Can you support my attempt to swim 20 Km (12.5mi) from my island home to Auckland?

I think that part of the reason I like and live in Islands, is that they are a bit like boats. Small societies, you know the crew… the crew knows you. You don't have to like everyone and not everyone needs to like you. Yet when shit hits the fan you need to trust their abilities, know their limitations and strengths and the same for them with you.

The 20 km from Kennedy Point (Waiheke) to Okahu Bay (Auckland) need to done under 7 hrs

And while I love that closeness, I know from own experience that when you are sick or had an accident they are really isolated places to be.

Here on the Waiheke island, we all know someone who still alive just because of the helicopter rescue, simple as that!

Furthermore, many years ago while I was still fishing commercially they picked up one my fellow crew members with an exposed fracture, it would have taken us a day of agony for him to come back to port. He was in the operation table a couple of hours later thanks to the rescue helicopter. I did my knee on board a trawler in the South of Argentina and took 3 days to be back… I don’t wish that on anyone

Waiheke Island has been home for over 15 years for me and my family. I have been welcomed at different times by the community and they made me feel one of them. As I cannot pay back the community directly, hence my motivation to do this swim and support a service vital to the island (that I hope never to use!) 

The 2020 Chopper Swim that covers the 20km in between Waiheke Island and Auckland’s Okahu Bay will take place on the 20 March. The distance needs to be covered under 7 hrs.

And while initially, I wanted to do it alone and started training in October, I soon realize that this is a community thing so it doesn’t make sense to play lone wolf, furthermore by going alone I wouldn’t push myself as much as with others, so I found a group of locals motivated by the same idea of helping. And me being 15 years older than the oldest one in the team… the fact that they will be pushing me is guaranteed! particularly because I’m the only one doing it without a wetsuit (well yeah… you all knew that I’m a bit mad)

In the 5 years I have been writing this blog I never asked for anything, so here is the 1st time (and maybe the last one). So if you want to also push me in this swim (is twice the distance of the longest ocean swim I ever did), please do it by giving whatever you can be using the 'Give Now' button in this linked page. ( for reference 10 NZD are 6.3 US, 9.5 AUD, 5.8€).

Please also spread the word about this page with your friends and family. Gracias in advance for your generosity, it means a lot!

Great news from Majuro and further evidence that PSM does work!

I have been for most of the week in a meeting here in FFA HQ here in Honiara… and let say that meeting rooms are not my natural environment. So when I got the picture below from my colleagues in Majuro immediately my day got better!

One of the many areas we been working with my friends there for the last years is on intelligence analysis around the Identity, licensing and operations of arriving vessels prior authorising port use, as part of our Port State Measures system.

The operations part requires us to analyse the VMS tracks of the vessels prior entry to port, yet one thing is to look at VMS track and another is to understand the behaviour of a particular type of vessel based on gear deployment and manoeuvring.

Yet while VMS may give you a good indication of what happened at that time and place, sometimes does not suffice as evidence, so once onboard, you need to know what to look for and where to find it, as to compile definitive evidence that can be disputed.

Logbooks (captains’ and chief engineers’), temperature records, onboard GPS plotters, buoy recovery marks, and other inside vessel info are this type of supplementary evidence that makes cases watertight. Furthermore, they show the captain, that you know your job… and in most cases, they accept and assume the charges to cut theirs loses off.

And this is exactly what my colleagues in Majuro have done. Identify the alleged offence manoeuvring, took notes on time and place, boarded went straight to the bridge and took evidence from documentation written and instruments operated by the captain… that evidence is really hard to dispute.

I’m totally stoked for the Oceanic team in MIMRA and for Beau in particular because is such an enthusiastic guy that really took on the PSM process

Mentoring on how different fishing vessels operate (from the manoeuvring to what and where info is recorded onboard) plus the dedication of good officers does work and produce results… simple as that.

Awesome guys… you are living example that things can work and is not all doom in fisheries!

