My TEDx Talk... fisheries compliance, fairness, and us

I have seen TED Talks on internet many times, and always liked the format of "directness" they have, and that the speakers seem to be a very eclectic mixture of people. So I was very happy to be asked to talk in the local TEDx Event last week.

As a speaker is quite a soul search not just to develop the "what" are you saying... but as well the "why" are you saying it.  I'm already wiser then when I started the process and that can only be a good thing!. My deepest "thank you!" to all the people putting their time on this.

Below is my script and images of each slide, as it may make it easier than just to see the video.

Slide 1

This young man next to me is Esau Bitiai, he is a crew member in the Solomon Endevour a local pole and line vessel that belong to NFD a local company based in Noro, in the western province of the Solomon Islands. The place that embodies what in my opinion fishing should be in the Pacific.

My talk is as much about Esau’s present and future as it is my one, as it is about a crucial aspect of fisheries... 

You see…  we both make a living of the act of catching fish, our job feed (literally) millions of people, allow us to raise and educate our kids, help our extend family, and hopefully to be better persons… I like to think that my work supports Esau’s aspirations in life, as much as his work supports mine.

I was very the lucky to have the chance to started fishing at a time where my earnings allowed me get an education… and then work on many of the issues that surrounds just catching fish…  the one I would like to talk today is the one of compliance.

 Slide 2

Fisheries in the cross paths of really different fields….  And all have rules

• Science is about structure in research
• Law and Enforcement… is a huge issue in fisheries… a Taiwanese flagged vessel is legally a piece of Taiwan, but when fishing in the Solomon Islands has to obey SI fisheries rules, even if the captain and crew are Indonesian, but when they unload in Fiji… Fiji port rules apply… and what legal structure applies to offences committed in “another country”… 
• Trade Rules of origin… I that fish Taiwanese, Solomonian, o Fijian? 
• Human Rights whose employment rules apply to the crew… who is responsible for their well-being and their safety at sea? 
• Diplomacy The presence of Distant Water Fishing Nations, in all seas of the world, is statement to that
• Public Policy Who “owns” that fish in terms of the benefits, particularly in case of migratory stocks.
• Economics how are these benefits distributed?, what is the role of subsidies?  
• Public Health, once fish is on the deck is not fish anymore… is food

And this is only limited to the legal side of fishing!…

 Slide 3

The key issue I’m involved presently trough my work is IUU fishing as an element of general compliance. 

In essence is a simple problem… if for each fish caught we could answer in a verifiable way all of the questions you see on the screen… then the fish is legally caught and in compliance. Simple problem… complicated solutions

Compliance is a challenging topic… I have always seen my self as an outsider, not one that did not really follow the rules. I grow up in a country with not much of culture of compliance, and while I felt that many of the rules were dumb; at least I expected they should have applied to everyone… and not just to some.

Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, et al. (2009) Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.

The equanimity of rule of law is a rare cultural privilege… In many ways should not be surprising that, as you can see in the graph above, there is a linear correlation in between the estimated amounts of illegal fishing and a index of transparency in governance among different countries.

The fisheries “crisis” is not a biological crisis, but one of politics and government transparency.

I emigrated partly because I did not foresee much of future in a society that was selective in terms of to whom compliance was expected from. So the fact that I am here (geographically and in terms of my job) today in function of my past, relates to my appreciation to the concept of fairness and equal opportunities… and not the one of enforcing rules. 

We as a society have experience in dealing with “compliance” trough enforcement of rules, Police, Inspectors, etc... but the success of enforcement is quite variable and directly related to the resources allocated to it and the capacities and values of the enforcers… 

I always believed that “fresh” thinking was needed… 

Out of a conversation with Esau about the first bank and ATM in the island… I explained that it wasn’t money what was moved around… was data.

When a payment is deposited into your account, you make extractions until you get to cero… then no more money comes out. Furthermore the system can identify when and where the money came from and where/when it came out. There are no interpretations here… is just accountancy and software.

So when back here, one day waiting for some waves in Palm Beach (yes we do have some surf here, you just have to be patient... and that gives you time to think).

I started to think that instead of catching fish to get data our of them… I also could use fish as data itself! Hence started to look at banking and logistics for inspiration (I can’t believe I’m saying this!) Could we not use the same system that banks have, but for fisheries? 

 So for the last few years I have been spending lots of time talking “fish” with database managers and IT guys, helping on the design and implementation of the "fish accountancy" side of what we call “Fisheries Information Management Systems”

Slide 4 

A good starting point is that Fish does not become illegal during processing… fish is caught illegally! We have now an increasing level of controls over the vessels activities, via remote sensing (Vessel Monitoring System - VMS) and increasingly e-reporting (real time reports from fisheries observers on board - that in the case of the Purseine Fleet in the pacific covers 100 of vessels), so we are in a much better position to assess the legality of the catch based on “who” that vessels is, “where” it has has been fishing, as well as “when” and “how”. 

Under the UN Port State Measures Agreement, fishing vessels need to notify port arrivals for fisheries related operations, And the Port has the capacity of denying services if the fish on boar is illegally caught. So if when a vessel is requesting permission to come to port to land or transship the fish (high seas transshipments are forbidden), cannot prove that the caught the fish along the requirements of it license… the local port have the option of refuse landing authorization. Or they allow them to come in but no operations start until the legality of the catch is proven.

That leave us with the “how much”, knowing this has 2 benefits… we know how much is being caught, which management importance, and then we can record those volumes as the “initial deposit”, and by this we avoid chances of “fish laundering” from any potential illegal landing (just as any financial systems deals with money laundering)

We use the volumes unloaded as the initial deposit from which extractions will be made from, and the different species unloaded become “different currencies” on a same deposit.

Then a traceability scheme in the system allow us to follow the “extractions” of different currencies trough time either by whole fish sales or processing. Furthermore, processing losses get dealt by the system like currency exchange (1kg of fish = 400g of fillets).

Finally, we “mass balance” each sale/export against that original “deposit” until the volume is exhausted, and no more fish can be attributed to that unload. If some one wants to export fish he “didn’t” land… then we know something is happening there and the inspectors can focus on them.

As you imagine, there is lot of developmental and technical complexity behind these systems… progress is slow… and we don’t have the money that a bank have! 

I been doing this work for the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, under a EU funded program, WWF has presented the idea to the US Presidential Task Force against IUU fishing, and recently the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is paying me to present for discussion a set of draft technical guidelines for a system among this lines. 

 So the concept is gaining momentum… but what I really like is that is understandable by proxy to the banking system and “fair”… as there are no “interpretations”… is just about balancing volumes… “fish in” vs. “fish out” 

Slide 5 

I like to think this “fairness” helps Esau and his people, who are after all the real owners of the resource… but then why are they and so many other Pacific islanders in the little boats, and not owning the big boats? 

