessel's operations in the SPRFMO area. The flag state also needs to show it has "taken effective action in response to the IUU fishing activities in question including prosecution and/or imposition of sanctions of adequate severity". Alternatively to the sanctions, it can show that the vessel has changed owners, and that the previous owner "no longer has any legal, financial or real interests in the vessel or exercises control over it".

Under SPRFMO rules, members and cooperating non-contracting parties agree to take "all necessary non-discriminatory measures" available to them to sanction IUU vessels.
These should include removing the vessels' fishing permits for resources managed by the SPRFMO, to prevent them from fishing but also transshipping, refueling, carrying cargo or otherwise supporting fishing vessels. Sanctions should also seek to prohibit IUU vessels from entering to the country's port, "except in force majeure" or from being chartered.

Members should also refuse to grant their flag to vessels of the IUU list, except if there is sufficient evidence to determine this will not result in IUU fishing, while prohibiting imports, landings, transshipments, processing and purchasing of species covered by the convention from any IUU vessel. Finally, the rules say members agree to collect and exchange information to search for, control and prevent false import/export certificates for species covered by the SPRFMO from vessels on the list.

As I insist in many of my posts, IUU fishing is a really complex issue that goes from the the type of hook and the size of fish all the way to beneficial ownership, and implicating a variety of issues from illegal immigration, human trafficking, drug trafficking to tax evasion. And all this is just beyond the impact on fisheries management.

Sources here and here

The murkiness of Beneficial Ownership

Beneficial ownership is enjoyed by anyone who has the benefits of ownership of a Security (finance) or property, and yet does not nominally own the asset itself. In Fisheries it a more diffuse concept, but it comes down to who ultimate benefits of the profits of the fishing activities, because is the one that did the investment.

In November 2012 the EU's DG MARE published a list of selected third countries that the Commission considered as “possible of being identified as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to IUU Regulation” pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008. The Commission Decision identified Belize, Cambodia, Fiji, Guinea, Panama, Sri Lanka, Togo and Vanuatu as such potential non-cooperating third countries. 

At the time, Trygg Mat (a Norwegian NGO that unfortunately seems to have ceased operations) conducted a brief analysis of the fishing vessels flagged to these countries and what companies are involved as owners or operators of them.

Their results were quite revealing, as you can see:

Number of vessels where EU companies own or play an operational part 

Recently, Sri Lanka (the only one without EU players) was declared a non cooperating country (red carded) and exports embargoed. Vanuatu, Fiji, Togo and Panama went back to green. Belize went to red and then came back to green.

I would love to know what are the figures now.

IUU fishing is a really complex issue, and while the EU has its anti IUU regulations and the catch certification scheme, the finances behind it are way beyond the controls of the certification and how good are some countries in terms of their Flag State responsibilities.

Dodgy Fishing Vessels Stories (a perfect example)

It never ceases to amaze me the utter “dodgines” of some vessel operators… and it also saddens me to think how many of those are around and we don’t about them… here a sad example dug out by my colleagues at SIF (Stop Illegal Fishing) that operates in Southern Africa.

An Omani flagged tuna long-liner with the name NAHAM-4, with the call sign A4DK6, was detained in Cape Town in March 2013. The vessel's agent had been granted a permit to allow the vessel to undergo repairs and discharge fish in Cape Town. Once in port the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) made a port inspection that revealed inconsistencies between the amount of fish held on-board and the supporting documentation.

This led to an investigation into the vessel by South African authorities that was supported by research from Triton Naval Architects. This research revealed that between 2010 and 2013 four different vessels had been operating with the name NAHAM-4 and that the vessel held in Cape Town was significantly larger than the NAHAM-4 that was authorised to fish in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Convention area.

As a result of the South African investigation, the Omani registered vessel owner Al-Naham and its representatives, Wu Hai Tao and Wu Hai Ping (unsurprisingly Taiwanese citizens), were charged and convicted on seven accounts relating to contraventions of the Marine Living Resources Act and IOTC's Conservation and Management Measures.

