A day at the Fisheries Office in Noro

Today I will just like to show you a simple day at the fisheries office in Noro (Solomon Islands) where I’m working. No boats landing today so is time to catch up on paperwork plus the verification of the information we collect on a daily basis.

While most of the fisheries news we read are calamitous, I’m very fortunate to know different because of my work. Yes, there are bad apples in every barrel no one denies that… but there are even more people, like the ones I’m presenting you today, that do their best with whatever little they have, and with all the faults we all have, to control the fisheries to the law and help to create the compliance framework that sustainability requires.

Charlene is the key player in the data collection and volumes verification (mass balance) for all landings and Catch Certificates originating from SI flagged vessels. She studied Marine Affairs and Geography at the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji and had been with the Ministry for five years initially as tag recovery officer and now as a Fisheries Officer.

Derick is the chief officer here, he has been with the ministry for nine years and is the responsible for the operations of the office. Before taking over the office, he was in charge of the observer programme. He also has a background in Marine Affairs at USP, (and we share the Dub and Reggae duties in the office!)

Stanley has been with the ministry (and prior incarnations) for an amazing 34 years, and he brings a wealth of experience to the office… he has seen every potential issue and infractions in the fisheries book at least five times.  I have known him for a long time now, and I still have to see him in a bad mood or grumpy… he is a legend!

John has been a fisheries observer for seven years and in that capacity has a lot of experience of what happens in the vessels, he is associated with this office as an official monitor of the volumes of the unloads next to the scales at the wharf. He does this times off his at sea work. I found that observers are extremely well trained for that work, as they have the discipline to spend longtime at the scales and the knowledge on species identification.

We have 1 more officer, Jamie but he is in Honiara at the present, and from next week we will be training 7 new junior officers to supplement this group in the new office.

Again, nothing spectacular, or news breaking about this post. Just good people doing their vital job, the best they can, in a Least Developed Country like the Solomon Islands… and this in itself is admirable.

Back in Noro, Solomon Islands

I said many times that I'm very fortunate in terms of my job (and my life in general!), so here I'm again working in one of my favorite places in the fishing world. A place where at this stage I feel like home: the fishing town of Noro.

I wrote many times about it in the past, here is the last time communicating the MSC certification of the local fishery.

This time I’m here to assist the Noro based Compliance team in their day to day activities. Is a mentoring contract, to strengthen their capacity to confidently and effectively implement their roles, particularly in relation to Inspection and Catch Documentation Schemes. I also will contribute to preparing a capacity development road map for the Noro based compliance team.

My contract is with the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), through the Mekem Strong Solomon Islands Fisheries (MSSIF) a New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and trade funded programme inbedded into the ministry. The programme has the overall objective of building capacity in the compliance team of the offshore fisheries division.

Needless to say, I’m stoked... is really the Happy Isles

yes... fisheries people

Electronic Monitoring (EM) and Electronic Reporting (ER) technologies in the WCPO

Among the many meetings that take place during the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC, I would love to have assisted to the one on EM and ER technologies, as it is an area that holds the only hopes I have on the regularization of the Longline fishery in the Pacific, in particular, the high seas one.

Big brother is watching you

I wrote about this topic before, and I love that is gaining momentum. I quote below some of the information in an update prepared by my friend Malo Hosken from SPC,  for the recent 2nd Meeting of the Electronic Reporting and Electronic Monitoring Intersessional Working Group.

Electronic Monitoring projects in the Pacific

2014 Solomon Islands Tuna Longline Electronic Monitoring trial

• The main objective of the project was to investigate the extent which video Electronic Monitoring systems (E-Monitoring) can record the data normally collected by observers on-board tuna longline vessels based on the required minimum data fields specified under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Regional Observer Programme (ROP).
• The project partners were Tri Marine, National Fisheries Developments (NFD), Yi Man Fishing
• Company, Satlink (the service provider), Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), Oceanic
• Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC-OFP) and the Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) is also a major contributor through support of the Regional Electronic Reporting Coordinator position contracted by SPC.
• Two CT-4 freezer longline tuna vessels were equipped with a video E-Monitoring system and each undertook two trips under this project. The E-Monitoring system (Satlink Sea Tube) installed on-board consisted of high-definition video cameras, GPS and a central computer to record all events and video footage.
• The E-Monitoring records collected from these trips were analysed by experienced longline fisheries observers using the Satlink View Manager (SVM) analysis software. These office observers recorded all aspects of the fishing activity, including setting and hauling parameters, identifying fishing locations, the catch and size composition, and the fate of any bycatch taken. An independent fisheries observer was also assigned to each vessel to carry out the regular on-board task of observing and recording the catch.
• A comparative analysis between the on-board observer data and the E-Monitoring data is presented in this report and shows which of the required Regional Observer Programme (ROP) minimum standard data fields are adequately collected using E-Monitoring. Substantive recommendations for additional work are also identified in then report.
• In the scope of implementing E-Monitoring technology in all or parts of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean fisheries, logistical and legal frameworks will be required at national and regional levels. The Pacific Community’s (SPC) knowledge and experience in managing observer data and the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency’s (FFA) expertise in fisheries legislative mechanisms mean that an SPC/FFA partnership will be paramount if the decision is made to advance and implement EMonitoring in the region.

The complete report from the Solomon Islands trial is available for download on the SPC’s Digital Library.

New Caledonia

In June 2015, the fisheries authority for New Caledonia and SPC began EM trials on a tuna longline vessel based in the port of Koumac. The International Sustainability Seafood Foundation (ISSF) is providing the major financial support for this project. The EM equipment was provided and installed by Satlink. Three high definition video cameras were placed at strategic locations around the vessel to record setting and hauling operations. One Satlink View Manager (SVM) unit is installed at the fisheries authority in Noumea allowing the analysis of the EM records (raw video footage and associated data). Hard drives containing the EM records are removed from the vessel and brought back to the fisheries authority on a regular basis for an office observer to conduct the analysis of the fishing trips. During one trip only, an on-board observer was present on the vessel and was able to monitor the vessel’s setting and hauling activities. The office observer has analysed the EM records for this trip. The same EM records were also analysed by a service provider (Digital Observer Services). In order to ascertain the usefulness of this EM system, a three level comparative analysis is planned for this trip. Three main challenges have been identified for this project. Firstly, the vessel is based in Koumac which is located 400km from where the fisheries authority office is in Noumea. This means that fisheries staff cannot be present each time the vessel returns to port. Had fisheries staff been available to meet the returning vessel and crew each time, it would have allowed monitoring the project more closely, including exchanging feedback and maintaining good relationships. Secondly, the quality of the video footage was not ideal for mainly two reasons: two of three cameras were placed in locations where they were heavily exposed to sea spray and the vessel’s crew were not cleaning the cameras lenses as often as required and agreed. Finally, the office observer tasked with analysing the EM records also works as an on-board observer on other vessels and is unable to analyse EM records before the next ones arrive. A complete report will be available during Quarter 4 2016.

Fiji

In September 2015, the Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forest (MFF) began a five year EM pilot project with the support from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO). Currently, five domestic tuna longline vessels are equipped with EM systems provided by Satlink. Six SVM units are installed at the MFF offices in Suva allowing the analysis of the EM records. Fourteen office observers have been trained in using the SVM. EM records are collected from the vessels each time they return to Suva port. Office observers also continue to embark as on board observers on a regular basis on either the vessels equipped with EM or other fishing vessels. Each longline vessel equipped with EM also embarks an on board observer. MFF, SPC and Satlink are collaborating to ensure that analysed EM data can be readily uploaded to the national Tuna Observer Database System (TUBs) database in Fiji as well as the regional TUBs database in Noumea. Comparative analyses between on board observer data and EM data analysed by office observers are also planned.

The Nature Conservancy

In June 2016, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has launched an EM pilot project for up to 24 tuna longline vessels with Satlink as the service provider. Planning discussions with four member countries are currently taking place, including the number and types of vessels and how to set up national and/or regional EM analysis centres. SPC is collaborating in this project to ensure EM analysed data can be readily uploaded to national TUBs databases and the regional TUBs database in Noumea.

Luen Thai Fishing Venture

Since October 2015, the fishing company Luen Thai Fishing Venture (LTFV) has installed their own EM system on 33 tuna longline vessels. SPC is currently collaborating with one member country where LTFV vessels with EM systems are licenced to provide an initial assessment of this ‘in house’ developed EM system.

eTUNALOG: Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, New Caledonia

In 2013, SPC developed the Electronic Reporting (ER) software eTUNALOG. Originally designed for Purse Seine vessels to submit the SPC/FFA Regional Purse Seine Logsheet, a module was added allowing longline vessels to submit the SPC/FFA Regional Longline Expanded Logsheet. Trials on Purse Seine vessels were stopped in 2015 as the PNA Fisheries Information Management System (FIMS) was providing an integrated solution for submitting Purse Seine logsheet data and providing catch certification or traceability. Nevertheless, the longline module for eTUNALOG is a cost-free solution for tuna longline vessels operating in the Southern Albacore Fisheries. Trials in New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa are on-going. eTUNALOG logsheet data can be directly imported to the TUFMAN2 database system developed by SPC and used by member countries.

National ER and EM officers

Through support funding from the ISSF, SPC has been collaborating with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Cook Islands and the Solomon Islands to establish national ER and EM positions within the fisheries authorities. These staff oversee the day to day coordination of ER and EM trials and provide a link between the fisheries authorities, the fishing industry, the service providers and SPC. Two ER and EM officers are also present in Papua New Guinea. Investing in these positions is absolutely necessary to ensure member countries can build the capacity to adopt and manage ER and EM technologies efficiently.

Report of the first strategy meeting of the Tuna Fishery Data Collection Committee (DCC)

In April 2016, SPC and FFA organised the first strategy meeting of the DCC. The future role of the DCC was this Strategy Meeting’s main theme. Initially, its future role was considered diminished by the efforts of the WCPFC, as the scope and range of influence in regards to data are similar for both groups, albeit more extensive for the WCPFC. However, a significant difference between the work of the WCPFC and the DCC is that the DCC can and does provide a mechanism for its members to set data standards above and beyond those of the Commission. It was also recognised that while the DCC has no direct mandate to set data standards in certain areas (the high seas for instance), information from such areas are critical to regional stock assessment outputs and therefore of interest to the DCC. Other noted points of difference were the DCC mechanisms to remove data fields, its efforts to ensure that data standards are practical and its documented explanations on the inclusion, or otherwise, for each data field.

Electronic data collection is now a reality in the region. Often instigated by the demands of catch certification or traceability, the number of e-providers and their areas of involvement continue to grow.

The DCC came to the agreement that its area of focus should be in creating standards to facilitate the development of products capable of delivering appropriate outputs for the regional management and data repository structures.

EM Technical Standards Workshop

In June 2016, SPC organised a three day workshop in Noumea to begin the process of establishing EM technical standards. This workshop was attend by SPC and FFA technical staff, representatives from three member countries and representatives from six EM service providers. Funding support from the ISSF was available for this event. The workshop consisted of determining how the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme minimum data fields for longline observers could be collected using EM technology currently and in the future. The panel of experts present was also an opportunity to briefly list key issues regarding the implementation of EM in the region with an aim to develop and discuss these issues in further detail at a next workshop. Such a future workshop would need to include member countries in the objective of developing a regional strategy for the implementation of EM.