And while I’m quite proud of my work and the systems I’m building… I can’t stop feeling a bit like a patronising neocolonialist … 

I live in this idyllic island (in green), in a stable, transparent and safe country… but my work places (in red) is not always like that…

The world I work is one of food for today more than aspirations for tomorrow… in the world I work:

•  20% of its population survives with less than 1 USD a day,
• 50% with less that 2 USD a day (this is the world my mother lived till her teenage days, and many of Esau’s people live),
• A staggering 80% live below 10USD a day (and this is the bracket where most of my hosts in the many vessels in the pacific I worked are… and is where I was until I came to NZ).

We here, are very small percentage of mankind, which can actually afford to think about the future.

Slide 6 

So... does Esau really need my work?

Or he needs a better present, before a sustainable fishing future… if we are not able or willing to deal with such a “management failure” as society and as a specie… what real hope does fishery has?

l like to leave you with that question. 

Thank you - Gracias

The Opah /Moonfish... the world’s first warm-blooded fish?

Anyone that spent time in a longliner in the pacific, knows Opah (moonfish) Lampris guttatus. As it normally comes as by catch. Is a quite a good looking fish, but not particularly fast or smart... but it looks like it keep a good secret up its fin!

NOAA Fisheries West Coast

One of the most basic biology facts we’re taught in school growing up: Birds and mammals are warm-blooded, while reptiles, amphibians and fish are cold-blooded.

In a recent paper published published in Science, Wegner et all, explain that

Endothermy (the metabolic production and retention of heat to warm body temperature above ambient) enhances physiological function, and whole-body endothermy generally sets mammals and birds apart from other animals. Here, we describe a whole-body form of endothermy in a fish, the opah (Lampris guttatus), that produces heat through the constant “flapping” of wing-like pectoral fins and minimizes heat loss through a series of counter-current heat exchangers within its gills. Unlike other fish, opah distribute warmed blood throughout the body, including to the heart, enhancing physiological performance and buffering internal organ function while foraging in the cold, nutrient-rich waters below the ocean thermocline.

The secret lies in a specially designed set of blood vessels in the fish’s gills, which allows the fish to circulate warm blood throughout its entire body.

Scientists already suspected the opah was special. Most fish who live where the opah does — that is, hundreds of feet deep, in some of the ocean’s darkest and coldest places — are sluggish, thanks to the low temperatures. At these depths, even predatory fish tend to be slow-moving, waiting patiently for prey to come by rather than actively chasing it down. But the opah, which spends all its time in these deep places, has many features usually associated with a quick-moving, active predator, such as a large heart, lots of muscle and big eyes. These characteristics made the opah “a curiosity”.

The opah’s secret first started to come out when NOAA researcher and lead author of the paper looked at a gill sample and noticed something intriguing.

All fish have two kinds of blood vessels in their gills: vessels carrying blood in from the body to pick up oxygen, and other vessels carrying oxygenated blood back out again. In the opah, the incoming blood is warm after circulating through the fish’s body. This is because the opah swims by quickly flapping its pectoral fins, rather than undulating its body like many other fish do, to propel itself through the water — a process that generates high heat. But outgoing blood, which has just been in contact with water in the gills, is cold. Wegner noticed that in the opah’s gills, the two sets of vessels are tightly bundled against each other, so that the incoming blood vessels can warm up the outgoing blood before it goes anywhere else. This set-up, known as “counter-current heat exchange,” allows warm blood to be delivered throughout the body.

Some other types of fish, such as tuna, have similarly designed blood vessels in certain parts of their bodies, allowing for “regional endothermy” — warm-bloodedness that’s limited to certain organs or muscles, such as the eyes, liver or swimming muscles. But the opah is the only fish scientists know of that has this design in its gills, where most fish lose the majority of their body heat to the surrounding cold water. By warming up the blood in the gills before it goes anywhere else, the opah achieves not just regional endothermy, but whole-body endothermy, according to the paper’s authors. Testing showed that the opah is able to maintain a core body temperature about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding water.

While only one species of opah is currently recognized — Lampris guttatus — scientists are starting to believe that they should actually divide the opah into several different species based on genetic variations in different populations around the world. The opah in this study were found off the West Coast of North America, so the next step will be to start sampling opah in other parts of the world to see if they all have the same specialized gills.

Down the road, future studies could also examine other related types of fish to try and figure out how and when those special gills evolved. And since a variety of different fish already exhibit regional endothermy, including tuna and certain types of sharks, it may be possible that this kind of physiological adaptation, has evolved numerous times in different lineages of fishes.

It’s possible that other deep-water species have similar adaptations as the Opah, although it’s unlikely scientists will ever discover a fish that’s truly warm-blooded, in the way whales or other marine mammals are warm-blooded.

In the meantime, Opah is an unlikely star!

Fisheries Information Management Systems (FIMS)

For the last 2 days I been in a room in Brisbane talking fish with data guys, which is not new for me and something I enjoy! For a while now I have been working aligning my usual operational work at wharf side and vessels with the collection an management of data.

In fact more and more I see the management of "fish" as no different to the management of data.  For example, when fish is landed, is like a deposit in a bank or minutes on a pre pay phone... every time you use the fish for processing , sales, etc. is like you making an extraction or you make a phone call... so that original "deposit" gets less and less until is exhausted... and you cannot make more extractions. 

Let me put it this way, is you landed legally 100, is no way you can "use" (process- export) 120 from that 100 landed...  those 20 either come form a different legal landing or they come come an ilegal landing. And here I see a huge tool to work against IUU fishing.

Because is not like some one takes the money to the bank or stuff it into your phone... is just data... Fish is actually real but the volumes and transactions can be made data! 

The concept of an FIMS is that it uses existing database systems, integrates and enhances them where required, and provides for the addition of new integrated systems to manage data not currently catered for.

At the top of the FIMS structure is a suite of reporting systems that will pull all of the information together and provide top-level reports (integrating all of the data sources into data summaries and charts), and allow “drilling down” to see more detail if required.

The types of data that may be incorporated into the system will include all tuna fisheries data, VMS (vessel monitoring systems) data, MCS (monitoring, control and surveillance) data, real time observer data, licensing data, trade data, and so on.  A good  FIMS can integrate relevant sets of information in real time, and make it available at the “press of a button”, obviously this FIMS will also does for electronic exchanges on a national and regional basis involving partner agencies and the fishing industry itself.