The fish that was on-board was forfeited to South Africa and auctioned, and it is anticipated that the vessel will also be auctioned in the near future. According to the Muscat Daily, the owners of the NAHAM-4, Al-Naham, have abandoned the vessel, leaving the South Africa agent Trade Ocean with debts amounting to USD 100,000. The agent is reportedly now taking legal action in Taiwan against the owners of Al-Naham who are Taiwanese citizens to recover their financial losses.

In parallel to the South African investigations, the regional FISH-i Africa Task Force, with the support of Stop Illegal Fishing, FACT and the Secretariat of the IOTC, were also investigating the NAHAM-4 during their routine crosschecking of vessels operating in the Western Indian Ocean. Comparisons of photographs of vessels bearing the name NAHAM-4, including photographs taken in late 2013 in Cape Town, showed significant differences in the structure of the vessels and inconsistencies between the call signs painted on the vessels.

In one example the name NAHAM-4 was marked on a vessel alongside the call sign A4DK5, this call sign is officially recorded with IOTC as the call sign for the fishing vessel NAHAM-3. This photographic analysis also supported the South African conclusion that the vessel arrested in Cape Town is not the vessel that is recorded in the IOTC authorised vessel list by Oman. However the NAHAM-3 was been hijacked in Somalia. 

Further analysis by FISH-i Africa disclosed that the previous name of the vessel held in Cape Town was DER HORNG 569, a fishing vessel owned by Der Wei Fishery Co. Ltd. of Taiwan. DER HORNG 569 was flagged to Belize and recent communication with the authorities in Belize revealed that the DER HORNG 569 and a sister vessel the DER WEI 686 had been reported as stolen (!?) by the owner Der Wei Fishery Co. Ltd. in early 2009. Following this, the DER HORNG 569 was de-flagged by Belize and since that time the flag State of this vessel has been unknown.  

FISH-i Africa has not been able to find any official records or documentation tracing the DER HORNG 569 since the vessel was removed from the Belize register, including no record of the re-naming of the DER HORNG 569 to the NAHAM-4. As the name NAHAM-4 is already in use by another vessel, it may suggest that the Taiwanese owned and Omani registered company Al-Naham re-named the vessel after it was reported stolen by the previous owners.

During the FISH-i Africa investigation it emerged that Al-Naham, the company owning the arrested NAHAM-4, use the same postal address as the Oman based company Seas Tawariq Co. LLC in the IOTC list of authorised vessels. Tawariq Co. LLC was the owner of the infamous IUU fishing vessel Tawariq 1 arrested and later confiscated by the United Republic of Tanzania in 2009. 

The case of NAHAM-4 is still ongoing but it already exemplifies the use of false identities to operate illegally. It demonstrates the complexity of illegal fishing and the daring and unethical behaviour that lies behind this crime. This case also shows that systematic information sharing and crosschecking, such as that taking place in the FISH-i Africa Task Force is greatly needed.

Stop Illegal Fishing urges the flag State of Oman to face the challenge of the NAHAM-4 and to act as a responsible and transparent flag State.

Original source and more here

The Fisheries Control Room

A lot of media coverage has been devoted in the last weeks to a new monitoring system developed by the Satellite Applications Catapult, a British government-backed innovation centre, in collaboration with Pew Charitable Trusts (an American research group) very active in the fisheries sector.

It just fell onto the truck....

In essence, it is a big-data project, pulling together and cross-checking information on tens of thousands of fishing boats operating around the world. At its heart is what its developers call a virtual watch room, which resembles the control centre for a space mission. A giant video wall displays a map of the world, showing clusters of lighted dots, each representing a fishing boat.

The data used to draw this map come from various sources, the most important of which are ships’ automatic identification systems (AIS). These are like the transponders carried by aircraft. They broadcast a vessel’s identity, position and other information to nearby ships and coastal stations, and also to satellites. An AIS is mandatory for all commercial vessels, fishing boats included, with a gross tonnage of more than 300 mt.