Entitlements and toxicity in the NZ fisheries “dialogue”

I don't get involved in NZ fisheries much anymore, yet up to the late 90s I was part of the industry, advised regulators and also was an MPI (MoF on those days) research provider working on pelagics and recreational assessments… 

Various reasons for me not being involved… firstly NZ has a lot of good people working on fisheries, then while many people believed that me being a “foreigner” was good as I had no agenda… others had a more “who the fu*k are you?” attitude and they were quite vocal about it. Finally, there was better pay for working overseas.

This is not to say that I don't keep a keen interest in it, or I discard going back to it. In fact, I have used NZ experiences and models for my work overseas and have good friends deeply involved in NZ fisheries at every level 

So I get always dubitative when I’m asked to comment about NZ fisheries since immediately you get cornered to a sector or user… doesn't matter what you take is… you are with us or against us… and I hate that shit. 

So when our local magazine “Gulf News” asked me for a chat on local fisheries on the back of my seafood champion award… I was careful... I guess ideally you are liked by everyone if that is not possible being disliked by everyone is not a bad outcome… I guess this put me in that last scenario

The caption of the picture says: “accurate reporting is the basis of any fisheries management both commercial and recreational”

I transcript the article here below, since is not online….

 In the wake of speculation about the 100 dead snappers found floating in the Hauraki Gulf, Waiheke fisheries expert Francisco Blaha has called out the "toxic" discourse surrounding recreational and commercial fishing.

Blaha, the winner of the 2019 World Seafood Sustainability Champion Award, says antagonism is rising as the population expands, but said we have regulatory systems in place which we should prize and support to make ity better.

Having worked across regulators, science providers, NGOs and industry he says New Zealand is "very lucky" and voiced disappointment at some "entitled" behaviour he has encountered.

"The fact that fisheries are struggling in many parts of the world does not immediately imply fisheries are struggling here, not to say that everything is perfect, of course not, it is not doom either. Catch volumes have been stable for many species, while on other conservation measures are being taken. I find that the fisheries conversation is really toxic," he told Gulf News. 

"There are always better ways to do things, but we need to be aware of how unique our conditions and relationships are, here in NZ my message is: you are all stakeholders and none of you is better than the other guy."        

Regarding the dead snapper, Blaha says due diligence wasn't followed and someone will have to take responsibility. We can all point fingers but we will see what the issue is. I can think of a couple of things that could have happened. The fact Fisheries is trying to find out what happened is a good sign, not a bad sign. I'm sure they will find out as there are quite a few tools at their disposal to do that, and the fisheries officers know their job well.

Based at Palm Beach but working overseas for much of the year, Blaha has witnessed first-hand systems that are failing and non-existent in developing nations, with more vessels operating under flags of convenience and growing exploitation of workers.

"I don't think my son will work in fisheries and I'm saddened by that, even if he wanted to it would be much harder for him, "he said. "It's about geopolitics, subsidies, very unfair fishing practices, transparency is going down and it's very bad in terms of exploitation. More and more people are disadvantaged, there are countries where people get paid very low salaries."

Finding solutions and supporting the actions of developing nations to fight those trends is a key part of Blaha's job. He says he has learned that you don't fix anything long term with a hammer, you need a toolbox and patience.

On the flip-side, Blaha points to NZ's many advantages and resources. "We're not next to anyone else, it's more controllable, we have a “gate in” anda “gate out” for fisheries, we're relatively wealthy, we have good scientists. We definitely need more resources put into fisheries and we need less antagonism between stakeholders," he said.

"I have noticed the antagonism since I arrived 25 years ago and it's getting worse since there are now more people every year for the same amount of fish." For example In New Zealand, the snapper catch is split roughly 60/40 to commercial and recreational fishing (https://openseas.org.nz/fish/snapper/). "If there is a problem, it is a shared problem," he said. "If you fish for a job or you fish to have fun, you're both fishing the same stock, but everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else and not at themselves.

For example, "Recreational fishers like to point to commercial fishers for misreporting and events like the 100 snappers, while commercial fisherman point at recreational fishers on the lack of certainty of data and licensing on how many people fish and how much they catch."