In the Pacific we are working in two fronts; the Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority (PNG/NFA) and the Office of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) are continuously developing with a consulting firm from Australia an integrated FIMS ( i-FIMS) that provides a hierarchical structure for these national and subregional organisations, but with additional components specific to PNG/NFA’s national database requirements. Work on this system is already well advanced and integrates with database systems developed and maintained by SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (TUFMAN, TUBS, TAGDAGER) for scientific purposes

The second initiative is working at a more general level with data from the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) integrating all data streams and in compatibility with the iFIMS.

The work of this guys is gold for me, as it allows for tracking and mass balance of fish movements, and this are the key for parallel areas of my work interest: Port State Measures, Catch Certification and IUU fisheries deterrence. 

2 of May: World Tuna Day!

I love Tuna, perhaps the most beautiful, powerful and resilient fish in the world.

Me and Noro's town tuna

And I will keep doing what ever I can, so scores of people in the Pacific keep earning their living out of tuna fisheries in a legal and sustainable (sus"tuna"ible :-) ) way, and so other millions of people world wide can eat them. 

I owe to Tuna my life for the last 20 years. Thanks to Tuna, I can feed my family, educate my children, help my friends, support my extended family, I gained qualifications that made a better professional and if that wasn't enough, got to know so many friends around the Pacific. 

So, my full love and respect to you, my brother Tuna!

My view on: Ecolabels

Lately, some of my opinions expressed on this blog have put me in hot water with people from various organisations, so I thought about explaining clearly my position in regards some topics, as I don't like to be misunderstood! 

With Fisheries Ecolabels, my view is the following: let me use a scenario to explain.

from a WWF - Accenture report

 In most countries of the world, to drive a car, you need to go trough a process of getting a driver's license run by an official institution in that country. Once you have that licence, you can legally get on the road and drive a car.  How good is that system, is depending on a varied number of reasons; like human resources, cultural values, rule of law, transparency, etc.

Obviously, there would be countries that are better than others at this. So let say that a country has a bad rate of accidents by licensed drivers, in comparison with other countries. So what you do? 

For me, the most logic, democratic and cost-effective solution is to set a program to strengthen the institution that is legally entitled to do that job in the country, standardise the licensing systems, exams and controls under auditable standards and reward conformance in some way.

What I would not do, is to create a privately owned parallel system on top of the already existing national system. Hence I, as a driver need to get trough the hurdles of the official systems, and then get in contact with this private companies ( working at least at cost recovery but most probably for profits) and go over a whole set of new exams and tests (at my cost) to prove people I don't know, that I know how to drive.

And that is what in my opinion Ecolabels do, create a parallel system. And is not that if I’m a good driver this extra private certificate will diminish my insurance cost or guarantee me a fare increase.

So that is my “problem” with Ecolabels. I would not mind their existence if they were based on a model pushed by consumers that want extra guarantees and are happy to pay for them… but is rather on a model for retailers offloading to a ”commercial brand” their decision-making capacity and expecting the producers to pay for the bill.

I do have the feeling (and I got this from data we collected working with Globefish) that we are being told that is a “consumer” requirements, when seems that is a retailer imposition to create a “firewall” around them by saying… we sell fish with ecolabels so it should be good!

Many governments have introduced at national, regional and international levels (with different degrees of success and capacity), and diverse policies and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. And I have seen that the better the performance of the organisation the easier the Eco-certification is… so it seems that the fisheries that are certified are the ones that needed it the less.

The idea of that a certified product may get a price premium is not a golden rule, furthermore the logic of that assumption is flawed, in NZ we have argued that the industry should not even expect a price premium for certification noting that: “No plausible case can be made for a premium for ‘sustainable seafood’. I anything, a well-managed fishery should also be a cheaper fishery to harvest as the fish should be more abundant and easier to catch!” as said by my friend Alastair MacFarlane

Furthermore, the “explosion” of fish-related labels and certification, has created what has been described as “eco-label noise”. Consumers may find the wealth of different messages confusing; they increasingly put their faith in trusted retailers to define the boundaries of their ethical purchasing decisions.

For example, The NZ Hoki fishery managed under an internationally peer review Quota Management System (QMS) has been certified by MSC since 2001, nevertheless, since 2010 Greenpeace added it to its seafood red list, as Greenpeace believes “the stocks of Hoki are now considered to be overfished”… so who you believe?

On top of that different certification schemes certify different things, have different standards, and use different assessment methodologies. There is significant variation between schemes in the scope of the assessments conducted. And after knowing some of the people behind them, I have seen people with very dubious moral standards taking moral high grounds on the goodness of their brand of Ecolabels in comparison to the others.

The Ecolabels session in most tuna conferences I have been, is always an embarrassing cat fight.

Personally, I think that if all the money behind those logos and labels that retailers in rich countries want (or say they want) was to be used to support and strengthen the organisations in the sourcing countries who’s job is to manage the sustainability of the fisheries, we would achieve much better results.

Otherwise, we seem to push towards a potential the scenario where the official organisations become irrelevant and we rely on the opinion of business and brands (which is what ecolabels are) to "run" fisheries management. 

Ecolabels have a space in the fisheries world, a space we gave them by not having a strong fisheries management systems and they took using consumers ethics as a reason… and like anyone else in the fishing business they want to make money.

Some people try to push them as a condition of market access (which is not!) in the best case scenario is a tool for market success, hence adhering to then should be approached as a business decision. 

Would you really get something from having label X or Z?. If the answer is yes, choose based on the market presence of the labels in the country you are targeting… and be ready to spend a lot of money.

Interestingly the one that I respect the most of those Ecolabels (MSC because they certify fisheries and no companies) has landed itself in problems with a russian based fishery as you see here

On Armenia, fisheries and acknowledging grievances

In 2004 I did one of the most strange missions of my career, I went to Armenia, a landlocked country in the crossroad of the Caucasus. 

It felt at the time like it was kind of the Atlantis (a place we all know about, but nobody knows really where it is). I really didn’t know anything about the country and besides finding in a map it exact location, learned about his geography and history.

I heard before about Armenia, as most people in the world, because its surviving diaspora of which a substantial part settled in Argentina and Uruguay after escaping Turkey in what was called the 1st genocide of the 20th century. (I’ll come back to that). 

Still, what doe s a fisheries guy does there? Over 5 % of the country’s surface is covered by Lake Sevan  and the lake host an active fishery of the very valuable narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus) that is  indigenous species of Armenia that initially inhabited freshwater habitats of Ararat Plain, but in the 1980s it was introduced into Lake Sevan, and fairly soon its population and distribution throughout the Lake started to grow. 

The northern European market had a strong affinity to this fresh water crayfish, as similar species used to abundant there in the past, but the local populations have decreased and a potential market was open, so my job was to create and strengthen the regulatory avenues for the country to be able to export their crays to the EU and in a completely unrelated fashion develop a (immediately doomed) fisheries management plan.