Such boats are also required, in many cases, to carry a second device, known as a VMS (vessel monitoring system). This transmits similar data directly to the authorities who control the waters in which the vessel is fishing, and carrying it is a condition of a boat’s licence to fish there. Enforcement of the AIS regime is patchy, and captains do sometimes have what they feel is a legitimate reason for turning it off, in order not to alert other boats in the area to profitable shoals. But the VMS transmits only to officialdom, so there can be no excuse for disabling it. Switching off either system will alert the watch room to potential shenanigans.

The watch room first filters vessels it believes are fishing from others that are not. It does this by looking at, for example, which boats are in areas where fish congregate. It then tracks these boats using a series of algorithms that trigger an alert if, say, a vessel enters a marine conservation area and slows to fishing speed, or goes “dark” by turning off its identification systems. Operators can then zoom in on the vessel and request further information to find out what is going on. Satellites armed with synthetic-aperture radar can detect a vessel’s position regardless of weather conditions. This means that even if a ship has gone dark, its fishing pattern can be logged. Zigzagging, for example, suggests it is long-lining for tuna. When the weather is set fair, this radar information can be supplemented by high-resolution satellite photographs. Such images mean, for instance, that what purports to be a merchant ship can be fingered as a transshipment vessel by watching fishing boats transfer their illicit catch to it.

As powerful as the watch room is, though, its success will depend on governments, fishing authorities and industry adopting the technology and working together. Those authorities need to make sure AIS and VMS systems are not just fitted, but are used correctly and not tampered with. This should get easier as the cost of the technology falls.

Enforcing the use of an IMO identification number that stays with a ship throughout its life, even if it changes hands or country of registration, is also necessary. An exemption for fishing boats ended in 2013, but the numbering is still not universally applied. Signatories to a treaty agreed in 2009, to make ports exert stricter controls on foreign-flagged fishing vessels, also need to act. Rogue Fishers seek out ports with lax regulations to land illegal catches.

One big problem is that technology can work both ways... Analyzing data from July 2012 to August 2014 Windward (a maritime analytics company)  found a mouldering culture of manipulation and deceit in the global maritime industry. They sorted the problems they uncovered into five categories all of which result in “distorting the maritime picture and with it the ability of decision makers to act on valid, reliable data.” The five major categories identified were:

1) Identity Fraud: They found that 1% of ships were transmitting false or stolen identifying marks (IMO numbers, unique numbers assigned to every vessel over a certain size). While this number might seem low, they drew the analogy to airport security, and that this was the equivalent to 1000 people travelling through an international airport using fake identification in a single day. This practice has increased by 30% in the past year.

2) Obscuring Destinations: 59% of vessels failed to report their next port of call.

3) ‘Going Dark’: This was the most common form of AI manipulation whereby a vessel simply turns off their AIS. Windward determined that over one quarter of the vessels worldwide are turning off their AIS at least 10% of the time. To ‘go dark’ operators must physically separate an AIS transmitter from its battery.

4) GPS Manipulation: Windward notes that “AIS transmitters do not provide GPS validation. Therefore, whatever positioning data is ‘fed’ into the device is transmitted as the vessel’s position, regardless of the ship’s actual position.” They recorded a dramatic 59% increase in GPS manipulation between mid- 2013 to mid-2014. Operators must physically manipulate the hardware of the AIS transmitter or physically connect the AIS to a computer and use special software to provide false GPS locations. One example given in an article in Wired noted how a vessels turned off its AIS off the south coast of Mexico, only to have its AIS signal reappear near Chile a short while later, and then in the middle of the Antarctic Continent.

5) Spoofing AIS: The AIS system can be hacked so that ‘ghost ships’ can be introduced where there are not vessels. The implications of all of these various manipulations of AIS are significant, and include threats to safety at sea, international security, undermining the ability to track vessels and monitor areas on the part of governments and other security and financial stakeholders in global maritime trade. IUU fishers are strongly incentivised to manipulate their AIS or to operate without AIS, either of which is illegal, frustrates the jobs of coast guards and law enforcements, and threatens maritime safety.

Hence, the technology to find out the "truth" has similar incentives for those not interested in the truth! As well as the issue that all this is quite costly.

The way to get clients!