Future work

Regional EM strategy (SPC/FFA) SPC and FFA plan to convene a regional strategy meeting in 2016 to answer the following key questions.
What is the broad vision and objectives for fishery monitoring in the WCPO tuna fisheries?
What advice do SPC and FFA provide members implementing ER and EM?
What resources and support can SPC and FFA offer?

EM Purse Seine Technical Standards
SPC plans to convene another technical standards workshop aiming at drafting the standards for EM on Purse Seine fishing vessels. EM trials on Purse Seine vessels are envisaged in collaboration with member countries and service providers. While there is 100% observer coverage on Purse Seine vessels operating in the WCPO, EM could be used to validate claims regarding set type, thus alleviating any un-due pressure on the observers. EM could also be used to obtain more precise species and size composition data.

Capturing economic benefits from the Pacific’s tuna resources

The annual tuna fisheries catch in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) averaged 2.7 million metric tons, valued at $6.1 billion over 2011–2015. Of this, around 1.6 million metric tons worth $3.1 billion was taken in exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) members.

A key economic challenge that Pacific Island Countries face at both the national and regional levels, as they develop and implement management policies for the Pacific tuna fisheries, is to maximize their share of economic benefits flowing from the exploitation of the tuna resource.

In this FFA Policy Brief (that I quote below) originally published as part of a collection of four externally contributed articles in the July Pacific Economic Monitor of the Asian Development Bank, FFA's Chris Reid, Alice McDonald and Leonard Rodwell conclude their report noting that Agency member nations are continuing to develop and implement policies at the regional and subregional levels in order to implement rights-based management systems to allow them to take control of the WCPO tuna fisheries, set limits that achieve their objectives, and allocate rights among the participating coastal states.

Taking control of the fisheries

FFA members’ commitment to take control of the WCPO tuna fisheries is explicitly laid out in the roadmap as follows: “The long-held Pacific Island Countries (PICs) commitment to Zone based management provides the key to taking control of the major fisheries. FFA members commit to vigorously assert a system of national rights, within a cooperative framework of binding limits that will be managed under formal Harvest Strategies, including through equitable and responsible reduction where necessary.”

In essence, taking control of the WCPO tuna fisheries involves four broad strategies:

1. establishing rights-based management systems;
2. ensuring that the total level of rights allocated under the rights based management system, and hence fishing activity, is binding and meets both biological and economic objectives;
3. allocating shares of limited rights to participants; and
4. ensuring that fishing activities in areas that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the management system are also constrained.

To do this requires cooperation at the regional and subregional levels.

FFA members continue to develop regional and subregional arrangements establishing rights-based management systems for the WCPO tuna fisheries. These systems are based on creating limits to the level of fishing activity across the EEZs of participating coastal states through, for example, catch or effort limits. Shares are then allocated to these states. This approach is in contrast to

Flag state-based limits (common in other international fisheries) where allocations are based on historical catch shares. A zone based approach means that coastal states, which hold the rights to the fishery, determine not only who can fish in their waters but also how much they can catch. Under a flag-based system, coastal states only have control over who can enter their waters with catch rights being allocated to the flag states. To be successful, the management system should cover a significant proportion of the fishery concerned and impose limits on fishing activities. If vessels can easily shift their fishing activity elsewhere or the rights created are freely available to any vessel that seeks them, the system will fail.

To date, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) have led the way in taking control of the Pacifi c’s fisheries resources through the establishment of a rights-based management system for the purse seine fishery that lies within its members’ EEZs. This system, an outstanding global example of coastal states taking control of a fishery based on highly migratory stocks, is known as the purse seine vessel day scheme (PS VDS). The scheme limits fishing activity through an agreed total allowable effort (TAE) limit across participants’ EEZs. The TAE is then distributed among the parties according to an agreed formula based on catch history and relative biomass.

The establishment of the VDS has seen a dramatic increase in the returns that its members are able to achieve from allocating access rights to their EEZs. Access fees paid by foreign vessel operators have increased from an average of less than $1,500 per day prior to the implementation of the VDS in 2008 (Havice 2013) to a minimum of $8,000 per day since 2015, with some VDS participants achieving average returns per VDS day in excess of $11,000 in 2016.

The ability of VDS participants to attract investment to their domestic fisheries sector has also increased dramatically with the number of investment proposals increasing significantly in recent years. The PNA is also implementing the longline VDS (PNA LL VDS), a similar scheme for the longline fishery within LL VDS participants’ EEZs.

Less well known, and at an earlier stage of development, is the Tokelau Arrangement (TKA) under which participants aim to take control of the south Pacific longline fishery. The TKA uses a similar regional cooperation approach to establish a rights-based management system, setting a limit across all participants’ EEZs and allocating shares to participants.

The Tokelau Arrangement for the south Pacific longline fishery

For a number of years, Pacific fisheries ministers have called for urgent action to address the depletion of the south Pacific albacore stock, which makes up around 55%–60% of the catch taken in the southern longline fishery. Despite efforts to implement tighter management through the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WPCFC), effort in the southern longline fishery has continued to grow, depleting stocks of albacore tuna such that catch rates are often below economically viable levels for many Pacific island domestic vessels.

Between 2008 and 2010, the number of hooks set in the southern longline fishery increased by nearly 50% . However, increases in resulting catch rates were only around half those for effort. Further, average catch rates over the most recent 5-year period (2011–2015) were around 22% lower than in 2006–2010.

Since 2011, persistently low catch rates have resulted in poor economic conditions for the southern longline fishery and forced Pacific island vessels to tie up for extended periods or to exit the fishery. Eleven FFA members, within whose waters over half of the south Pacific albacore catch is taken, decided to implement albacore catch limits and an associated zone-based management arrangement across their EEZs.

The TKA took effect in December 2014 with the objective of promoting optimal utilization, conservation, and management of stocks, by developing management approaches that maximize economic returns from sustainable harvesting of the resource, and increasing TKA participants’ control of the fishery. The TKA allows for the expansion of its membership to include other coastal states in the region, such as American and French territories which are not FFA members.

The TKA commits participants to limit the catch of albacore within their EEZs to individual zone limits, and develop measures to regulate catch and manage the zone-based limits. Participants are now in the process of developing a catch management scheme that fulfills these commitments and enables them to make the best use of agreed catch limits through such mechanisms as multijurisdictional harvest control rules, tools for transferability and reciprocal licensing, and flexible national implementation.

While the albacore stock is currently biologically healthy, if recent effort levels are maintained the size of the stock will continue to decline as will catch rates, with economic consequences for coastal states and their fleets. Declining catch rates reduce the viability of domestic fleets, and the ability of PICs to levy access fees on foreign vessels.

Participants to the TKA have agreed to an interim target reference point (TRP) for the south Pacific albacore stock aimed at achieving both sustainability of the stock and the economic viability for the fishery. To inform TKA participants and the broader FFA and WCPFC membership, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the FFA Secretariat undertook a series of analyses examining biological and economic outcomes under a number of potential TRPs (see, for example, SPC 2015 and Pilling et al 2015).

In summary, these analyses indicated that:

1. Maintaining current effort levels would result in the albacore stock size and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) continuing to decline, with CPUE in 2033 being around 14% lower than current levels.
2. There was a significant risk (20%) that the limit reference point (LRP) for albacore agreed by the WCPFC (20% of SBF = 0, that is, a stock 20% of the size that it would be in the absence of fishing) would be breached.
3. The use of maximum sustainable yield as a long-term target for south Pacific albacore is seen as implying a high risk of the stock falling below the agreed LRP. The CPUE was estimated to fall a further 65% by 2033.
4. Achieving maximum economic yield, where economic yield was defined as rents earned from the fishery, required effort reductions of over 75%. This would result in the CPUE increasing by around 50% by 2033 and there being no risk that the albacore LRP would be breached. However, this would be associated with declines in catch in the order of 60%.
5. Effort reductions in the order of 25% are required just to ensure that CPUE in 2033 remains around current levels.
6. Effort reductions in the order of 40%–50% are required to return CPUE to levels prevailing prior to the rapid expansion of effort after 2008. At the reduced effort levels, profitability will increase significantly, ensuring the viability of domestic fleets and increasing returns to coastal states from the sale of access rights.

Based on these outcomes, FFA members recommended that a TRP for albacore be set at 45% of the size that the stock would be in the absence of fishing. This recommendation was based on the estimated changes to catch rates, which they view as the primary driver of profitability in the fishery. It was further noted that the proposed TRP should bring about a CPUE increase in the order of 15% from 2013 levels, which FFA members saw as essential to raising profitability and contributing to the development of domestic fisheries. It was also noted that a 45% TRP would return the stock to the 2007–2008 level (FFA 2015).

A major issue discussed at the WCPFC Harvest Strategy Workshop was the uncertainty regarding the path through which the TRP would be achieved (particularly the time frame over which the reductions would take place, and the burden of reduction for each fleet). These issues were cited as primary reasons why a number of WCPFC members could not accept the proposed TRP (Cartwright 2015).

Nonetheless, TKA participants have adopted this as an interim TRP, pending further developments. A crucial issue will be managing catch within participants’ EEZs to a total allowable catch that achieves the interim TRP. Given the magnitude of required catch reductions, and the need to ensure that any reductions are not simply offset by increases elsewhere, these are likely to take time. However, TKA participants, as part of their policy deliberations, are now considering the biological and economic implications of alternative management interventions that will achieve the interim TRP, and have tasked SPC and FFA to undertake analysis on this issue.

Leveraging control and maximizing the value of allocated rights

Creating, limiting, and allocating rights in highly migratory multijurisdictional fisheries such as the tuna fisheries of the WCPO require a high level of regional cooperation and shared policy development. However, once these are in place, owners need to ensure that there are effective national policies for the management of those rights.

Participants to the VDS continue to develop strategies to maximize returns from the sale of vessel days to foreign companies. Some mechanisms being used include tendering and pooling VDS days from a number of participants, and purchasers of these days can use them anywhere within the participants’ EEZs.

Currently, the main focus of FFA members is on maximizing the returns from selling access rights to foreign fleets, or a combination of this and promoting domestic fisheries development. Some FFA members see the provision of access rights to companies involved in the domestic fisheries sector at concessional rates as a means for achieving the latter.

The tradeoff between the potential additional government revenue that could be obtained from selling the days at the market rate, and additional economic benefits that companies involved in the domestic fisheries sector could generate (compared with operators that simply fish in the EEZ and have little interaction with the local economy) need to be considered.

Some FFA members have been developing processes for setting concessional prices for companies involved in the domestic fishery sector that explicitly consider this tradeoff . In seeking to develop these processes, the need to implement a structured approach to the management of national rights was evident.

To assist in this, the FFA Secretariat has recently embarked on developing a guide for the management of national fisheries rights allocated through regional or subregional rights-based management systems using an asset management framework. This guide will deal with a range of issues, including objectives, policies, strategies, and processes.