One part of the job really worked, the export volumes increased during the twelve-year period, 2000-2011 from 20 tons per year to 1120 tons per year. Not surprisingly, in comparison to 2004, when the industrial stock was estimated at 1800 tons, it decreased by 52% in 2011 to about 860 tons. At current, chances are that the population of crayfish may have declined to a level making self-reproduction nearly impossible. 

In any case, besides the challenges of work, the place itself was a revelation… not many places in the world have such a old, convoluted and complex history as Armenia. The wikipedia link above is illustrative enough.

The issue of the genocide still awkwardly diputed by Turkey (which at the time was the Ottoman empire). This weekend marked the 100th anniversary the initial actions that set up the events, on April 24th 1915, scores of Armenian intellectuals were rounded up in Istanbul and most were later murdered. But as the centenary approaches, what followed is still bitterly contested by the present Turkish government. To the point that in previous years Turkey has commemorated the allied landings at Gallipoli in 1915 on April 25th. This year it is shifting events to April 24th, some say to distract from the centenary of the Armenian massacres.

Scars of the event run so deep in the country that the genocide is integral part of the Armenian’s identity.

Turkey’s position is increasingly unattainable… recognising what happened is not going to debilitate its international “reputation” if anything it will enhance it. They are not alone in that club… any imperial power and colonizing country is guilty (i.e. is estimated that 90% of the original inhabitants of Central and South America died in the first 100 years of Spanish and Portuguese colonization, the atrocities of the UK extended over 5 continents – and I’m not including slavery)…. So no moral high ground there.

For most Armenians I know, just a formal recognition of their grievances would do, and allow them to move on into the next steps of their history. They have never used their tragedy as tool for subjugation of other races or as a turn around tool to claim those who criticise them are xenophobic. Even their conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh run among other lines (most of the time at least)

People sitting together and recognising each other grievances has amazing effects, is not about changing the past, of trying to convince you otherwise. Even at very simple level of conflict around work. The sitting of people with grievances about each other’s actions or writings can have amazing soothing consequences (I had such an event last Friday for example)

Surely no Turkish leader read this blog (however I was amazed how many people in the Brussels Seafood Show told me they do!)… but is time to just sit and acknowledge each other grievances with Armenia, is really the only way forward.

Until then my Armenian friends will keep holding to this event as the key unresolved issue in their existence as people, as country and a culture, which believe me is much richer that that. 

More expected yellows and unexpected greens by the EU

The European Commission has today put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures in the international fight against illegal fishing (IUU). As a result of  series of discussions with Thai authorities since 2011, the Commission has denounced the country's shortcomings in its fisheries monitoring, control and sanctioning systems and concludes that Thailand is not doing enough.

Personally, I have to say that this was long time due. Good on the EU for taking finally that step, it was obvious to many of us in this game, that there was no way that there was enough tuna coming with catch certs from the WCP (Western Central Pacific) to supply the EU market, furthermore the practices on their ports have been dubious at best. From a very reliable source I know that one of the main companies there is cupboard with many of the supplying countries official stamps  to be used to forge EU CCs (since they are not electronic - even if that was contemplated in the EU IUU regulation and after 5 years has not happen yet)

So, Thailand was not a surprise [Taiwan and China next please :-)]. What really did surprised me was that Philippines and Korea were "green carded".

Philipines case was intricately related to the PNG one, most of the problems relate to the lack of controls on their massive fleet operating in PNG waters (and I'm a witness of that). I have been heavily involved with PNG in this particular issue for the last year, and PNG system is very thorough at this stage and i hoped it will be good enough to be out of the yellow.

When I was in Philippines last December, I did not see anything as developed as in PNG. And while I'm not discrediting any efforts that Philippines may or may have not done, I really expected both countries to be green lighted at once at least or PNG first and then Philippine later, but not the oposite. But then i'm just a guy on the ground helping people and I have not many insights (nor I want to have!) in the politics behind these decisions.

And in regards Korea... well... if finally having requested their vessels to have a VMS was the start, i imagined that the depth of changes was much deeper, again my knowledge is only based on my evaluation of the importance that compliance has on the Korean vessels I see in the ports of the Pacific.

Solomons has a system as good as the best i have seen worldwide, and domestic fleet of 7 vessels only. We actually print the certificates, because the EU has not yet a portal for us to send the data electronically. So I was also disappointed to not see them "green carded".

In any case, I'm always been of the idea that "the perfect should not be on the way of the good". And the fact that I may not understand the reasons or politics behind the decisions, does not demerit the fact that the IUU issue is being advanced at forefront of public awareness. 

Back at the Brussels Seafood Expo Global

I'm back at the Seafood Expo Global/Seafood Processing Global (formerly the European Seafood Exposition/Seafood Processing Europe) is the world’s largest seafood trade event. More than 25,800 buyers, suppliers, media, and other seafood professionals from 150 countries visit the exposition. It is the global place where the seafood industry marketing big players mingle... as you imagine, is not an environment where I strive.

I struggle with some of these people with their suits, ties and expensive watches that believe they are the ultimate genius in the fishing industry, but they would not last 5 minutes in a fishing boat. They are so far removed from the reality on the vessels and fishers and the struggles that both face, yet based their fake smiles and 2nd hand car salesman attitude you may think that the fishing world is flourishing and perfect. (As in every aspect of life, they are great exemptions to my cliche views)

I'm here since part of my work portfolio is with a Swiss Government organisation (SIPPO) whose innovative approach to assistance, is to by-pass governments and offer assistance directly to small and medium size producers in some development and transitional countries that pass some stringent criteria in regards sustainability, compliance and social responsibility.

The package that SIPPO offers this companies includes a stand at fair, extensive matchmaking services, a communication package, support during the preparation and follow-up phase, a preparation workshop in Brussels and hotel accommodation during the trade fair.

My work is to advice the organisation during the selection process and during the trade show offer them technical support around market access issues, eco-labelling and private certifications.

Furthermore with my friend Raul from - Freshfish - (Branding -Strategy - Design) we are contracted do the exhibitor brochure for the Expo, and in this occasion they are presenting a technical guide that I wrote and they published.

If you happen to be in Brussels come and say hello: SIPPO Pavilion - hall 7 | stand 7-1953, as you imagine (being from Switzerland) they are very organised and the free chocolates are excellent :-) 

Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels

The US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing regulatory changes to improve the administration of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act program and the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas.