One interesting idea for using the watch room is that major retailers and companies could employ its findings to protect their supply chains, and thus their reputations for not handling what are, in effect, stolen goods. Governments sometimes have reason to drag their feet about enforcing fisheries rules. Supermarkets, though, will generally want to be seen as playing by them. The watch room’s developers say they are already in discussions with a large European supermarket group to do just this.

The watch room will also allow the effective monitoring of marine reserves or no take zones around small island states that do not have the resources to do it for themselves. The first test of this approach could be to regulate a reserve of 836,000 square kilometres around the Pitcairn Islands group, a British territory in the middle of the South Pacific with only a few dozen inhabitants. The Pitcairn reserve, which may be set up later this year, will be one of the world’s largest marine sanctuaries. By proving that the watch room can keep an eye on such a remote site, its developers hope other places with similar requirements will be encouraged to get involved.

The watch-room system is, moreover, capable of enlargement as new information sources are developed. One such may be nanosats. These are satellites, a few centimetres across, that can be launched in swarms to increase the number of electronic eyes in the sky while simultaneously reducing costs. Closer to the surface, unmanned drones can do the same. The watch room, then, is a work in progress. But in the game of cat and mouse that enforcing fishing regulations has become, it will give the cat an important advantage.

Sources here and here

Not just illegal fishing

Not that i'm a assiduous reader of the Somali Agenda news site, but my friend Jorge Torrens has been working there with FAO for a while, and sent me this "jewel" that I quote below, in regards the potential ramifications of IUU fishing and Korea's ineptitude as a responsible Flag State, a plot from a movie develops including corruption, assassinations, British mercenaries and the lot, as you will read... 

Mogadishu, Somalia’s Auditor-General Nur Farah has spoken with the Voice of America’s Somali Service to explain the mystery surrounding the South Korean Fishing Trawler that was captured illegally fishing in Somalia waters last week.

Confirming much of the exclusive revelations, the Auditor General has for the first time publicly accused the country’s Attorney-General Ahmed Ali Dahir and the Banadir Regional Court Chief of being responsible for the release of the fishing trawler. More troubling however, the Auditor-General has for the first time revealed of a plot to assassinate him within the Mogadishu’s Presidential Palace compound.

Not the Poseidon... but surely not too different. 

In particular, the Auditor-General accused the President’s Chief of Staff Ali Omar more commonly known as Ali Balcad of personally threatening the Auditor-General and labeling him a “security threat,” shortly before the assassination attempt was made on the life of the Auditor-General.

The South Korean Fishing Vessel’s positions 

According to the Auditor-General, the South Korean Fishing Trawler Poseidon is currently in Ceel Macaan, just north of Mogadishu actively fishing illegally in Somali waters. Sources tell SOMALI AGENDA almost $1.5 million has been paid to secure the release of the fishing trawler and deposited in a bank in Kenya with unnamed presidential aides being tasked to collect the money.

Since the inception of the current administration of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, critics have accused the president of enabling corruption to take deep roots in his government. In December of last year, The Bloomberg BUSINESSWEEK has disclosed documents and shady deals signed by former Natural Resources Minister Abdirazak Omar Mohamed which gave two British ex-Servicemen fishing rights over Somali waters. Abdirazak Omar Mohamed is currently a senior adviser to President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud on Oil and Gas.

So as you see, IUU fishing is deeply ingrained in the murkiest deals in many countries... is not just about illegal fishing...

Source here

EU and US to decide on Korea's illegal fishing status in February

The European Union has said it will delay its final decision on Korea's illegal fishing status to the end of February. This will allow Vice Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and Acting Minister Kim Young-suk to fly to Brussels in a last-ditch effort to explain the government's progress.

Flag state responsibility antonym (photo by EJF)

Kim will visit EU headquarters between Jan. 21 and 24 to inform of the progress Korea has made and drum up support to lift the imposition of the temporary illegal fishing status.

Kim will meet MARE's Director-General Lowri Evans and Karmenu Vella, commissioner for the environment, maritime affairs and fisheries, Thursday, and International Maritime Organization officials, Friday. 