Blaha says there are people that play by the rules and there are those who don't on both sides. He also said both sides are very good at cherry-picking. "For example, recreational fishers may say we catch very little volumes yet they are many of them, and if they have a 150HP engine in the back to land 10 kg of fish, how does that compare with a commercial one that lands 3000kg on 400HP in terms of emissions and fuel consumption per volume landed," he asked. On the other hand Commercials may say": “Hey, we operate against a tightly defined quota based on the best science available and we get audited,” while at the same time may not report an accidental or on pur­pose dumping

"No one in fisheries (or any aspect of life) is totally guilty or innocent. It is the extent of it that varies according to different people. No one has the moral upper ground here”

According to Blaha the only truly sustainable thing we can do as humans is to all die at once, anything else implies compromises. "Where that compromise is, depends on personal choice and public policy. For example, personally I love fishing, I do spearfishing and non-motorised, I use a sailing waka ama or a paddleboard to go fishing," he said.

"Yet I understand that for others that compromise is with a big boat and 250HP engine that liquefies its exhaust emissions in the water and produces lots of noise. Obviously that person is doing something that is allowed (and that he can afford). I may have my opinions on how envirmentally sustainable his practices really are, but we both are under the same regulatory framework and I am not more righteous than him."

On the issue of Waiheke's proposed marine reservations, Blaha says more thought needs to go into location if we want them to work. For example, he says a reserve located at a popular beach or bay would be too difficult to police.

"Fundamentally it's about how it’s going to be patrolled, pointing fingers at DoC or council isn't going to work, you can't give them the responsibility if you created it. We need to be creative about solutions and on all aspects of how it's going to work. I don't see fisheries as divided, I see it as a unit."

In his view, Blaha says prohibition doesn't work for anything and marine protected areas (MPAs)are tool among others, not a solution in themselves.

"There's only one thing worse than not having them, is that when people don't respect them," he said. "You can't talk about marine protected area without talking about users. If people are going to anchor their boat for the night and drop a line, how are you going to patrol that?

No solution is perfect anywhere in the world, they are all perfectible, but you need resources, time and political will, or at least not political interference."

While not ideal, Blaha says the quota management system in New Zealand has the potential to be perfected with time, resources and political independence, while balancing the three main users - commercial, recreational and customary (Maori).

"Everyone in NZ is a fisheries expert and people have really strong positions, and if you disagree it gets personal quite fast. I don't want to play that game. I have worked in fisheries since I was 17 and I am for fisheries, and not against any particular fisher, I'm happy to work with (or point fingers at, if needed at) everyone:"

Blaha says fisheries is all about policy, science and MCS (monitoring, control and surveillance). "Science deals with stock estimates because we are always talking about estimates and how much fish is there, policy feeds from that side and rules, who, how, how much and where fish is to be caught, while MCS verifies and controls that those rules have been applied and the captures are correctly counted, and they feedback that info to science and policy. We can compare these to a table with three legs, they need to be strong and well connected… if one fails the table falls apart."

But he believes the "toxic" finger-pointing debate is not helping.

"People fish for a job, people fish for fun and people fish because it is part of their culture, but we're are in the same game. We are lucky we can debate in NZ, but I believe each of the sectors' sense of entitlement has taken the debate to toxic levels. We are all using the same resources," he said.

"We are lucky we can fish for fun, we are lucky that the commercial fisherman has access to a quota, and we are lucky we have customary fishing. We have so much in our favour, yet we are wasting our time pointing our fingers at each other."

Analysis of isotopic ratios in tuna meat, to identify decadal changes in the ocean carbon cycle

I’ve written in extent on how much I do enjoy my interactions with SPC. There are not as many as I would like… the main focus of my work in compliance these days, while they do mostly science and data… Yet as a scientist (that does not do much science anymore), I do enjoy keeping up to date their work, have an enourmous respect for my friends working there (and they use many of my pictures!)

Among the top scientists that work there, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Valerie Allain, I blogged on her work before in climate issues and mercury, now here she is co-authoring (with Anne Lorrain as lead) a really interesting article and very nicely illustrated (as usual for SPC) 

Their work tackles tuna from an interesting angle as climate sentinels, by measuring relative abundances of carbon isotopes (also referred to as measuring isotopic ratios) in tuna muscle, to trace the proportion of CO2 emitted by humans and absorbed by the ocean.