The deep blue is no ones ocean

The proposed rule changes includes, all U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, adjustments to permitting and reporting procedures. It also includes requirements for the installation and operation of enhanced mobile transceiver units for vessel monitoring, carrying observers on vessels, reporting of transshipments taking place on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

All this requirements are standards for the vessels when fishing in RFMO waters, but the ABNJ (Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction) are just that! so is up to the Flag State to put the rules. In fact the lack of some of these controls out Fiji into a "yellow" card situation with the EU. So is interesting that that the US is now looking for comments before amending their act. (no pun intended)

Interestingly, they have included the South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishery

For the official page click here

EU Market Access a Fishery and Aquaculture Products (2nd edition)

The Swiss Import Promotion Agency (SIPPO) recently published the 2nd edition of my (hopefully) easy reading "manual" dealing with EU Market Access Conditions for Fish and Aquaculture Products.

This guide tackles the key issues from the Sanitary and Catch Certification perspectives. The present edition also expands on the common dificulties around the Catch Certification and includes a brief section of Certification of Origin. 

The booklets (60 pages) are written in English and Spanish with plenty of graphs, pictures, tables and references in order to make the reading more "digestible". 

The English version is available online here, and the Spanish one here

As low key official presentation will take place on Tuesday 21, 4 pm at the SIPPO stand (Hall B7 – Booth 1849) in the Brussels Seafood Expo (you most welcome if in the expo at that time) 

The standardisation of transhipments controls in ports

For the last year or so I have been working a lot under my contract with the DevFISHII program with transshipments in port areas, which are a complex reality in our region. While there are valid logistical and economic reasons for their existence, we are working on standardising transshipment compliance monitoring.

Transhipment (the unloading of all or any fishery products on board a vessel to another vessel) of tuna in the Pacific context consist of three main players:

• Purse seine fleets of Japan, China, Taiwan, USA, Vanuatu, Korea, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, PNG and others;
• International fish brokerage firms based in Japan, Taiwan, and the USA with regional offices in Asia and elsewhere, and the carriers they operate or charter;
• Shipping agents and service providers in the major transshipment ports of Pacific island countries.

Transhipments are very regulated, under WCPFC and national regulations, and there are way over 1000 transshipments from DWFN seiners in the five major transshipment ports of Pohnpei, Majuro, Honiara, Rabaul and Tarawa.

Multiple factors contribute to choices of transshipment port by DWFN seiners, the most important being proximity to fishing grounds, but a port’s advantageous geographic location near fishing grounds does not necessarily guarantee that fishing is within its country’s EEZ. 

Fisheries officers play a role in clearing inward fishing vessels and collecting information on transshipment operations. Monitoring may consist of remaining onboard during transshipment for various purposes, including prevention of dumping of fish and varied levels of verification of quantities transshipped take place. The monitoring function more commonly includes collection of the relevant documentation relating to volumes transhipped. However, this is sometimes limited in the ways the evaluation of the legality and volumes of the fish on board is undertaken.

A limited implementation of the principles of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSM), is a good way to tackle part of the problem, by turning around the table on the fishers. Instead of the Port State Authorities proving them wrong, they have to prove themselves right. Ergo, it is in their camp to prove that the fish on board was legally caught, otherwise port access and services can be denied.

It is worth noting that in global Monitoring, Compliance and Surveillance (MCS) methodology, PSM have only recently been the subject of particular focus, precisely because of the weaknesses in Flag State Responsibilities and in the difficulties of applying Coastal State Measures in some countries. Indeed as surveillance at sea is made difficult where there are extensive EEZs (often the case for small islands countries) and it is very expensive, Port State Measures can be cost-effective.

The implementation of PSM is a major challenge for developing countries, as human resources can be a problem particularly in ports where the landing and transhipment activities are intense, and it is often very difficult for the fisheries inspectors to monitor the entire landing or transshipment operations, and inspections can be cursory.

The basic principles of Port State Measures are:

• Prior notification. The master of the vessel has to present a prior notification to the competent authorities requesting approval to transship.
• Confirmation from the flag State may be needed, where flag the State confirms the legal status of the catch.
• Authorisation to land or transship. Such authorization is given by the Port State, if the flag State and/or Coastal States have confirmed the legal status of the catch.
• No authorisations shall be given if this is not the case. By derogation an exception can be made, but the vessel can not be released before the required confirmation is given.
• Volumes on board should be communicated to the next port of call.

But for PSM to work, you need to have the responsibilities allocated along the key authorities involved. Normally it should work this way:

The Port Authority (PA) is responsible for clearance of all vessels in and out of port and anchorage, however if the vessels has fish on it (FVs or Carriers), the PA communicates the request to Fisheries Authority (FA) and waits for their advice prior to authorise entry (unless emergencies) and prior to authorise any unloading or loading of fish, as fisheries need to cross check the compliance status of the vessel. Finally the enforcement authority (police, coastguard or navy depending the country) enforces the decisions. Furthermore, the departure of the vessels needs also to be cleared by Fisheries, prior Ports gives the clearance in terms of assuring the volumes on board. 

So we are working on the strengthening of the  administrative paths and information flows with the other ports, as the vessel arrival notification and the vessel departure authorization need to take account of the amounts o fish left on board… so we make sure nothing get lost (or found ☺) on the way.

As well as having the authorisations sorted, there are logistic complications with partial catch transshipment (only some especies get transferred). From a regulator perspective, the limitation of these practices are not to be “annoying or difficult”, but is that every partial transshipments makes the required traceability almost unmanageable, as it does complicate immensely the “landed volumes per trip” analysis and “the catch dates” from a MCS and Catch Certification perspective.

Standardizing all these issues among all ports is the challenge, so we all singing the same song and vessels don’t cherry pick. The support of my colleagues in the Fisheries Authorities in the Pacific as as always is fantastic!

If you are interested in a deep analysis of what is happening in the region in terms of transhipments, you should read FFA's 2012 report (A Survey of Tuna Transshipment in Pacific Island Countries by Mike A. McCoy), Mike is a person that knows the Pacific as no other does and is a great guy.

Talking fishy stuff at TED X Waiheke

For many years now, I been listening some of the TED talks. Very inspiring people passing their views and questions to a crowd of other interesting people happy to receive it.

Never expected to be invited to be part of one... but somehow it happened :-) 

15 minutes to tackle some of the challenges of fisheries while making sure they keep an interest in a topic that is quite obscure to those that are not part of it. Very much looking forwards

More information here

"No longer will we have to try to combat illegal fishing on a boat by boat basis"

Countries facing pressure on their fisheries by foreign vessels have been thrown a lifeline, with an international tribunal ruling that "countries can be held liable for not taking necessary measures to prevent illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing operations by their vessels in the waters of other countries"... This is quite massive actually!

The ruling is included in an Advisory Opinion issued today by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the application of the West African Sub Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) – comprised of Cape Verde, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone.
 