The EU in November 2013 designated Korea as a preliminary illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) nation, along with Ghana and Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles

Korean fishing companies have been accused of repetitively engaging in illegal fishing in West African waters, while the fisheries ministry has been too lenient on the owners of those vessels.

In June last year, a group of EU officials came to Korea for an inspection before the economic block finalized its designation of Korea as an "illegal fishing nation," a decision that was expected to be handed down this month.

Once officially designated as an IUU country, the nation will face substantial disadvantages in trade. All fishery exports to EU nations, which amount to about $100 million a year, will be banned and Korean vessels' access to EU ports limited.

An EU delegation is slated to visit Korea between Feb. 24 and 25, prior to its final decision.

Meanwhile, the ministry is facing the final verdict about sanctions from the United States in February as well. The U.S. put Korea on its preliminary list of illegal fishing states in January 2013 and was expected to reach a final decision this month. But that was postponed for a month to conduct additional reviews.

The ministry will hold a briefing on the revised Ocean Industry Development Act, while the U.S. side will provide information on a presidential task force on combating illegal fishing.

Source: here

FAO Guidelines for Catch Documentation Schemes and other summer activities

Busy January I have to admit...

As I reported before, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) endorsed the usefulness of catch documentation schemes in combating IUU fishing and welcomed initiatives to harmonize current schemes. And requested that FAO elaborate guidelines and other relevant criteria relating to catch documentation schemes (CDS), including possible formats, based on the following principles: a) be in conformity with the provisions of relevant international law; b) not create unnecessary barriers to trade; c) equivalence; d) risk-based; e) reliable, simple, clear and transparent; and f) electronic if possible, aiming for adoption at the thirty-second session of the Committee of Fisheries. The assessment of schemes and formats shall include cost-benefit considerations and take into account catch documentation schemes already existing in certain Member States, Member Organizations and in the context of RFMOs. 

People having fun at a FAO fisheries meetings

I been honoured by FAO with the request to lead on this task… which is quite massive.  

I’m more an action person that a diplomat and a writer, so I said yes as long as I could work with people that know their stuff and could complement my many holes. So I’m working with my colleague Alastair Macfarlane, who has been a trade and market access pillar in the NZ Seafood Industry council for many years and has the trust of many people in the world.

Furthermore, my friend Gilles Hosch, is working on draft guidelines best practices on Catch Documentation Schemes for the Tuna Fisheries under the Common Oceans Initiative, and as we are in the same tune in regards these issues, a complementarity with his excellent work was a key condition for me to get involved, as we can move in parallel fronts. 

These developments run on parallel to the work I been doing with WWF US and the work planned this year with DevFishII/FFA and PNG’s NFA of a Pacific Region CDS to propose to the WCPFC.

So this is quite timely... but a major undertaken, I hope I can live up to the hopes and expectations these people and institutions have placed on me… 

If this wasn't enough, at the same time FAO requested me to be involved in one of their major projects “Fisheries management and marine conservation within a changing ecosystem context”, lading a review of 10 national case studies on traceability practices (Argentina, Barbados, Morocco, Peru, Senegal, Sri-Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Vietnam) as to identify critical points in the seafood value chain, national/regional practices for combatting IUU fishing and insuring food safety, and ways to reduce vulnerability to threats and crises especially for small scale sector.

The objective is to provide concrete recommendations to national policymakers on improved national/regional policies and provide FAO with recommendations on ways to assist national governments to improve their traceability practices, especially to combat IUU fishing.

This is one is a particularly difficult task, as our 1st big challenge was to find a method to compare “pears with oranges”, as a way to find common factors among the very eclectic mix of countries 

Hence I contacted the author of paper I read a while ago “framework for regulatory requirements related to data recording and traceability designed to IUU fishing” (Melanie Borit form NOFIMA in Norway) and not only she was very helpful, but offered to participate in the study, which is great news as no one better to evaluate the framework that the author! 

To complement the team and in order to deal with this challenge in comprehensive way, I also involved my friend and fellow Waiheke islander Kim Thomson whom I worked with in the frame of NZ fisheries, and now she is taking the bulk of the complexity of this task.