Conclusion

FFA members are continuing to develop and implement policies at the regional and subregional levels in order to implement rights based management systems to allow them to take control of theWCPO tuna fisheries, set limits that achieve their objectives, and allocate rights among the participating coastal states. FFA members are also developing policies at the national level to enhance the management of their allocated rights, and ensure that they are able to extract maximum benefits from rights that they have created under regional rights-based management arrangements.

More bad EU news for Taiwan

A recently published inspection report by the EU Inspection body, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) found that the Taiwanese Central Competent Authority (the Bureau of Standards, Metrology, and Inspection) cannot fully guarantee that fishery products exported to the European Union comply with all relevant provisions of EU regulations.  And this in on top of the present “yellow card” regarding IUU.

Let explain this a bit better, for many years I been working on EU market access requirements for fish and fishery products helping countries to access or maintain EU market access in both topics (sanitary and IUU), I worked for the EU itself in these missions and I wrote quite a few manuals on this (see here and here) so I have a strong interest in this topic and I’ll try to make sense of it in the paragraphs below.

The EU market access is governed by two “technical” regulatory sets (Health/SPS and IUU certification) and a trade related one (Origin) that the exporting country needs to comply with. The most complex requirements are with Health/SPS set, so it is fair to say that the “main” authorisation conditions are the ones in place for health certification.

For non-EU countries, the European Commission is the negotiating partner that defines import conditions and certification requirements.

The two main regulations affecting fish and fishery products seek, among other objectives, to protect final consumers’ health and close EU markets from products originated from Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.

Under these regulations all the fishing products have to be captured, manipulated, elaborated, transported and delivered following standards that are established by European legislators, taking into account European realities and addressed to European citizens.

Presently there are approximately 98 countries authorised for exports of fish and fishery products from the health side, of which around 55 are authorised for aquaculture products and 13 for live bivalve molluscs.

Establishments in a third country intending to export their Fish and Aquaculture Products (FAP) to the EU should be registered by the national CA and appear in the list of approved establishments under their own country.

The registration procedure should be undertaken following the EU legislation. The registering CA must also be listed, to guarantee that the structure and the execution of food/fish products are controlled at least to standards equivalent to those of the EU.

The same principle rules apply for fishing vessels (i.e. freezer vessel and factory vessel). Ice vessels and small scale crafts have only to be registered and “approved” (but not listed) in regards the EU requirements before they can be used to supply exporting facilities.

These approvals are not a “one off” event, but are dependent on continuous compliance with the national and EU specific requirements.

Regulation (EC) No. 853/200410, is the one that lays down specific hygiene rules on the hygiene of foodstuffs of animal origin, and Regulation. (EC) No. 854/200411, lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, and also includes the basic rules for the surveillance of food and the listing system for imports.

This system includes special rules for fishing vessels, factory vessel and freezer vessels flying the flag of a third country (a non-EU country), in order to be able to control fishery products even when caught by one flag and processed in a different country. Furthermore, the regulation requires a Health Certificate that assures the imported products safety at the EU’s Border Inspection Posts.

DG SANTE is the Directorate of the EC in charge of protecting and improving public health and ensuring that Europe’s food is safe and wholesome. It is also responsible for protecting the health and welfare of farm animals.

The FVO is an inspection service that oversees national audits, both within the EU Member States (MS) and in Third Countries. In its function as the eyes and ears of the Commission, the FVO verifies on site that applicable requirements in the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health are properly implemented and enforced by MS and by third countries

The FVO checks the performance of important stakeholders (e.g. CA, establishments handling FAPs or related vessels). As the responsibilities have been delegated to the CAs and consecutive to the related industries, there are only a limited number of controls carried out directly in the establishments.

The audits comprise checks on legislation, and structure and activities of CAs, and in third countries check whether the national surveillance structure complies with EU regulations.

Third countries, which are considered as compliant or equivalent with EU rules, will have the possibility to import FAPs into the EU. The reports of the FVO for all countries can be found on their website.

Now, the FVO reported on their November 2015 mission to Taiwan, to assess the sanitary conditions applicable to the export of fishery products and bivalve molluscs to the EU.

lovely...

The mission found that the Central Competent Authority (the Bureau of Standards, Metrology, and Inspection) cannot fully guarantee that fishery products exported to the European Union comply with all relevant provisions of EU regulations.

They found out that:

• The legislation was not fully in line with EU requirements in relation to hygiene conditions at landing sites and auctions and on freezer vessels.
• Correct procedures were not carried out impartially by external bodies delegated to carry out official controls.
• Controls did not adequately cover landing sites and auctions, HACCP plans were not correctly assessed, and the CA could not guarantee the eligibility of imported raw materials for the EU market, and in particular concerning the use of reefer vessels for the transport of frozen fishery products in bulk.
• Deficiencies were noted concerning organoleptic examinations and histamine testing.
• A laboratory used for water testing was not accredited against ISO 17025.
• Plus others issues regarding bivalves

And these findings are based only on what the have saw in Taiwan itself… and not in the hundreds of vessels fishing worldwide.

For those of us that get to see Taiwanese Fishing Vessels in the ports of the pacific and others parts of the world, these findings are no surprise. How the Taiwanese Competent Authority maintains these vessels in the EU approved list is a complete mystery.

The vessels are away from Taiwan for years and have no inspections (nor regarding Seafood Safety or Fisheries) by their own staff. From the fishery side, the Port State authorities do it, but by some reason when a fisheries agreement is negotiated it never involves the seafood safety authorities of the licensing country. Even if the EU itself allows for the CAs of each country to have a MoU in between them and do the inspections on behalf.

Of the many Taiwanese vessels I have boarded in the Pacific that are on the EU list, I have yet to see one that is in any form of compliance with the EU requirements, in comparison with vessels from other authorized flags.

This is mostly evident in the Solomons, where the locally flagged vessels are a poster of good compliance in comparison to the Taiwanese landing next to them, yet both get the same market access and the local CA that witness gross non-compliances, has no authority to take any action on the reporting of these neither to Taiwan or the EU.

The most infuriating thing is that the conditions for the vessels are not complicated, and when a developed country like Taiwan does not comply with them, it set a terrible precedent for countries like the Solomon (a Least Developed Country) that make comparatively a much higher effort to maintain market access.

When a country receives a bad report like this one the EU has the chance to close its market to them (like they did with Fiji in 2008). I think that the EU should either go double whammy with Taiwan and crack them from the Health and IUU side, or make the access of the Taiwanese caught products conditional to Taiwan’s CA having an MoU with the CA of the coastal and/or port state where the vessels operate, so it delegates it capacity to the “local” CA to regularly inspect the vessel to ensure that it continues to comply with Community requirements, while operating in its waters and pays the cost associated to this.

In fact, I’ll propose this a licensing condition to the fleets of most DWFN like China, Korea, Philippines as the compliance with the EU sanitary requirements of these vessels is abysmal and because they are not in the national water when the FVO visits, they never see it.

Furthermore, this MoU scenario is contemplated by the provisions of article 15 of the Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, so they can easily do this.

Solomon Islands’ tuna fishery achieves two MSC certifications

Is no secret that I'm not a fan of ecolabels, but I do concede that MSC is the most believable of the lot, since it evaluates the fishery and not the companies accessing the fishery. But in any case, I'm a fan of Noro in the Solomons Islands and the companies that operate there.

Early morning in a Pole and Liner

So I was very happy to know that the Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin purse seine and pole and line fishery has achieved Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification.

Certification firm MRAG Americas agreed that the Solomon Islands fishery will continue to be managed in a way that ensures healthy stocks, minimizing environmental impacts and promoting good management under the existing regulatory structure for the fishery, which includes overlapping national and regional regulations including the Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan established by the SI Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Vessel Day Scheme, and a framework set by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, encourages sound management.

The certification covers five purse seiners and three pole and line vessels owned by National Fisheries Developments Ltd. fishing out of Noro but within Solomon Islands archipelagic waters and the EEZ. Around 25,000mt- 30,000mt/year of the fleet’s free-school, anchored FAD and pole and line skipjack and yellowfin catches could potentially qualify as MSC-certified, the majority of which is delivered to Noro-based tuna processing facility Soltuna, that is covered by the certification's Chain of Custody.

Soltuna supplies canned tuna locally and to other Pacific Island markets, as well as frozen cooked loins to Europe. NFD and Soltuna are locally managed and collectively employ over 2,000 Solomon Islanders, representing one of the country’s largest private sector employers.

To maintain its MSC certification, NFD must continue to adhere to several conditions, including carrying observers on their participating fishing to ensure regulatory compliance, wich they have done for years.

They must also continue to follow an action plan implementing harvest control rules and adhere to documentation and evaluation standards. Also, NFD and Soltuna must continue to ensure the certified tuna is kept separate from non-certified product at all stages along the supply chain.

With the MSC certification, these fisheries are in an advantageous position to respond to growing demand for certified sustainable sources of tuna.

I wish I could link to the online presence of both companies, but they don't have a solid space there. However, I'm really happy to have introduced them to my friend (and almost brother) Raul Sarrot, owner of the design and branding studio Fresfish (gotta love that name!). He is now working with them in Noro on their branding, company positioning, and online presence as I write this. He is a heavyweight in that area, as a university lecturer, a designer and a consultant to the Better by Design program of the NZ Ministry of Trade and Enterprise.

Besides I know him since we are 16 years old (I was a roadie for his band) and he also lives on Waiheke Island :-)

So soon, I hope I will have links for you to know more about this amazing place and its companies. I said thousand times that this place and people are the way fishing should be in the Pacific.

Ocean Security and the World’s Largest Crime Scene

The Stimson Center produced a brief report, as a snapshot of a broader and evolving body of work aimed at safeguarding our oceans and combating a wide range of natural resource crimes and challenges.

Illustration from my EU market access book

And while in my opinion, is a bit tinted with the expected American exceptionalism (particularly idea #3) and a focus on MPAs (Marine Protected Areas), it does provides an interesting set of technology recommendations. I quote them below the intro. (If you were to replace MPA for a wider concept of fisheries management and eCDS, they still make sense).

Intro

Ocean security is important for conservation, but reasons for conserving our natural maritime heritage go far beyond its breathtaking splendor and endangered species. About one billion people rely on the world’s oceans for fish as their primary source of animal protein. An estimated 880 million people rely on it directly and indirectly for their livelihoods. Rising economic powers such as China have seen fish consumption rates increase 6 percent annually on average since 1990. As fishing fleets deplete stocks and expand operations to every corner of the ocean, global demand for their catch only continues to grow alongside increasing populations worldwide. Some estimates even indicate that local and commercial fish populations have been cut in half since 1970 and countries like China worry that a shortage of fish could trigger societal instability among its growing population. This is one of the reasons why Beijing is heavily subsidizing its 2000-strong distant-water fishing fleet — the largest in the world — that is often found exploiting rich fishing grounds around the world.

There is also a growing body of evidence suggesting that our oceans are the world’s largest crime scene due to rampant illegal fishing that is estimated to represent 20 percent of all catch worldwide and represent a yearly dollar value upwards of $23 billion. Indeed, the pillage of the seas’ resources represents a threat to vital U.S. and global economic and security interests.