“This is a very welcome ruling that could be a real game changer,” said WWF International Marine Programme Director John Tanzer.   “No longer will we have to try to combat illegal fishing and the ransacking of coastal fisheries globally on a boat by boat basis.” 

The Advisory Opinion stated that countries have a duty of due diligence to ensure that their fishing vessels do not engage in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the waters of other countries and can be held liable for breach of this duty.
 
The Advisory also holds that the European Union can have the same due diligence duty as a flag State, when they are the party to fisheries access agreements with other states.
 
 West African waters are believed to have the highest levels of IUU fishing in the world, representing up to 37% of the region’s catch. 

The due diligence obligation means that flag States will have to take enforcement actions to ensure their vessels comply with the laws of SRFC member states and take measures necessary to ensure that their vessels comply with protection and preservation measures adopted by the SRFC member States.

The Tribunal also strengthened the obligations of neighbouring coastal states to each other, stating that  ‘The conservation and development of shared stocks in the exclusive economic zone of an SRFC Member State require from that State effective measures aimed at preventing over-exploitation of such stocks that could undermine their sustainable exploitation and the interests of neighbouring Member States.’
 
WWF will hold a workshop  in Dakar, Senegal  in June to explore what the rulings can offer to coastal states in protecting fisheries and livelihoods. 

Source here and the press release of the outcome International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is here

China in the Pacific.. big fish in a big pond

Recently, I came across an interesting study by the Lowy Institute, a foreign affairs think-tank based in the in Sydney that analysed the role of Chinese Aid in the Pacific.

While working in fisheries around the pacific, you well aware of the Chinese presence in the mammothian number of vessels they have operating directly or indirectly (under local flags), the dominance of Chinese migrants in retail at most pacific islands, and the crappy leaking buildings they normally build as part of the foreign policy efforts and donate to the local governments. 

Interestingly, I've never heard of any Chinese funded fisheries project, at any level with most countries I worked in the pacific, albeit the massive presence they have in the Pacific fisheries.

Hence it was interesting to see The Economist pick up the story, so I transcribe some of their views.

" China has forked out nearly $1.5 billion in bilateral aid to the Pacific region since 2006—more than France or the European Union, and closing in on aid levels from the long-time Pacific partners of Japan and New Zealand.

Historical ties still count for much. Across the region, Australia remains easily the Pacific Islands’ biggest donor, contributing $6.8 billion in aid from 2006 to 2013. But the government of Tony Abbott, which took office in 2013, has since slashed its generous programme. Much of what is being distributed now pays the price of keeping local politicians amenable to troubled detention centres on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea, and on the microstate of Nauru, where Australia sends its unwanted asylum-seekers.

America is still the region’s second-biggest giver of aid, contributing $1.7 billion between 2006 and 2013. But more than half of that went to the country’s satellite states in Micronesia, and their territories Guam and the Northern Marianas. When Hillary Clinton, then America’s secretary of state, attended the Pacific Islands Forum in the Cook Islands in 2012, she promised the region more attention.  Yet aid, expected to rise, has remained stagnant.

By contrast the expansion of Chinese help has been striking. At a summit in 2013 in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou, China pledged tariff reductions on imports from islands in the South Pacific and $1 billion in preferential loans to them. China’s president, Xi Jinping, visited Fiji in November 2014, promising yet more development loans. 

Some observers have fretted that Chinese moves, in particular a meaty aid package signed in 2006, shortly before a coup, have undermined democracy in Fiji. Others point out that China also contributed $780,000 to the cost of running elections in September.

Chinese assistance to these small island states certainly comes at a price. Some now have hefty levels of debt; when difficulties in meeting repayments arise, debts are more likely to be rescheduled than forgiven. In the kingdom of Tonga, two-thirds of its external debt is owed to Eximbank, China’s foreign-aid bank, alone. Loan funds end up with Chinese firms bidding for government contracts. Raw materials and labour are mostly imported from China too ( And I can attest to that)

The result for Pacific islanders is a shiny stadium or gleaming new hospital without the benefits of either extra jobs or more money circulating in the local economy. Chinese investment in the Pacific Islands has been largely resource-driven. The $1.6-billion Ramu nickel mine in Papua New Guinea is easily the largest of China’s Pacific operations. A Chinese firm, Zhongrun International, is now the majority owner of Fiji’s Vatukoula gold mine. Another, Xinfa Aurum, is mining bauxite on Fiji’s second-largest island, Vanua Levu.

For most Pacific Islanders, however, the most obvious sign of China’s increased presence is inward migration. This swelling diaspora, made up mostly of small-scale traders, has happened independently of China’s aid push. Indeed it is burgeoning in some of the Pacific countries that recognise Taiwan (and thus have no diplomatic links with China). Riots in 2006 in the Solomon Islands and Tonga, and again in 2009 in Papua New Guinea, targeted such Chinese, and in some cases China evacuated its citizens. In the Pacific, China’s attention may before long be taken up with having to protect its overseas workers more."

Webinar with the Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products

A couple of weeks ago I presented the final report on the recommendations provided by a Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products, on which I serve as a member.

On the 30 of March my co-authors would be hosting a webinar for those interested on participating. At the time  I'll be jumping in between transhipping boats in the Marshall Islands working with them on a SOP for that activity, so unfortunately i'll not be participating... but the real experts will!

You can join the webinar by clicking here: eplat.eventbrite.com

So if you have questions about Expert Panel on Recommendations for a Global Framework to Ensure the Legality and Traceability of Wild-Caught Fish Product?

An international panel of experts from leading seafood businesses, environmental NGOs,and scientific societies has issued eight recommendations for securing seafood supply chains against the products of illegal fishing. The panelists will present their findings and answer questions during this international webinar.

Beside me (the only non-institutionalised :-), the seven following experts participated with the support of their respective institutions. 
•  Tejas Bhatt, Institute of Food Technologists
•  Mariah Boyle, FishWise
•  Bill DiMento, High Liner Foods
•  Michele Kuruc, WWF
•  Hans-Jürgen Matern, Metro Group
•  Petter Olsen, Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and  Aquaculture Research (Nofima)
•  Steve Trent, Environmental Justice Foundation

Subsidies, Spying and short term gains in the Tuna Negotiations

Shane Jones (a sort of NZ Ambassador) and James Movick (the head of FFA - Fisheries Forum Agency - one of my main contractors) were in a interview with 3 News, and they talked of various things that are close to my soul: subsidies, Sanford (the company that gave me my 1st contract in NZ and a client in areas of my work) and spying (a hot topic in NZ politics, where it looks like out present government has been the hears of the US in this issues)

A while ago the sides change of Shane Jones, from a MP high on the Labour Party and potentially been seen as a Leader (the 1st one with Maori lineage), to accept a job with the opposition (the National present party in charge), as "New Zealand’s Pacific Economic Ambassador", was seen as master-movement by National to get rid of a potential leader of the opposition.  