So the easy January spearfishing, surfing, sailing and doing beach life is off the window big time… but then I’m happy to stretch my brain and hopefully come up with some useful tools at the end. 

The joy of being in the ocean

I grow up in the swamps and farms near the Argentina-Paraguay border, so the ocean was a late but vital addition into my life. 

I owe to the ocean and its fisheries everything I have, and most importantly, it defined who I am.

I don't know if my kids would be in fisheries, but I would love for them to have the opportunity to do so if they are keen... However I'm painfully aware that it would be for them much harder, than it was for me, to make a living out of it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that motivate my work, I don't want fisheries to collapse and thus, do not allow them (and others like me) to build their lives in a positive way.

In any case, I'm pleased that my kids love the ocean, are not afraid of it, while are always respectful of its dangers and wonders.

This picture taken last week in Okopu Bay - Aotea/Great Barrier Island (100 kilometres / 62 mi north-east of Auckland) really pleases me as it resumes that feeling of bewildering and joy my kids seems to share with me in regards the ocean... (plus the laughs when I explained the playfulness around the dolphin's belly to belly "frisky" behaviour!)

No matter what they will become, I know that the ocean will be a part of their lives, and that makes me proud and happy.

The Basics of complexity

When I started university, marine biology and fisheries where for me the logical options, and while I did Biology in High School, it was not too deep.

I remember vividly how biochemistry and cytology at Uni just blew my mind, and I could see how the challenges of complexity and incredible pathways that already exist at molecular level would extrapolate and amplify... so managing populations and ecosystems is from that angle a mammoth task.

Here is to biochemistry and cytology! 

End of the "fishing" year

Dear friends/readers/colleagues 

Just wanted to reiterate that I don't take your readership, the work opportunities you provided me and advice given over the year, as granted.

The place I call home at this time of the year with my family, Awana in Great Barrier Island (Aotea) in NZ

I'm always aware of the fact that surely you have better options than a partly dyslexic, grammatically challenged, barely understandable, weird humoured, half cast type mongrel Austrian/Argentinean fisherman pretending for already 17 years to be a consultant...

But by some obscure reason you still give me work, read my blog and call me a friend! 
 
So thank you again for your support over 2014 and hope the best in 2015. 
 
Hope you all had a good xmas and have a great new year.

Last job of the year

Last Saturday I had my planning meeting for 2015 with my colleagues (and friends at this stage!) form the EU funded DevFish II  project based in FFA, in the Solomon Islands.  

I mentioned this project before, as a lot of the work I do in the Pacific is under its auspices, and have I been involved in its operations for the last 3 years… I really love working with them.

The aim of the project is already clear in the logo “A fairer slice for Pacific People”, and that is what delivers… Pacific Island countries catch just $200 million worth of tuna from its fisheries while foreign nations fishing in the same waters catch over $2 billion. Meanwhile, estimates of lost potential earnings from illegal fishing range from the millions to over a billion. By focusing its efforts on increasing control of illegal fishing and maximising local opportunities for business and employment, DEVFISH is making a significant impact on Pacific Island economies.

The scope of the work I’m involved with them, includes 

• Transparency and stakeholder Involvement. We are working to find newer ways to strengthen industry associations and artisanal fishers' representation in decision making, and provide training and advice on fishing access agreements and licenses to national government staff.
• Strengthening the competency of the authorities. To export fish to the EU, countries need an EU-approved 'Competent Authority' to certify fish exports meet EU export standards. Support is been provided for meeting requirements associated with sanitary inspection and EU catch certification (which contain requirements to certify fish is not caught illegally).       
• Industry Strengthening. Training and expertise to expand exports within sustainable limits will be provided - such as training fishing companies to improve vessels and fish handling practices. The emphasis is on small and medium enterprises, where we provide training and technical assistance with a focus on strengthening management and filling skill shortages constraining growth and profitability, within sustainable limits.
• Standardisation of capacity building and training. Under Devfish, training for rhe Authorities officers has been standardized under the same curriculums for the personel of all FFA countries in terms of Seafood inspectors, Fisheries inspectors, Vessels inspectors IUU certification staff, as well as training on Leadership and conflict management
• New Technologies. Projects include from of cleaner technologies, replacement of 2-stroke with 4-stroke engines for artisanal fisheries to the development of fisheries management and control Software.