Additionally, conflict over fishing grounds in Southeast Asia is escalating in a region many see as on the verge of serious armed conflict. For example, Indonesia has blown up over 170 foreign fishing boats caught illegally fishing in its waters over the past two years. Nearly 5,000 Chinese vessels have been apprehended fishing illegally in South Korean waters. Although the Chinese navy has only been involved to a limited extent, some fishing ports have increased their “maritime militias,” or armed civilian vessels.

Technology Recommendations

Technology is playing a large role in developing strategy to combat illegal fishing and safeguard MPAs. Many innovative and unique technologies have arisen to meet the challenge of illegal fishing — from satellite technology and “smart” buoys, to unmanned surface vessels and aerial vehicles (drones). Yet, despite much energy around creating technology to combat crimes on the seas, there are some key takeaways about this burgeoning space that if applied would help skyrocket its real and immediate impact on ocean protection.

Everyone is innovating, but few are integrating

There is no shortage of technological solutions to enforce the maritime domain. Marine enforcement technology for maritime domain awareness, monitoring, control and surveillance and conservation purposes more broadly has exploded over the last few decades. So much so, in fact, that the technology itself is outpacing our ability to successfully integrate it into MPA enforcement systems. The gap is not one of technology innovation, but rather of integration. In the years to come, the force multiplier will be to integrate satellite data with mobile technology, unmanned systems, radars, enforcement buoys and the like to protect a given MPA. As such, the guiding principle is innovation through integration and finding new value for what already exists.

Surveillance is not deterrence

Deterrence, the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening, is critical to the success of any enforcement system. For deterrence to work, it requires a number of ingredients, including defined rules of law, tools for monitoring lawbreakers, and credible threats of interception and prosecution.

The conservation and development communities have long struggled with implementing effective deterrence to protect MPAs, often citing operating environments with low capacity and high corruption as key challenges. However, the main problem is not that of the operating environment, it is a misunderstanding of the tools needed for successful deterrence. Surveillance technology, the category into which most MPA enforcement technology falls, including satellite imagery, acoustic sensors, and onboard observation technology, does not alone create deterrence. It must be accompanied with enforcement technology - tools for interception and prosecution - to effectively deter criminals.

Work with what you’ve got, not with what you want

Technology is only as good as its user, a fact on display in many MPA enforcement technology projects that have tried, and failed, to implement advanced technology for oceans protection. All too often, these technology projects fail to evaluate the existing technological capabilities of a given MPA enforcement system which results in the transmission of technology ill-suited to the realities on the ground.

Instead of deploying the most advanced technological solutions – underwater drones, high definition satellite imagery and top of the line aircraft - to protect MPAs, capacity builders must engage in bottom up approaches that meet users where they are, technologically speaking.

For an MPA with limited resources and personnel, the first step in increasing the capacity of rangers to enforce the MPA may be a simple mobile app to download on their cell phones into which they can track their patrols, any sightings of unregistered vessels and fish population data, for example. While simpler technology than drones and radars, customized solutions that build on existing levels of capacity lay the groundwork for robust technological systems without requiring huge investments of resources or training for the rangers. “Low tech, bottom up technology holds the key to gradually and sustainably building capacity from the ground up to protect MPAs.

Find honest technology brokers

The world is seemingly at the precipice of a new era of safeguarding MPAs and combating illegal fishing. This era, however, will consist of a long journey to reach our goals for oceans protection and MPA enforcement. Yet too many technology projects are led or influenced by short term support dictated by election cycles, donor support or private sector companies with outdated business models.

Technology plans are often designed for short term fixes instead of longer term solutions without interoperability in mind. Part of the solution to this challenge is to identify professionals who understand sensor fusion and longer term technology integration. They exist at universities around the world and are excellent honest technology brokers when designing and deploying technology projects that can outlive their makers.

Technology needs to be multi-use

To avoid duplication of efforts and be successfully integrated into the existing enforcement systems of a given country, technology for MPA enforcement must be able to be used for multiple purposes. Multi-use technology saves resources and increases partnerships and buy-in from adjacent communities. In countries with piracy or human and drug maritime smuggling operations, technology that combats illegal fishing must also be connected to and used for combating these additional threats. In those gathering meteorological data, enforcement buoys can double as observation buoys that gather and report information on water temperature.

Technology that can be customized to serve multiple uses is much more valuable than “silver bullet” technology that is designed to only do one specific task.

Making the wrong conclusion from “failure”

Some technology projects in the illegal fishing world are failing. Yet within those failures are important lessons. In the technology world, these attempts would be called prototyping or a step toward success, in which failure, to some degree, is expected. Relatively new to technology, however, the oceans community is struggling to come to the right conclusions about their technology failures, and is missing opportunities to learn and share lessons learned from them.

In one example of such a “failure,” a partnership between NGOs, military and the private sector formed to implement a high technology solution to combat both illegal fishing and maritime drug trafficking in a remote MPA. It was a pioneer in both its innovative partnership structure and in its technological design.

Initially lauded as a success, the project experienced difficulties likely due to a combination of its remote location, a new partnership with unfamiliar actors, and the fact that it is truly a prototype technology for what it is being asked to do.

Instead of discussing the challenges facing this project openly, however, some in the oceans community speak of its failure as an open secret from which there is nothing to be learned.

The project itself holds interesting information for future technology projects. First of all, the partnership between private and public sector bodies appears to have been a success. The same goes for that between the conservation and military communities. These partnerships are monumental for an issue on which progress, as discussed in the policy recommendations above, is stymied by artificial silos and a “once burned twice shy” attitude about working across sectors.

The desire for immediate success of MPA enforcement technology projects hinders the ability of the oceans community to draw the right conclusions about successes or failures, and slows down the institutional learning process. In the above example, the “failed” project shows a successful understanding of the need for cross-sector partnerships and multi-use, customized technology. This story needs to be heard even when the technology fails or is temporarily struggling.

Early action analysis for a potential La Niña in 2016 – 2017

I wrote before about the impact of "El Niño" in fish distribution. This time, is the other way around, with early warning for a "La Niña".

FAO just produced a small report aiming to consolidate information on La Niña’s potential impacts on agriculture and food security, specifically in the regions which are now dealing
with the consequences of EL Niño, and to provide early action recommendations in the agriculture sector to either reap the beneficial outcomes of La Niña, or prevent, mitigate and prepare for its negative effects.

What is La Niña?
La Niña is the cooling of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which occurs roughly every three to five years, lasting from six to 24 months. The chances of La Niña following an El Niño episode are higher on average — half of the El Niño events are followed by a La Niña — and typically it affects global climate patterns in the opposite way El Niño does. The intensity of the La Niña climatic phenomenon generally peaks between October and January.

What is the current forecast for La Niña?
Current forecasts indicate that there is a 55 to 70 percent chance of a La Niña episode developing towards the end of 2016, with a slightly lower chance that the onset may occur as early as July. The timing of a La Niña onset is key to determine how its consequences will impact on agriculture.

What are the main consequences of La Niña for agriculture and food security?
A La Niña phenomena generally affects the same regions that are impacted by El Niño, with opposite climatic consequences. Areas which experienced dry conditions (below-average rainfall and/or increased temperature) during El Niño, for instance, tend to receive above-average rainfall and in some cases cooler temperatures.

The diagram illustrates a potential timeline of La Niña-induced impacts across different regions based on the usual pattern observed during La Niña years.

While the climatic phenomenon usually peaks in intensity between October and January, changes to climatic patterns and their related impacts on food security and agriculture can happen both before and after the peak. It’s possible that La Niña could develop as early as July, in which case it might already start affecting the growing seasons in some parts of the world from September 2016.

Consequences of La Niña on agriculture and food security can be both positive and negative. The positive effects derive from the increased likelihood of above average rainfall which could improve pasture and crop yields. At the same time, if the above-average rainfall results in flooding, then clearly the results may be negative as in this case there is an increased incidence of seeds being washed away, landslides, crops destroyed and livestock morbidity and mortality.

Since La Niña would most likely impact regions that have already been affected by El Niño, the food security situation could further deteriorate and protract into 2018. In the event of a “positive” La Niña, it is important to highlight that the actual full effect of an above average rainfall will not be felt until the next harvest — i.e. the end of 2016 (if La Niña comes early) or by mid-2017 (if La Niña occurs later).

Fisheries wise, the main effect could be the concentration of catches on the Westen side of the Pacific, in contrast to last years' "El Niño" when the fish was in the Central and East Pacific. (Hence my friends in the transhipment ports in PNG, RMI and FSM will have a busy season)

But consequences would vary widely across the Pacific. One of the main potential benefits would be the reduced likelihood of hurricanes in the northeast Pacific.

For a bigger picture of both "Niños" see this post from last year "Climate Change and Fisheries"

CDS Practices and applicability in combating IUU fishing

In the latest GLOBEFISH Highlights | April 2016 my friend and colleague Gilles Hosch wrote a special feature on Catch Documentation Schemes. He is, in my opinion, "the" expert on the topic and I'm very proud (and relieved) that we share most views on the issue.

He has been working been working on a ABNJ / FAO study onDesign Options for the Development of Tuna Catch Documentation Schemes, that I had the honor of having one of the 1st reads. When published, it would be the most comprehensive document on the topic worldwide. I’ll definitively be posting about it.

In the meantime, here is the content of the present article.

Introduction: IUU fishing and CDS systems

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is not a simple challenge. What act or action constitutes IUU fishing, and what does not? In general, IUU fishing is often complex, making it difficult to define. Owing to its multi-dimensional, illegal and concealed nature, IUU fishing is also difficult to quantify. We do know however, that IUU fishing is systemic in many fisheries worldwide, and it has been shown that the weaker the governance of a country, the likelier and more serious the incidence of IUU fishing. IUU fishing is one of the key challenges to be overcome in order to achieve sustainably managed fisheries.

Catch documentation schemes (CDS) are market-related measures that have been developed specifically to combat IUU fishing. An official definition is as follows:

"A system that tracks and traces fish from the point of capture through unloading and throughout the supply chain. A CDS records and certifies information that identifies the origin of fish caught and ensures they were harvested in a manner consistent with relevant national, regional and international conservation and management measures. The objective of the CDS is to combat IUU fishing by limiting access of IUU fish and fishery products to markets."
(Report of the Expert Consultation on Catch documentation Schemes, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1120, July 2015)

This positions a CDS as a market-based Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) tool, which can be applied by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO), individual countries, or regional economic blocks, such as the EU.

Existing CDS schemes

There are two fundamentally different types of CDS in operation today. The first type, which covers the initial CDS that were developed and deployed, are so-called multilateral schemes and have been put in place by RFMOs.

This first type of CDS in existence includes:

• A CDS covering two species of Toothfish (or Chilean Seabass) harvested in Antarctic waters, introduced in 2000 by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
• A CDS covering Atlantic Bluefin tuna, introduced in 2008 by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
• A CDS covering Southern Bluefin tuna, introduced in 2010 by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

While the CCAMLR CDS may now claim to be reaching "adulthood", both tuna CDS are still fairly recent.