The article was published today in the SPC fisheries newsletter (you should subscribe!) and I just refer to the parts and illustrations I enjoy the most, but as usual, read the original!

Intro
Research on the carbon composition of tuna flesh has revealed that, over the past 15 years, deep changes have occurred in the carbon cycle and the phytoplankton underpinning ocean food webs. A multidisciplinary study published in November 2019 (Lorrain et al. 2019) is based on a broad network of international cooperation making it possible to collectively assess 4500 muscle samples from three tuna species caught in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans between 2000 and 2016. Biological observations on such an extensive spatial and temporal scale are unusual and of prime importance for the validation of climate forecasts and their consequences for food webs. 

INSERT 2 a, b, c, d (from left to right and top to bottom)

Tracing the carbon cycle through isotopes 
Carbon is a fundamental element that can be inorganic, like that contained in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or organic. The human body contains 18% carbon in terms of weight, making it the second biggest component after oxy­gen, and this carbon can be found throughout the body, e.g. in muscle proteins, fats and DNA. It is therefore present in living beings, the air, the Earth’s crust and the oceans. The ocean absorbs more than 90% of the heat associated with climate warming and over 30% of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning. The consequences of this on the functioning of the ecosystem and marine organisms through, for example, ocean acidification are not yet fully known. Until now, only some localised observations from certain oceanic regions have provided fragmented informa­tion on this topic. This new study, carried out by some 20 international researchers, for the first time provides some elements of overall understanding through analysis of the stable isotopes in the carbon present in 4500 specimens of tuna harvested from the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans between 2000 and 2016.

Carbon exists in various forms, called stable isotopes, with special reference to 12C and 13C (articulated as Carbon 12 and Carbon 13, please see Insert 2a). These isotopes do not have the same mass, with 12C being lighter than 13C. Because of this difference in mass, 12C and 13C react differently during chemical, physical or biological change processes. For exam­ple, when a process of water evaporation involving dissolved carbon occurs, the light carbon (12C) tends to evaporate more readily and the water vapour contains more 12C than the residual unevaporated water. The distribution of 12C and 13C is not uniform throughout the world, in the atmosphere or in living organisms with a majority carbon content. Measur­ing their respective abundance levels makes it possible to shed light on these various processes and understand the carbon cycle. For example, it makes it possible to trace atmospheric CO2 emissions due to human activity. 

Fossil fuels at the dinner table 
Since the end of the 19th century, the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal) has released into the atmosphere light carbon enriched with 12C, (or depleted in 13C): this is what is com­monly referred to as the Suess effect (Insert 2B). The heavy isotope content reduction in the atmosphere moves by dif­fusion into the ocean and then travels up the food web to the tunas (Insert 2D). Measuring relative abundances of car­bon isotopes (also referred to as measuring isotopic ratios) in tuna muscle makes it possible to trace the proportion of CO2 emitted by humans and absorbed by the ocean. The reduction in 13C in tuna muscle is five times higher than that expected if it was solely due to the Suess effect. Increasing use of fossil energies is therefore not sufficient to explain the low 13C value observed in tunas.

Insert 3

But what causes tuna’s isotopic composition to fall? 
In our study, we sought to determine what other factors could explain the steep decline in 13C in tuna by examining every stage in carbon conversion through the marine cycle, from water composition to tuna. The carbon composition of tunas is governed by a number of factors, acting synergistically, i.e. (Insert 3):  the quantity of CO2 present in the oceans, a majority of which is due to the CO2 emissions associated with human activities;  the types of phytoplankton present in the oceans and their growth rates; and the various trophic relationships at play and culminating at the tuna level. 
Atmospheric carbon enters the oceans through diffusion and is absorbed by phytoplankton, which needs it in order to develop. The proportion of 12C and 13C absorbed is variable depending on the kind of phytoplankton and their growth rate (Insert 2C). Phytoplankton is the foundation of the food web and is consumed by larger organisms, which them­selves are in turn consumed by bigger and bigger organ­isms up to the top predators like tunas. The proportion of 12C/13C in phytoplankton is then propagated throughout all levels of the food web and can be changed at each level depending on the organisms concerned. In this way, the changes in 12C/13C proportions in the phytoplankton pop­ulations find their way through the food webs to the apex tunas (Insert 2D). Changes in the type of trophic relation­ship (changes in the type of prey or the number of different steps in the food web) can also influence the proportions of 12C/13C observed in tuna muscle. 