The news at the time talked of a "fisheries ambassador" based on the fact that Jones knows the industry as he had a role with Sealord (a big NZ company). Many of us who work in this field do wonder at the time (and sometimes now too), what his role is.

Both made the news yesterday with James Movick, the head of FFA (Fisheries Forum Agency), as both are in Auckland at the present since the US treaty tuna negations are in place.

Here is transcript of what they had to say:

This morning I’m joined by New Zealand’s Pacific Economic Ambassador, Shane Jones, and Director General of the Pacific Islands Forum Fishing Agency, James Movick. Good morning to you both.

James Movick: Good morning.

If I could start with you, Mr Movick, you’ve been leading the negotiations to bring this treaty back to life. Have you got a deal this week?

Movick: No, no, we actually did not come here with the expectation of reaching a final deal here, but rather this meeting will focus on setting the new structure of the treaty to go into the future to serve the new needs of the Pacific Islander community in particular.

So a ways to go there. Mr Ambassador, in layman’s terms—

Shane Jones: Good morning.

Good morning. Can you explain to us what’s the problem? Is it overfishing, too many boats? Spell it out for us.

Jones: Well, in a nutshell, the Pacific Island leaders want to generate income from this precious resource. They’ve got pressures on their national budgets. They’ve mandated James, who leads the peak body in the Pacific, to find a way that they can sustain earnings. The industry is saying the value of tuna has crashed in the international commodity markets. They can’t match the price that’s demanded, so common ground has to be found. And if it’s not found, the fear that exists is that a lot of these key species will become biologically non-viable.

So they’ve selling days – the amount of days that you can fish – to the highest bidder, so have you got too many boats out there in the water in the Pacific?

Jones: Well, as James would possibly correct me, to the best of my knowledge, there’s about 300 boats – purse seiners. These are monstrous vessels. And we could probably catch the current amount of fish with fewer boats, but these are boats that are licensed and fishing in Pacific sovereign waters. They’re very rarely in New Zealand waters, so the sovereign leaders of those Pacific Island nation states need to strike a balance between the zest for revenue and providing an example that if you fish too much, if you have too much capacity, there’ll be no fish left.

Mr Movick, who’s doing the overfishing? There’s a lot of concern about the Asian nations, and, actually, you’ve raised that yourself, haven’t you?

Movick: I think everybody’s engaging in overfishing to some extent, that they’re participating in the fishery, but I think we need to understand the scale of the problem perhaps a bit better. It’s clear that the overfishing that is occurring is occurring on the big-eye tuna stocks, which is a very small component of the overall tuna catches in the region. And it’s the concern over that which is causing all the other current concern. But the problem there is that the bigeye tuna is taken both by large super-frozen long-line vessels, which are primarily foreign – Asian-owned – which operate primarily on the high seas, and they’re also taken by purse seine vessels, which tend to fish within the exclusive economic zones of the Pacific Island countries. In seeking to adopt the appropriate management measures, both of these fleets have to concede something – have to reduce their level of fishing. And the question then is – in what way and to what extent does each do this? But we need to recognise that any reduction in the effort that is taken by purse seiners in the exclusive economic zones of the Pacific Island countries does have economic consequences to them. And so what we are saying is that while we are prepared to make reductions in that catch, the distant water, foreign-owned fleets need to make reductions in that alternative sector and any disproportionate burden of conservation that is borne by the small island states needs to be compensated.

All right. Mr Ambassador, you’re particularly worried about the Chinese, aren’t you, the Chinese fleet?

Jones: You know, the current treaty negotiations relate to the Americans. Some of the American vessels, as James would agree with, are actually Taiwanese vessels, but they fly an American flag. And I’m the sort of person that I’m really not into stigmatisation, and the real challenge is that when you have subsidies, and New Zealand’s had a proud record over the years of challenging subsidies – we’re one of the last fishing nations that doesn’t have subsidies – subsidisation leads to distortionary outcomes.

So who’s subsidising their boats and to what extent?

Jones: Well, there’s a subsidy inside the American Tuna Treaty worth $21 million. There’s subsidies association, I think, with the Taiwanese, the Koreans and the Chinese as well.

Movick: The European Union.

Jones: The European Union. And little old New Zealand, our biggest fishing company is just a part of the Pacific Sanford’s. They had a proud record there. We don’t have subsidies, but unless you challenge subsidisation, I fear that people will continue fishing after it’s actually economically not viable to do so. But if you have a subsidy and your fuel costs are underwritten, you don’t need to face the full costs of your activity.

So is that pushing New Zealand tuna boats out of the game?

Jones: The reality is that Sanford’s have already announced that their four boats are gone. One of them’s been sold to the final remaining totara tree of the fishing industry in New Zealand in the Pacific, and it’s Peter Talley. He’s the only one still up there.

And the reality is the growth where the new boats are coming from, that’s China, isn’t it?

Jones: I don’t have the exact numbers, but let’s face it – throughout the Pacific, where Pacific nations and even me in my current role, we’ve learnt to accept that the mix of the economy has changed. China does have an interest in the Pacific. New Zealand is actually working in a JV project in Rarotonga at this very moment with the Chinese, trying to upgrade sanitation and water supply. And my role really is to find a common way to work with these fishing nations without alienating our neighbours, because they are a permanent reality of the modern Pacific.

So who is going to tell China and some of these Asian nations that they’re being irresponsible in their approach?

Movick: We have been, and we’ve raised our concern with China about the introduction of the hundred or so vessels into the Southern albacore long-line fishery over the last two years. And we’ve encouraged them work with the Pacific Island countries so that those fleets can work with the island countries and bring some of the benefits to the island countries by shore-side offloading, processing as well as working with Pacific Island fishing operators, so that some of the subsidy benefit that they do enjoy perhaps might also be enjoyed by those other participants, the Pacific Islanders.

Because the point is, isn’t it, the resource belongs to these pacific nations, so they are well within their rights, aren’t they, to sell it to the highest bidder? That’s their prerogative.

Movick: Of course. Of course.

Do you agree with that, Mr Jones?

Jones: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, these are sovereign island nations. And the only cautionary note I always strike, having come and seen the ups and lows of our own fishing industry, is that never let the pursuit of revenue eclipse the importance of sustainability. Don’t ever let that happen. We’ve had that problem in New Zealand.

But doesn’t it just come down to bad luck for American and New Zealand? It’s their right to sell it – they’re selling it to the highest bidder. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Oh, look, yeah, I mean, you see Sanfords, a well-known Kiwi company, has said, “Look, I can’t match the price. I can’t make money. I’ve out of Dodge.” 