The second type of CDS is the unilateral type, which is put in place by a single country (or union of countries). There is only one single such scheme in existence today, the EU's Catch Certification Scheme introduced in 2008 through the so-called EU IUU Regulation, and implemented as of January 2010. The EU CDS covers all marine wild caught fish (with some minor exemptions) traded by non-EU countries into the EU market.

The USA is in the process of developing its own CDS, most details of which remain to be revealed. However, it would appear that it will differ markedly from the EU scheme, in that it will only target "at-risk" fisheries, and thus the US CDS is unlikely to apply to all wild capture seafood imported into the USA.

Multilateral versus unilateral schemes and implications

The design of the two models is fundamentally different. RFMO CDS are based on RFMO rules, which have the standing of international law. They are technically understood to embody multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). RFMO CDS, once in place, must be followed and complied with by any and all parties participating in the fishing, the processing and the trading of these resources. This means that an RFMO CDS is applied to the entire stock or species under the RFMO's management mandate, and certificates issued under the scheme must accompany all products along all supply chain stops, all the way into end-markets. Through this mode of action, the entire stock covered by the CDS benefits from the protection conferred by the scheme. The CDS is therefore an integral management tool within the suite of conservation and management measures put in place by the RFMO to manage the fishery.

In contrast, the unilateral CDS regulates primarily what may enter into an end-market, not how or what comes out of a fishery. Based on national law, the unilateral CDS can only propose rules for those products that enter its market. Compliance with rules is established by looking backwards into the supply chain by trying to determine whether products have been harvested in accordance to national, regional or international rules, at the point in time when products arrive at the border. This back-tracing process implies that verifiable traceability in these systems must be very solid in order for the back-tracing to be meaningful and achievable. Unilateral schemes do not cover all fish harvested in any given fishery, only the fraction traded into (or through) their market.

A sanctioning procedure is also enshrined within the EU IUU Regulation, and this procedure has received most attention since its first use towards the end of 2012. This is the so-called "identification procedure", through which the EU Commission may identify any non-EU country as "non-cooperating". This status may be conferred to any country for any perceived shortcoming in living up to its international obligations – specifically from a flag State perspective – including (but not limited to) non-compliance with the EU CDS. This process is now widely referred to as the EU's "yellow and red card system". A country stands warned at receiving a yellow card, and if no satisfactory change occurs within a specified period of time, it may be red carded. The red card implies that a trade embargo on seafood products from such a country – in its capacity as a flag State – is enacted, and that no products originating from its vessels may be exported to the EU anymore. This procedure is technically separate from the CDS, and a large number of countries that have been yellow carded to date have not been identified for any established shortcoming in complying with the CDS rules.

Evidence for impacts of CDS systems on IUU fishing

In the ICCAT and CCSBT Bluefin tuna fisheries where CDS systems were implemented, IUU fishing related chiefly to endemic underreporting by otherwise legal operators. Ten years ago, many researchers thought that both Atlantic and Southern Bluefin tuna species were evolving at the edge of stock collapse. The amounts of underreporting by regular ICCAT Members were sometimes estimated to exceed by more than triple the official allocated quota.

It is thought that the endemic underreporting in both Bluefin fisheries has been scaled back to the largest extent since the coming into force of the two tuna CDS. Strong scientific evidence that the IUU catch of the Eastern Atlantic Bluefin stock dropped sharply after 2008, and that catches fell in line with TACs has been provided by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics in late 2014. While other novel management and control measures were also introduced in ICCAT and CCSBT before and since CDS introduction, the CDS is the most effective enforcement mechanism capable of directly targeting and eliminating underreporting.

In CCAMLR, IUU fishing for Toothfish in the Convention Area by non-licensed "pirate" vessels was the most pressing issue, and IUU incidence in the late nineties was estimated to exceed official catches by more than double before the putting in place of the CDS.

In 2015, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) estimated the fraction of IUU catch to be 6% of the total annual harvest, crediting the CDS as one of a mix of effective enforcement actions instrumental in achieving this result.

If the EU IUU Regulation was effective in eliminating IUU fish from entering its market, important changes in trade patterns would likely have occurred since its entry into force. Some analysts believe that up to a third of imports – an estimate of how much IUU fish was entering the EU at the time of launching its CDS – would have been substituted by either similar products from other sources, or some product categories would have been gradually substituted for other categories altogether.

Based on the analysis of trade statistics and discussions with EU traders and Member States authorities, a study commissioned by the EU Commission published in 2014 found that no significant impact on trade in relation with the IUU Regulation could be detected. This finding suggests that the expected effect of the CDS may have remained elusive, and that levels of illegal fisheries products similar to previous levels continue to enter the EU market.

With regards to red carding third countries, some believe that the potential for positive impact is possibly greater than that of the current CDS. This is especially true for countries that are generally understood to be a part of the IUU fishing problem and that export significant amounts of seafood to the EU market. If lenient flag States amongst major producer countries can be coerced into becoming more responsible through trade restrictive measures, the overall impact could be important. In recent years, the potentially positive impacts of improved flag State performance through EU action have been highlighted by a number of NGOs, researchers and the EU Commission itself, though little conclusive evidence as to these impacts exist at the present time.

To date, 20 countries have formally been yellow carded by the EU, 4 of which have had trade sanctions imposed (red card). Thailand is the most important processing nation that remains under a yellow card, and for which the yellow card status was extended by another six months in early 2016. Overall, out of the 20 countries yellow carded to date, 8 countries had no established seafood trade with the EU at the time of yellow carding. It is unclear how trade measures applied in this way can effectively contribute to reducing the importation of IUU-derived fisheries products into the EU – which is the stated objective of the EU IUU Regulation. Of the three countries currently red carded, two were not trading seafood into the EU prior to their identification. Within the first group of eight yellow carded countries, no issue of non-compliance with the EU CDS has been raised. In this group, all raised issues related to other perceived failures of the flag State to honor its responsibilities under international fisheries law.

Conclusions

Ultimately, the putting in place of unilateral CDS that denies IUU products market access will imply that third countries must make important investments to abide with new – and now multiplying – unilateral frameworks. As a result, instead of making changes, third countries may instead increasingly sell questionable products to more lenient and accommodating market States. This unintended consequence highlights the inherently multilateral nature of IUU fishing, supply chains and global trade.

Therefore, in terms of sustainable resource management, direct positive impacts of unilateral CDS may only be achieved – potentially – for resources where the market operating the CDS also controls the largest share of the import market for a specific resource.

Multilateral CDS, on the other hand, are full-fledged fisheries management tools applying to entire stock units, and which, if well designed and consistently applied, have shown to be capable of largely eliminating given forms of IUU fishing, and contributing directly (and measurably) to stock recovery – or stock protection from IUU fishing – in a relatively short time.

It is hence of essence that the international community vigorously pursue discussions on how to expand multilateral CDS systems as a means to effectively combat IUU fishing – in line with positions advocated in both the Code of Conduct and the IPOA-IUU – with the understanding and supporting evidence that multilateral challenges are tackled most successfully through multilateral approaches and solutions.

How did I get here?

A while ago I was asked by a friend, while we were having traditional food in PNG, how come I ended up working in the region, which at the end it would be as unusual as him working in the marshes northeast of Curuzu Cuatia in the corner where Argentina meets Brazil and Paraguay. It made me think about it... so I rescue something I wrote to my son in case I do not come back from the ocean one day.

With 2 of my best friends on the deck of a trawler (South Atlantic early 90s)

I don’t know why the sea has such a strong influence in my life. Looking back, I’m an ex-rower, ex-search and rescue swimmer, ex-lifeguard, ex-fisherman, presently a fisheries consultant, but also an avid open water swimmer, spearfisher, sailor, outrigger paddler and surfer...

I grew up in rural swamplands far from the ocean. I did, however, cross the Atlantic on board a cruising ship from Germany all the way to Argentina when I was six years old. I like to think that trip marked my life.

The water was always close to my house, but far from my family’s interest, they were farmers and the family sport was (and still is) tennis!  I guess some people grow by action (they decide that they want similar things to their parents and people around them) and other like me by reaction (aka. the opposite). 

So there I went... rowed and swam competitively all trough my military high school, and being socially awkward, the rest of my time was spent reading history and fantasizing about the South Pacific and far away places. Surely this was feed mostly by a mixture of French characters such as Jules Verne, Jacques Cousteau, Bernard Montesier and so on.

Doing something stupid of "Isla de los Estados" (54S) east of Magallanes, southwest of Malvinas

After the war (Falklands/Malvinas) with the collapse of the military government in Argentina, things looked brighter. So with my high school diploma under my arm, I decided to move to Mar del Plata, became involved in commercial fisheries and boat building and later studied Marine Biology, which that was like deciding to be an astronaut for someone with my rural background.

Getting ready to land in Ushuaia after 7 weeks at sea! (early 90s)

Very close to getting my degree 7 years later (in Argentina you go directly into masters level with a thesis), I got involved in a sad, technical and boring dispute with a “superior” in the fisheries institute (INIDEP) and my temporary contract (on cleaning category as I did not had political connections) was cancelled. Of the 120 students that we started the career, only 2 of us were working -for money- there at the time, I was supposed to be one of the lucky ones.

west coast of NZ (1995)

It was a big shock, but in many ways was a wake-up call. I realize what my future would look like in a research institution that depends on political wills, where you spend half you time trying to do your job and the other time navigating political storms under a lot of jealousies and back stabbings, with low salaries, and no options of moving up the scale without a strong “connection” in the political "system".

So, two weeks after graduation and after having sold everything I had (wasn’t much anyway), I got in a sailing boat that was coming to the South Pacific... no plans, no contacts, just hopes and a smile. Once here spent almost two years fishing and other odd jobs in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga until I made it to NZ, where I fell in love with the place, and I stayed for good.

west coast NZ

I started working for fishing companies in NZ (Sanford, Simunovch, etc) in many roles (fishing, compliance, problem-solving, etc.) and then decided to gain a degree from an English-speaking university.

Is then when I found fisheries consulting mostly by chance than anything planned. I didn’t know that such job existed, but it fitted me well; I know fishing, I have a good practical and academic background and love traveling and spending time with fisheries people… a total lack of shame to try new languages also helped.

But overall, I just love the sea, being in the ocean is a deeply cleansing experience for me. I think I have taken the most important decisions of my life while in the water... migrating, buying a house, marrying, having kids, going to FAO, leaving FAO, just to name a few...

I always feel sheltered in the ocean. Land always makes me feel insecure, too many variables, too many people with things to prove and agendas. At sea, I know what I’m capable and what I’m not, either in a boat, on board, or just my skin.

heading up to Tukealu (i think) from Whangarei in the Ocean Breeze (1999)

And If I die at sea... it would be only fair, it would be under my rules and my mistakes,  I would be OK with it, in whatever way it happens. If I died on land, well, like to be sent back into the ocean. So every time someone I cared for looks at the sea, is like it is coming to visit me... at the place where I feel at home.

The way my wife illustrates my job :-)

Thank you all!