I reported before on examples of the most visible work I have done with them: here, here, here and here, among otheres

And while I can be quite critical of some aspects of the EU in terms of the disproportioned burden they put on pacific island countries, I always recognised that they do put a lot of money in terms of assistance… and in the case of DevFish II they do that in a flexible format, that allows for FFA (in response to the Pacific Islands needs) to organise the contracts and assistance independently, without being micromanaged from Brussels.

This approach allows for fast response to immediate problems, this flexibility was crucial in terms of assisting countries with the IUU “yellow cards”

Furthermore, from the "human side" is great too. I’m working with friends, meetings are smooth, egos contained… the Team Leader is “Uncle” Hugh Walton (NZ), a former Fisherman/guerrilla gardner/educator, etc... (and a real south Seas vagabond) that is well know and respected all trough the Pacific, and among my colleagues I love having two friends; Jope Tamani (from Fiji) and Timothy Numilengi (PNG) whom I met first time many years ago as their trainer. Beside being top professionals, they are just really nice people to work with, and with many values more aligned to my ones than my European colleages.

Working with your friends... awesome.

In fact, I wish all international assistance programmes were like Devfish.

Infographic on the new EU labelling and traceability requirements

As of 13 December 2014, the new EU food labelling rules, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2011,  aim to ensure that consumers receive clearer, more comprehensive and accurate information on food content, and help them make informed choices about what they eat.

An explanation guide of the rules aimed to Pacific Islands Tuna producers we did with FFA in August, can be downloaded from here. 

The Illustrated "Pocket Guide" for fisheries products, published by the EU itself can be downloaded from here.

The EU issues Solomon Islands and Tuvalu "yellow cards"

Last february a delegation of the EU's DG MARE (like the EU ministry of fisheries) visited the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu in a "dialogue" mission, to assess how the countries comply with their vision of of how these countries implement their IUU regulation.

Just to put things in perspective, Tuvalu has less than 10000 inhabitants, does not process fish or trade fish with the EU. Has 5 fishing vessels under it flag, and the vessels don't land in the country because there is no where to land....

Tuvalu's fishing hub

I written intensively about the Solomons, and you all know I'm very fond of the place, so not going to abound too much on it.

Accessing the EU market comes at significant costs for the Solomons, as the EU request the highest level of compliance (rightly so, to protect their consumers) worldwide. These obligations for market access in terms of fisheries (and seafood safety) controls are quite complex for a country like the Solomon, as the need to prove they have systems in place that are equivalent to those of the EU member countries.

Implementing these systems to the required level would them around € 1.2 million. This is more than the budget that the government assigns for dengue or malaria, so allocating that kind of money for EU market access arises legitimate ethical questions. On the other side, these are the exports that  produce the income for the country that all other priorities may need. This rational, while valid, is hard to find even in established countries, more so in very young ones.

So... yes, things are not perfect... the EU singled out the lack of traceability and catch certification failures. I completely reject the 1st issue, as while fisheries may have not a traceability system in place, the authorities for health certification to the EU and the company have an excellent one, and in terms of catch certification (which is in itself a defective tool), mistakes were made on the paper work, mostly because no one ever trained them, we fixed that a in April (even the EU ambassador came to the training).

Catch Certification Training in Noro

The DG Mare delegation spent 3 days there, talking mostly to officials, not even went to Noro to see by themselves how things work there and now, 10 months later they drop this bomb, without even coming back to assess the advances... 

I'm the 1st one to recognise that they have problems and sometimes they are slow to fix them... but they are not negating them either...  So, is the best strategy for the EU to shame Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as with "yellow cards" as non-cooperative third countries in terms of IUU fishing?

Particularly when we all know the absolute mess that fisheries controls are in China (see here and here) and Taiwan for example, with huge fleets actively involved in IUU fishing in the Pacific

I acknowledge that the EU funds directly or indirectly a lot of my work... but surely there are better ways to achieve results than being perceived as a bully.