Okay. Mr Movick, you’ve spent the last week negotiating with the US and other countries over this, and it’s a short time after we found out that New Zealand is spying on countries in the Pacific. Was there much concern about that during these discussions? Was it raised?

Movick: No, it was certainly not raised openly, although yes, a few people would make comments on the side and seek clarification.

What sort of comments, Mr Movick?

Well, ‘Is this true, and does this make any difference?’ Quite frankly, we’ve always taken the view, many of us on the secretariat side, that a lot of the information that is being discussed internally does get shared. It’s done by everybody in the course in the course of normal diplomatic contact.

Shared or spied on?

I would say to some extent, you share information, if you’re trying to reach an agreement with anybody, particularly where you have a common interest. And this is not just with New Zealand, but quite a number of the Pacific Island countries as well.

But do you think your organisation is being spied on? Because we’ve heard that spying is not just for security reasons; it’s for economic reasons. And here you’ve got a big country, the US, wanting to do a deal. Do you think you’re being spied on?

Movick: We take active precautions. We presume that others, particularly the distant-water fishing nations, will try to get access to the data that we have at the agency and what we are doing, so we have very strict information security rules in order to try to ensure that we protect against electronic surveillance of our systems. But on the other hand, a lot of the scientific data that we deal with is open and very transparent, and we want to encourage that and keep it that way.

So Mr Movick assumes he’s being spied on, Ambassador. Does that concern you?

Jones: Without wanting to become the Willy Moon of your show today, you need to take that question to someone like Minister Finlayson. The ambassador could speak on a topic too foreign. Look, when I go to fishing plants, people are talking to me about fillets and loins. They never talk to me about spying.

But does it make your job more difficult?

Jones: I haven’t encountered any static in that regard, but I would say that I’m dealing at a very sort of gut level in the fishing industry in the Pacific.

The devastation by Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu

I work there many times over the years.... and while we could discuss their commitment to good vessels and fisheries management, they are good people and Pam hit them REALLY hard as you can see form the assessment below.

If you have an opportunity to help in any way, please do so.

Kunlun detained with 180 Tonnes of illegally harvested toothfish

Further to my last post related to this topic, the Kunlun arrived in Phuket last Monday and attempted to offload what it claimed was groper. Previously registered to Equatorial Guinea, it was falsely reflagged as an Indonesian vessel and renamed Taichan. Bangkok-based New Zealand officials, police and customs officers arrived on the island soon after and have been working with Thai counterparts to hold the boat and its illegal haul.

Its understood one of the heads of the notorious Spanish syndicate Vidal Armadores also travelled to Phuket after it became clear the boat was to be detained.

The NZ government worked quietly behind the scenes after the navy was slammed for failing to board two of a fleet of three vessels spotted poaching in Antarctic waters in January. After tracking the Kunlun to Thailand, they alerted officials and passed on evidence collected by the HMNZS Wellington patrol.

Meanwhile, recent raids in Spain on Vidal Armadores-linked companies came after pressure from Wellington. Operation Sparrow - an investigation into alleged links with illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities marked the first time Spain enforced a new fisheries law.

The rust-eaten Yongding and Songhua are still operating in the Southern Ocean.

The shell companies behind this vessels is Stanley Management Incorporated, a Panama company and Sucre Arias Reyes, law firm, that he said provides a front for boats fishing illegally fishing. 

The vessels had no fishing gear on board, so it could have been dumped as a way to hide the "gun" for the work. While the vessels is designed and geared as a longlines, it has been operation as bottom gilleneter as well,  (See below for the differences)

Thailand on their side is not due to pass domestic fishing laws until June, which left authorities with few legal options. But they'd declared the catch as groper, not toothfish and It is an offence to declare your fished something different to what it is. Misreporting is a component of Unreported, one of the "U" in IUU.

Separately, the boat had gone in there identifying itself as the Tiachan, flying the Indonesian flag, and it was easy to establish with the Indonesians that they didn't own it. So, it is technically stateless, giving the Thai authorities a facet to keep the vessel held, so the next step is to confiscate the catch, so they don't get any benefit from their misdeeds.In the meantime Vidal Amadores have had their people on the ground trying to get their boat sprung.

All 36 people on board the vessel – the Peruvian captain, four Spaniards and 31 Indonesians – have yet to face any charges, but are under watch onboard the ship. One Spaniard was removed from the ship before it was seized due to self-inflicted wounds over alleged family issues.

So the plot thickens. 

Finally, Spain seems to take action against rogue fishing companies

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) is inspecting the headquarters of several companies for alleged link with vessels included in the list of illegal fishing in the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Orgullo de la flota

Operation Sparrow (in cooperation with Interpol)  is developing in companies located in the province of A Coruña, after several months of investigation. These companies seem to the the beneficial owners of the Songhua, Kunlun and Yongding that were spotted by the NZ in January this year.

The fish inspection services are dealing with the examination of numerous physical and electronic documentation.

The operation could lead to the opening of different sanctioning procedures on maritime fishing.

For their part, the fish inspection services are responsible for developing complex investigations in collaboration with partner nations in the fight against illegal fishing, such as New Zealand.

The implementation of the Council Regulation 1005/2008 the European Union (EU) to prevent and deter illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, prohibits national community members to have links with vessels listed for illegal fishing.

Recommendations for a Global Framework to Ensure the Legality and Traceability of Wild-Caught Fish Products

In November of 2014, I wrote about the recommendations provided by a Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products, on which I serve as a member.

I'm happy to announce that the final report is available to be downloaded at solutions-network.org/seafood (a 30mb version) or from here (same report but on 5mb version for those on Island based internet)

The Expert Panel was formed by WWF to help envision pragmatic solutions to the challenges of seafood traceability, and to promote action to prevent illegal fish products from entering supply chains.  With illegal fishing still driving overfishing in too many fisheries, there is a continuing need for better coordinated business systems and government policies to put affordable and effective solutions within reach.

This report is unusual for two reasons.  First, it represents the thinking of an international and interdisciplinary panel representing leading seafood businesses, environmental NGOs, food science institutes, and independent experts.  Second, it recommends pragmatic cutting edge solutions that combine regulatory and private sector approaches at both national and global scales.  

But the intention of this report is not to "provide all of the answers."  Rather, the report is meant to serve as a reference point, and to promote expanded engagement and dialogue among industry actors, civil society stakeholders, and policymakers.  

The challenges addressed in this report are real and urgent.  I encourage you to take a solid look at its recommendations, and to join the growing international conversation about how to make seafood 100% traceable to legal fishing activities. 

Those in the Pacific Islands would recognise what was my modest contribution o the report :-)