I'm the 1st one to admit that I'm the most unlikely writer/blogger ever. A grammatically challenged fisherman with some fisheries related degrees and almost no formal education in any of the languages I speak. And even if I think the words in the right order, somehow they come up in a different order than intended.

from the stats page of my hosting provider :-)

Therefore to have 21500 views out of over 10000 visits in last calendar year is a huge surprise and an honor I don't take for granted. You all very kind! I had no idea that so many people will be even remotely interested in the fisheries of the pacific.

I started this blog just to cover fisheries topics that I consider interesting (from eCDS and fisheries management to neural patterns in octopuses), as well as issues I’m involved professionally and care personally for people I knew. In general, terms I'm trying to bring a technically sound and (hopefully) non-biased information set, into some of the many realities of the fisheries sector. That was all.

I see myself an independent technical advisor, I don't subscribe to any views other than the ones I like, so I try to keep straight and simple, you decide if you agree or not. So I'm humbled about the positive responses I go over the last 2 years, and as this is something I do as "add-on" to my usual work, I apologize in advance for the random timing of the posts.

Thank you for your support reading this and for the many: "Ahh your are Francisco! love you blog man!" it means a lot to me!

$20 billion dollars each year to support overfishing

Yeap... and mostly from your taxes. We worry about the estimated of IUU fishing in the pacific or worldwide, we ask developing countries to put resources and budgets they barely have into controlling DWFN fisheries in their own countries because their flag states can't be bother, while at the same they pump 20 billion USD into subsidies to support overfishing.

fisheries subsidies... a simple yet effective way to go against all the work we stand for

I have always sustained that if we could "kill" fisheries subsidies issues (and getting the licensing transparency area a bit better) the fisheries situation would be so much better, in a Pareto way, I blame 80% of the problems in today's fisheries on those 2 issues... and in particular subsidies. Rich nations spend more in subsidizing fisheries that the estimates losses of revenue from illegal fishing... Yes, the global cost of fisheries subsidies is way greater than the cost of IUU fishing. I wrote about it here. 

Obviously, people that are way smarter than me and have better tools than I will ever have, seem to see a similar picture. The UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and UN Environmental Program (UNEP) released 2 days ago a joint statement pointing out the astonishing estimated figure of 20 billion USD in capacity-enhancing subsidies that directly contribute to overfishing (out of a estimated 35 billion for all subsidies)

However, the issue of addressing and removing fisheries subsidies has been a complicated and thorny one. The lack of information concerning countries’ activities and comprehension of the magnitude and impact of such support are persistent problems. Another complication is that there are many types of subsidies.

Certain subsidies are associated with development actions focused on developing countries. As such, some subsidies, coupled with development programmes and effective management frameworks, could be instrumental in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). A particular area of concern is the continuation of those subsidies that undermine sustainable development, as noted in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in 2012.

Failure to address these subsidies will jeopardize the livelihoods of coastal populations, particularly in countries and communities most dependent upon fish production. Or more bluntly... just kill legitimate fishing.

Marine biodiversity needs more than protection

The latest edition of Nature has an interesting free article in the comment section: "To sustain the seas, advocates of marine protected areas and those in fisheries management must work together, not at cross purposes"

The article is by Ray Hilborn, whom I quoted in the past and is always controversial to some segments of the conservation and management groups. His views are in regards Marine Protected Areas... a hot topic in many countries.

He is quite clear:

There are currently two very different views on the effectiveness of zones where fishing is either banned outright or tightly restricted. Many conservationists see the establishment of these marine protected areas (MPAs) as the only way to protect biodiversity. Others argue that the protection of biodiversity at sea can include recreational and industrial fishing and other uses of ocean resources. In fact, we think that closing waters to some kinds of fishing gear and restricting the catch of named species can offer much more protection than cordoning off even 30% of an area. We are concerned that MPAs may simply shift fishing pressure elsewhere.

Opinions are so divided that the conservation expertise of fisheries managers is being left out of national and international drives to protect ocean resources. Likewise, the suite of threats to biodiversity besides fishing, such as from oil exploration, sea-bed mining and ocean acidification, are not being addressed in standard fisheries management.

The seas face myriad problems — climate change, development and the nutritional and other needs of a growing human population. To tackle them, conservationists and those involved in fisheries management must work together and answer to the same governing bodies.

I don't want to be hit by a copyright claim from Nature so here is again a link to the original article (for free).

Interestingly he ends his writing with a hopeful approach:

Marine spatial planning is a generic term for the process of resolving conflicts in the use of marine resources and would seem to be the obvious mechanism to integrate fisheries management and MPAs. Yet after more than a decade of discussion and some attempts at implementation, there are few examples of the process effectively bringing the two 'tribes' together to work towards common goals. I suspect that this is, in part, because insufficient efforts have been made to convince both parties that decision-making bodies represent their interests appropriately.

The best examples of MPA advocates and fisheries-management communities working together are small-scale. In the Philippines and Indonesia, for instance, communities are working with local governments and NGOs, using a mix of protected areas and other forms of regulation, to try to rebuild coral-reef fish stocks9. Here the principal aim is to make fishing more sustainable; the objective of protecting representative habitats is not typically considered.

In larger industrial fisheries, such as in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, it should be possible for MPA advocates to collaborate with national fisheries departments. This would require a clear elaboration of the objectives of each. It would also require the appointment of more conservationists and MPA advocates to fisheries-management organizations, which are currently dominated by regulatory agencies and fishing-interest groups.

Another way to foster collaboration on a national scale would be to merge the various government departments responsible for conservation and fisheries management into a single department of marine management. Such an organization could oversee the protection of biodiversity and the sustainable use of fisheries, and regulate competing marine uses. As a first step, a set of formal consultations, informed by case studies that measure the actual level of biodiversity protection achieved in different places through existing mixes of MPAs and fisheries management, could begin to identify clear measurable objectives.

At the local, national and international levels, biodiversity protection and fisheries management must be overseen by the same bodies if either is to be truly effective.

Economic benefits from fisheries for the Pacific - BENEFISH

Recently I posted about a publication by Bob Gillett and SPC on the significance of fisheries for the Pacific. The report named Benefish, is a 630 pages book, that has a lot very good info in it. So as a lazy writer, I would quote over the next moths figures, concepts and "stuff" that I found interesting.

It is estimated the volume of all fisheries and aquaculture production in the region in the six fisheries categories (1) coastal commercial fishing, (2) coastal subsistence fishing, (3) locally-based offshore fishing, (4) foreign-based offshore fishing, (5) freshwater fishing, and (6) aquaculture for 2014 was about 2.0 million metric tonnes (mt), worth US$3.2 billion.

In comparing these figures to estimates by other studies it is important to consider carefully how the “region” is defined, and where, in the value chain the value is estimated. The present study defines the region as the 22 Pacific Island countries and territories and their 200-mile zones. The values used reflect the prices paid to the producer or (for offshore fisheries) in-zone prices.

Key features of coastal fisheries production

• The volume for all coastal fisheries (i.e. commercial and subsistence in Papua New Guinea (PNG) is about one-third of the regional total.
• The production from Fiji’s coastal commercial fisheries is greater than that of any other PICT, even for that of PNG, with a population almost nine times greater than Fiji’s.
• Considering the level of overall development of Samoa and Tonga, the degree of commercialisation of the coastal fisheries (reflected in their relative positions on the comparison graph) is high.
• Considering that New Caledonia and American Samoa are quite developed, the degree of commercialisation of their respective coastal fisheries (reflected in their relative positions on the comparison graph) is relatively low.

Key features of offshore fisheries production

• The value of offshore fishing in the Kiribati zone in 2014 (US$1.1 billion) approaches the combined value of offshore fishing of all other PICTs, excluding PNG (US$1.3 billion).
• The effects of the 2014 El Niño conditions on offshore fisheries production is readily apparent, and has resulted in higher catches in the central equatorial region.
• Three countries in an area of relatively productive tuna fishing had no locally based offshore fishery production (Nauru, Tuvalu and Tokelau). Kiribati had only a tiny amount of locally-based offshore fishery production.
• In about one-third of the countries that are significantly involved in offshore fisheries, the fleet is all locally based. In another third of countries the fleets are a mixture of locally and foreign-based, while the remainder have foreign-based fleets.
• Although Palau is a party to the Nauru Agreement (one of the parties to the Nauru Agreement – PNA), the production from its offshore fishing is less than that of several non-PNA countries.

Aquaculture production in the region

In 2014 aquaculture production in the region is estimated to have been 4,217 mt and 9,122,169 pieces, worth US$116,005,524. Two French territories were responsible for more than 93% of the value of all aquaculture production in the region. In only six PICTs was the value of aquaculture
production in 2014 greater that 5% of the value of coastal fisheries. All but one of those PICTs (Cook Islands) are territories.

Changes in fisheries and aquaculture production during the period 2007–2014

• In the 22 countries and territories the total volume of fishery production increased by 431,354 mt (32%).
• The value of fishery and aquaculture production increased by $738,662,323 (30.7%).
• In relative terms, the share of offshore foreign-based fishing expanded, largely at the expense of offshore locally based fishing.
• Coastal fisheries production has been largely stable, despite an increased coastal fishing effort in most PICTs in the region.
• Aquaculture decreased in value by 32.7% across the region. This was mostly attributable to the fall in the value of pearl production in Cook Islands and French Polynesia.

Some issues in measuring fisheries production in the region

The offshore fisheries statistical systems are in relatively good condition, both at a national and regional level, but the situation for coastal fisheries statistics is not nearly as good. Typically, national government fisheries agencies give a low priority to estimating the total amount of coastal catches. In some respects this situation is a tragedy. The importance of food security and the roles played by coastal fisheries are beyond dispute, but, in order to effectively safeguard the flow of food from coastal fisheries, that flow needs to be quantified: “You can manage what you can measure”. In view of the poor statistics on coastal fisheries production in most countries and territories in the region, and the potential for household income and expenditure surveys (HIES) to improve the situation, the applicability of HIES to coastal fisheries deserves more attention

Exports of fishery products
The annual value of fishery exports in 2014 is given for each country, in absolute terms and relative to all exports. The findings show that, while fishery exports represent less than 40% of the value of all national exports, in some countries they are quite large in nominal terms, for example: PNG (US$136 million), Fiji (US$58 million), Solomon Islands (US$54 million), and New Caledonia (US$22 million). American Samoa, PNG and French Polynesia have the largest value of fishery exports (the former and the latter being territories). Of the approximately US$820 million in total fishery exports from the region in 2014, about 76% is represented by these three PICTs.

Over the period 2007–2014 the total amount of fishery exports from the region fell by about 42% in real (inflation-adjusted) value. The fall in the value of canned tuna exports from American Samoa was responsible for about 37% of the total regional decline. Of the major exporting countries, only PNG and Solomon Islands increased their fishery exports in the period.

Access fees for foreign fishing

In each of the country and territory chapters of this book, information is provided on access fees received for foreign fishing, and these fees are compared with total national government revenue. In 2014 foreign fishing access generated US$349,335,572 across all 22 Pacific Island countries and territories. Given the lack of authorised foreign fishing in most territories, the US$349.3 million represents access fees generated in the independent Pacific Island countries as well as Tokelau.

Other aspects of access fees

• Four countries in the region received access fees in 2014 representing more than US$1,000 per capita.
• Kiribati, despite having one of the largest 200-mile zones in the region, had a relatively high ratio of access fees per square kilometre of zone in 2014.
• In the period 2007-2014 access fees increased in all countries that receive them.
• The countries with the largest increases in access fees were those that participate in the PNA Vessel Day Scheme (in which foreign purse seine vessels purchase fishing days from PNA countries).
• In real terms (i.e. adjusted for inflation) the region has experienced an eight-fold (848%) increase in the value of access fees in the period 1982–2014.

Significant findings

• Coastal fisheries production has not increased significantly in the 15-year period 1999–2014. This is despite indications at the national level of increasing fishing pressure. This is consistent with the thesis that the fish resources that support coastal fisheries in the region are fully or over-exploited. Because the population of the region is increasing, the per capita production of fish from coastal fisheries is decreasing, at a rate of approximately 6% in the period 2007-2014. This is a remarkable decrease in such a short period.
• Foreign-based offshore fishing continues to increase, with this fishing being responsible for almost all of the regional increase in fish catches in the period 2007-2014. This increase was mostly due to increased purse seine catches. This occurred despite the introduction of the PNA Vessel Day Scheme and the associated steep increase in access fees, which were mostly paid by the foreign purse seine fleets. The largest jump in access fees was between 2013 and 2014 (for countries where it was possible for the study to obtain access fees for both years), even though prices for skipjack (the main target of purse seining) decreased in that period. The fact that access fees increased, even though skipjack prices decreased, is a powerful argument for the effectiveness of the Vessel Day Scheme.

The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture - 2016

Every two years my former employer FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the Unites Nations) publishes its report over the state of fisheries and aquaculture worldwide. Is the best source of information available on the topic, here are some of it key findings.

We are faced with one of the world’s greatest challenges – how to feed more than 9 billion people by 2050 in a context of climate change, economic and financial uncertainty, and growing competition for natural resources. Hence meeting the ever-growing demand for fish as food will be imperative, and also immensely challenging. With capture fishery production relatively static since the late 1980s, aquaculture has been responsible for the impressive growth in the supply of fish for human consumption.

Growth in the global supply of fish for human consumption has outpaced population growth in the past five decades, increasing at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in the period 1961– 2013, double that of population growth, resulting in increasing average per capita availability.

The state of the world’s marine fish stocks has not improved overall, despite notable progress in some areas. Based on FAO’s analysis of assessed commercial fish stocks, the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels decreased from 90 percent in 1974 to 68.6 percent in 2013. Thus, 31.4 percent of fish stocks were estimated as fished at a biologically unsustainable level and therefore overfished. Of the total number of stocks assessed in 2013, fully fished stocks accounted for 58.1 percent and underfished stocks 10.5 percent. The underfished stocks decreased almost continuously from 1974 to 2013, but the fully fished stocks decreased from 1974 to 1989, and then increased to 58.1 percent in 2013. Correspondingly, the percentage of stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels increased, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s, from 10 percent in 1974 to 26 percent in 1989. After 1990, the number of stocks fished at unsustainable levels continued to increase, albeit more slowly. The ten most-productive species accounted for about 27 percent of the world’s marine capture fisheries production in 2013. However, most of their stocks are fully fished with no potential for increases in production; the remainder are overfished with increases in their production only possible after successful stock restoration.

Global total capture fishery production in 2014 was 93.4 million tonnes, of which 81.5 million tonnes from marine waters and 11.9 million tonnes from inland waters For marine fisheries production, China remained the major producer followed by Indonesia, the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Catches of anchoveta in Peru fell to 2.3 million tonnes in 2014 – half that of the previous year and the lowest level since the strong El Niño in 1998 – but in 2015 they had already recovered to more than 3.6 million tonnes. For the first time since 1998, anchoveta was not the top-ranked species in terms of catch as it fell below Alaska pollock.

The Northwest Pacific remained the most productive area for capture fisheries, followed by the Western Central Pacific, the Northeast Atlantic and the Eastern Indian Ocean. With the exception of the Northeast Atlantic, these areas have shown increases in catches compared with the average for the decade 2003–2012.

Four highly valuable groups (tunas, lobsters, shrimps and cephalopods) registered new record catches in 2014. Total catches of tuna and tuna like species were almost 7.7 million tonnes.

World per capita apparent fish consumption increased from an average of 9.9 kg in the 1960s to 14.4 kg in the 1990s and 19.7 kg in 2013, with preliminary estimates for 2014 and 2015 pointing towards further growth beyond 20 kg.

An estimated 56.6 million people were engaged in the primary sector of capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2014, of whom 36 percent were engaged full time, 23 percent part time, and the remainder were either occasional fishers or of unspecified status. Following a long upward trend, numbers have remained relatively stable since 2010, while the proportion of these workers engaged in aquaculture increased from 17 percent in 1990 to 33 percent in 2014. In 2014, 84 percent of the global population engaged in the fisheries and aquaculture sector was in Asia, followed by Africa (10 percent), and Latin America and the Caribbean (4 percent). Of the 18 million people engaged in fish farming, 94 percent were in Asia.

Women accounted for 19 percent of all people directly engaged in the primary sector in 2014, but when the secondary sector (e.g. processing, trading) is included women make up about half of the workforce.

The total number of fishing vessels in the world in 2014 is estimated at about 4.6 million, very close to the figure for 2012. The f leet in Asia was the largest, consisting of 3.5 million vessels and accounting for 75 percent of the global f leet, followed by Africa (15 percent), Latin America and the Caribbean (6 percent), North America (2 percent) and Europe (2 percent). Globally, 64 percent of reported fishing vessels were engine-powered in 2014, of which 80 percent were in Asia, with the remaining regions all under 10 percent each. In 2014, about 85 percent of the world’s motorized fishing vessels were less than 12 m in length overall (LOA), and these small vessels dominated in all regions. The estimated number of fishing vessels of 24 m and longer operating in marine waters in 2014 was about 64 000, the same as in 2012.

The share of world fish production utilized for direct human consumption has increased significantly in recent decades, up from 67 percent in the 1960s to 87 percent, or more than 146 million tonnes, in 2014. The remaining 21 million tonnes was destined for non-food products, of which 76 percent was reduced to fishmeal and fish oil in 2014, the rest being largely utilized for a variety of purposes including as raw material for direct feeding in aquaculture. Increasingly, the utilization of by-products is becoming an important industry, with a growing focus on their handling in a controlled, safe and hygienic way, thereby also reducing waste.

 In 2014, 46 percent (67 million tonnes) of the fish for direct human consumption was in the form of live, fresh or chilled fish, which in some markets are the most preferred and highly priced forms.

The rest of the production for edible purposes was in different processed forms, with about 12 percent (17 million tonnes) in dried, salted, smoked or other cured forms, 13 percent (19 million tonnes) in prepared and preserved forms, and 30 percent (about 44 million tonnes) in frozen form. Freezing is the main method of processing fish for human consumption, and it accounted for 55 percent of total processed fish for human consumption and 26 percent of total fish production in 2014.

Fishmeal and fish oil are still considered the most nutritious and digestible ingredients for farmed fish feeds. To offset their high prices, as feed demand increases, the amount of fishmeal and fish oil used in compound feeds for aquaculture has shown a clear downward trend, with their being more selectively used as strategic ingredients at lower concentrations and for specific stages of production, particularly hatchery, broodstock and finishing diets.

International trade plays a major role in the fisheries and aquaculture sector as an employment creator, food supplier, income generator, and contributor to economic growth and development, as well as to food and nutrition security. Fish and fishery products represent one of the most-traded segments of the world food sector, with about 78 percent of seafood products estimated to be exposed to international trade competition. For many countries and for numerous coastal and iverine regions, exports of fish and fishery products are essential to their economies, accounting for more than 40 percent of the total value of traded commodities in some island countries, and globally representing more than 9 percent of total agricultural exports and 1 percent of world merchandise trade in value terms. Trade in fish and fishery products has expanded considerably in recent decades, fuelled by growing fishery production and driven by high demand, with the fisheries sector operating in an increasingly globalized environment. In addition, there is an important trade in fisheries services.

Developing economies, whose exports represented just 37 percent of world trade in 1976, saw their share rise to 54 percent of total fishery export value and 60 percent of the quantity (live weight) by 2014. Fishery trade represents a significant source of foreign currency earnings for many developing countries, in addition to its important role in income generation, employment, food security and nutrition. In 2014, fishery exports from developing countries were valued at US$80 billion, and their fishery net export revenues (exports minus imports) reached US$42 billion, higher than other major agricultural commodities (such as meat, tobacco, rice and sugar) combined.

Here are the words of Manuel Barange, FAO Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Resources Division,

Pride of Pacific fisheries

I have known Cynthia Wickham and her family for many years now. Her vision, attitude and friendliness are part of the reason why I love Noro in the Solomon Islands, my favorite tuna town in the world.

Cynthia is one of the most positive persons I work with, nothing is ever much of a problem and her good will and good heart is only comparable to her great smile! We have worked together for years and I'm proud to have her and her partner Edmond as friends.

I said a million times that Noro is what fisheries should be in the Pacific. Locally based, managed and owned companies, that catch local fish and employ over 99% local people. I have worked with the Wickhams since 2000, they are always supportive of our common ideas, goals and hopes for a better future. I see them as part of my Pacific family.

In the following video, part of the Australia Global Alumni initiative, Cynthia explains her work and what fishing is for Noro better than anyone else could.

She is such a cool woman and I treasure her and her family's friendship, support and trust over the years.

Fisheries in the economies of Pacific Island countries and territories

Fisheries is a critical sector for food security and economic growth in the Pacific region. For the last year my friend and colleague Bob Gillett has been working on a publication on the benefits from fisheries in the Pacific Islands region.  Yesterday the 630-page book was officially launched at a meeting in Port Vila.

Maintaining up-to-date information about the impact of fisheries is critical for Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) and their communities to make informed decisions about management of the sector, and for a range of development organisations, institutions and donors to plan and implement effective development assistance in collaboration with PICTs. However, finding accurate and up-to-date data on the value of fisheries, and its numerous components, to the economies of Pacific Island countries and territories is very difficult, and this makes the assessment of development and change very difficult to measure over time.

This book contains a fisheries-oriented discussion of macroeconomics, country information on specific topics (fisheries production, contribution to GDP, etc.), a discussion of important topics across all countries (e.g. the regional significance of fisheries access fees and exports of fishery products), some important features of the benefits from fisheries that have emerged from this study, and recommendations on improving the measurement of fisheries benefits and assuring the continuity of those benefits.

It provides a new baseline for assessing the value of fisheries to Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs), both for measuring achievements and for assessing future improvements in sustainable fishery management. It documents changes in the management of the Pacific tuna fishery, food security concerns for coastal fisheries in the face of growing populations, and the effects these have on the economies of PICTs.
 
The book contains for each of the 22 Pacific Island countries and territories information on:

• The recent annual fishery harvests: values and volumes covering the six fishery production categories – (1) coastal commercial fishing, (2) coastal subsistence fishing, (3) locally-based offshore fishing, (4) foreign-based offshore fishing, (5) freshwater fishing, and (6) aquaculture.
• Fishing contribution to gross domestic product GDP: the current fishing contribution, how it is calculated, and a production approach re-calculation based on annual harvest levels obtained during the study.
• Fishery exports: amounts, types, and the ratio to all exports
• Government revenue from the fisheries sector: access fees and other revenue
• Fisheries employment
• Fisheries contribution to nutrition
• An analysis of the above features across all countries

I meet Bob Gillett for first time in Tonga in 1998, during a job with a fishing company there, he was the 1st fisheries consultant I ever meet, and due to his work and our common ocean interests (open ocean swimming, traditional sailing and way-finding, surfing, Oceania cultures, waka paddling, etc) he has been a mentor and a friend since then. I deeply admire his work ethic, ideas and persona. Few people in this world have the wealth of knowledge and contacts to be able to produce this type of work.

Surfing Suva pass from Bob's sailing outrigger

I was honored when SPC (the publisher) asked me for the rights to the cover picture.

 A soft copy of the book can be downloaded at: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/en/component/content/article/462

Review of studies estimating levels of IUU fishing

In February 2015 FAO convened a workshop to consider methodologies for estimating IUU fishing at the global level. The premise underlying this workshop was that a new global estimate of IUU catch would be useful, as the 2009 paper estimating IUU-caught fish is now outdated both in terms of the 2003 estimate it provided and in terms of the changed international, regional and national context now influencing levels of IUU fishing. Concern has also been expressed over the wide range between the upper and lower estimates in the study, and over some of the methodological aspects and particularly the raising factors used to generate the global estimate

The workshop suggested that FAO could: (i) coordinate a ‘Study of IUU fishing studies’ to review the different methodologies being used to estimate IUU fishing; (ii) lead a process to develop technical guidelines for future studies so they could be conducted in a way that would allow for estimates to be combined to contribute to a global estimate; and (iii) consider indicators of IUU fishing for inclusion in FAO’s bi-annual SOFIA publication.

The resulting "study of studies", just completed by my colleagues Graeme Macfadyen from Poseidon Consultants, G. Caillart(don't know him) and David Agnew (that somehow finds time to do this type of work besides his responsibilities as MSC) is quite substantial and a necessary read, I just quote a summary.

Thefound that studies to estimate IUU catches range in geographical scope from those concentrating at very local levels, through national and regional studies, to those attempting to estimate IUU catch at a global level.

The sub-global estimates cannot be combined to generate a global estimate as they do not cover all fisheries or ocean areas, tend to focus on marine industrial IUU fishing (and often of foreign fleets), in some cases overlap in geographical coverage (but with different estimates of IUU catch being produced), and use different methodologies which are not comparable.

With respect to a number of studies providing global estimates, these tend to have especially high levels of uncertainty over the estimates produced, because as the scale of these studies increases, they either lose accuracy or lose granularity because of the assumptions that they have to make for elements for which there are no data.

A number of global (or regional) studies estimate ‘missing or unknown catch’ rather than catch that is specifically IUU. This is important as such studies have a limited biological focus/objective, which while of benefit, fails to recognize that IUU fishing is also an economic and social problem, with economic and social impacts not just biological ones in terms of impacts on fish stocks and the reliability of stock assessments based on known catches.

The inclusion of different aspects of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the estimates are not consistent, nor is the definition of IUU fishing in the IPOA-IUU consistently applied. The studies demonstrate considerable confusion about what illegal catch is, what unreported catch is, and what unregulated catch is, often grouping unknown catches under a single IUU umbrella.

The studies use a wide range of different sources of information including: surveillance data and compliance levels; remote sensing (e.g. VMS, AIS); logbooks; expert judgment based on experience; interviews with fishermen and enforcement agencies; observer data; onboard cameras; stock assessment models; and trade data. These sources of information have different uses in terms of different methodologies used to generate estimates of different aspects of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity, for example of unknown IUU catch for known vessels, of unknown catch of unknown/unseen vessels, or of catch volumes which are known but which might nevertheless be illegal.

The study of studies concluded that most of the methods used have limitations. For example, they may be very good at estimating all the unreported catch of a particular species, but less good at identifying where it came from or what types of IUU were being used. Or they may be very good at identifying specific violation types, but poor at estimating quantities. Or they may estimate IUU catch of target species but have no estimate of the impact of IUU fishing on other species.

The study of studies also found that many of the studies are insufficiently transparent about the sources of information and weaknesses in the methods used, and make a large number of assumptions which lead to inevitable questions over the accuracy of the estimates produced.

Keep making pictures and I estimate you gonna get beaten very soon

Conclusions
The study of studies recognizes that there may be some political support for an updated global estimate of IUU catch, and for FAO to be involved in its preparation given FAO’s global mandate for fisheries. However it notes that the importance of combatting IUU fishing is now widely recognized at the global level suggesting that the advocacy benefits of a global estimate may be limited. Advocacy benefits may also be diminished due to wide confidence intervals and the likely inherent technical weaknesses in the accuracy of any global estimate; from a technical perspective a global estimate may serve little benefit and not be advisable.

The technical guidelines on methodologies for estimating (global) volumes of IUU catch suggested by the workshop in Rome in 2015 might nevertheless be useful in improving the quality of studies being completed at local, national or regional levels.

In terms of contributing towards efforts to combat IUU fishing and reduce levels of IUU catch, of potential benefit could be the development of technical guidelines on how to conduct risk-based assessments of IUU fishing. A number of frameworks for IUU risk assessments are being used by RFMOs and national administrations. But as the 5th GFTEW in Auckland observed in March 2016, there is currently no guidance on how to complete such assessments, and many developing and developed countries alike would benefit from technical guidance. The completion of IUU risk assessments could also, but need not necessarily, result in and be the basis for estimates of IUU catches and further consistent monitoring of evolution of IUU catches. The first step in developing such technical guidelines would be the preparation of an inventory and review of all existing risk assessment frameworks in use.

Indicators of IUU fishing to monitor progress in combatting IUU fishing are critically important but from a technical perspective need not include a global estimate of IUU catch as levels of accuracy and large differences between upper and lower estimates would mean that it would be difficult to statistically demonstrate any difference between global estimates prepared at different intervals.

The problem of comparison would be compounded if methodologies were changed or improved between global estimates prepared at intervals. Indicators could thus focus on other aspects such as numbers of vessels on IUU fishing vessel lists, number of countries issued with ‘yellow’ and ‘red cards’ under the EU IUU regulation, the outputs of IUU risk-based assessments, and perhaps some specific regional or local estimates of IUU catch in high risk areas based on repeatable and robust methodologies. However more consideration needs to be given as to whether it is advisable to have a single indicator of IUU fishing, or whether a ‘suite’ of indicators might be more beneficial and if so what should be included.

Recommendations to COFI
Noting that COFI has not earlier endorsed the suggestions of the 2015 Rome workshop, the findings of the study of IUU studies, or the deliberations of the 5th GFETW, the study of studies recommends that COFI consider and advise FAO on whether:

1. an updated global estimate of IUU catch is desirable and if so what would be its objective and what role FAO should have in supporting/developing such an estimate.
2. FAO should lead a process to develop technical guidelines to improve the quality of studies completed at local, national and regional (and potentially global) levels to estimate IUU catch, and whether such guidelines should revisit the IPOA-IUU definitions, not necessarily departing from them but identifying separate categories of IUU that should be considered in risk assessments and monitoring studies that are more attuned to current experience and practices.
3. FAO should support the development of technical guidelines on conducting IUU risk-based assessments.
4. reporting globally on indicators of IUU fishing would be beneficial, and if so what the process should be for proposing, agreeing and reporting on such indicators, and what role FAO should play in such a process.

Port State Measures - Legislative Template and Related Information

I wrote many times about how good it has been to maintain friends in FAO, since they produce a lot of upper-level analysis and thinking in support of the frameworks, like PSMA, so here is another good example.

I'm not too smart... but I have friends that are :-)

This one comes by courtesy of my friend Julien Million (part of the ABNJ crew) who made me aware of this new publication by Judith Swan, who was a mentor  when I started consulting work almost 17 years ago.

They just published a report/manual calledImplementation of Port State measures - A legislative template; Framework for procedures; The role of RFMOs, that can be downloaded from here. The objective of this document is twofold: to meet those challenges by providing generic legislative templates for the development of national legislation; and to explain broader context of Port State measures.

It is a substantive piece and a de rigour reading for everyone working (like me) on the implementation of PSMA and adjacent topics.

The entry into force of the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on 5 June 2016 reflected the successful culmination of global efforts to combat IUU fishing by setting harmonised minimum standards for measures to be taken at port. It targets IUU fishing and fishing related activities in support of such fishing, and its reach extends to areas within and beyond national jurisdiction.

Port State measures impose major sanctions, including denial of entry into port or use of port and could lead to further investigation, prosecution, license revocation and inclusion on an IUU Vessel List of a regional fisheries management organization (RFMO). The measures complement other monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools such as catch documentation schemes, consolidated vessel lists and electronic monitoring systems. They also call for exchange of information with - and among - RFMOs, leading to more effective CMMs.

Many RFMOs and some countries have been active in preparing for entry into force, but the development and adoption of national implementing legislation has become imperative. At regional level, several RFMOs have adopted various requirements and minimum standards of the FAO Agreement in conservation and management measures (CMMs) that are legally binding on their members. In 2010, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) adopted Resolution 10/11 on Port State measures that is almost identical to the FAO Agreement. Other RFMO CMMs vary in the extent of implementation of its requirements, as described in this document.

There are ongoing reviews and strengthening of the CMMs relating to Port State measures within many RFMOs, in part encouraged by their performance reviews. This document focuses on the implementation of two legal instruments - the FAO Agreement and IOTC Resolution – which, as noted above, are almost identical. Together, they are legally binding on a wide range of countries. At national level, the process of preparing for entry into force of the FAO Agreement, as well as implementation of relevant RFMO CMMs, has been challenging for many countries.

Legislative templates are provided for implementing the core and supporting provisions respectively; they are generic, and can be adapted to different legal systems, institutions and instruments.

The core provisions are those implemented directly from the FAO Agreement, and as appropriate the IOTC Resolution, and the supporting provisions are those that relate to areas such as enforcement information and evidence. The latter reflect best practices and are important for backstopping aspects of the core provisions; they may already be in national fisheries legislation or may be used for strengthening existing provisions.

Explanatory notes are given for each core and supporting provision. In order that the broader context of Port State measures can be better understood as national legislation is developed, this document also describes the development of Port State measures, a framework for national procedures and the role of RFMOs.

The US Tuna Treaty has survived

After some marathon negotiations in Auckland last week, it seems that the US treaty was rescued. This brought a welcomed sense of relieve to many of the "non-skipjack blessed countries" in the Pacific.

Moving beyond the usual negotiating power

At this stage, the agreement remains “in principle”. The US will need to rescind its earlier withdrawal, a decision that can only be made at the highest political levels. The Pacific still needs the endorsement of the Fisheries Ministers when they meet in Vanuatu in early July. Nevertheless, the negotiation delegations have both indicated their strong support for the outcomes.

A good press release from the session from my friends at FFA can be found here