Tuna as climate change sentinels? 
Through a modelling approach taking into consideration all the processes set out above and known to have an influence on isotopic values (summarised in Insert 3), we demonstrate that, while all the factors at work can influence the isotopic composition of tuna muscle, the one with the most impact is linked to the kind of phytoplankton occurring in the oceans. These results suggest that deep changes in the phy­toplankton population structures at the foundation of the food webs that culminate in tuna have been taking place for the past 15 years. These data are of inestimable value for the calibration and validation of climate models and for project­ing the effects of climate change onto ocean productivity. Few biological datasets are in fact available at such spatial and temporal scales. 
We also suggest that the phytoplankton communities are constantly shrinking because the smaller species contain more 12C than the larger species such as the diatoms. These changes in populations are not improbable because, with cli­mate warming, changes are being forecast in the way water masses are structured (ocean stratification, in other words, less mixing between surface water and deep water), with a reduction in the quantity of nutrients present in surface waters. Faced with the available nutrient quantities, not all phytoplankton species adapt in the same way and, for exam­ple, smaller-sized species show higher suitability when the waters are nutrient-poor, which could explain a change in population structure. 

Consequences on energy transfers and health? 
A change in the phytoplankton communities could have extensive repercussions on trophic webs, for example by reducing the amount of energy and nutrients available for fish. Research, in fact, suggests that the smallest phytoplank­ton species synthesise less of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids essential for the growth of many species of fish and beneficial for human health. This opens promising research avenues for further exploration, as tunas are a source of the fatty acids essential for human health.

Fishing in the Blue Pacific

I have written a lot of my work for the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) in the Pacific, and in particular in the Marshall Islands. My work there is perhaps one of the highlights in my 20 years a contracted advisor to MFAT directly (or indirectly via FFA and SPC) but the over 15 international organizations and NGOs i worked with so far.

Go to: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/our-work-in-the-pacific/case-studies/fishing-in-the-blue-pacific/

My working relationship has been flawless, the work on long term commitments, they trust me and I trust them… and I like to think our results speak for themselves. And I’m totally stoked that my work there has been extended for 2 more years at the request of my colleagues from MIMRA

And if that wasn't enough they produced this really nice and beautiful website “article” using exclusively my pictures to portray their work in the region, with a focus in Tuvalu.

As I said 1000 times I’m not a photographer nor I pretend to be one, hence I don’t make money from my images. I’m just a fisheries guy than has the opportunity to be close to a world most people don't see… a world that is full of colours, amazing places and unique people to whom fisheries is not a hobby or a political cause… for them fisheries is a way to survive, work, sustain their families, put their kids to school, etc, etc… and I’m incredibly fortunate to be able to modestly share those images

And particularly in the Pacific, where the fishing industry provided 23,000 jobs for Pacific Islanders in 2018. This includes fishing, processing, training, and officials and observers who monitor the sustainability of the fish stocks, and fish make up around 70 % of the protein in Pacific Island diets. People in the Pacific eat around four times as much fish per capita as the global average.

Yet they are in a complex reality, as their expanses of ocean are overseen by very small fisheries administrations, international vessels fishing without rights or permits, or misreporting what they are catching, is a huge challenge. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing threatens the sustainability of their fishing stocks. It also deprives Pacific Island countries of the economic returns that are their right. 

A study in 2016 pulled together a ‘best estimate’ for IUU activity in Pacific tuna fisheries of 306,440 tonnes per year. The estimated value of that tuna when it left the vessels was US$616.11 million by 2016 prices. The single biggest activity within this was under-reporting the quantity of fish caught. (This work is just an example of what we are doing to control that)

And NZ is in a very unique position, as they have the expertise and the capacity to support work in the region, yet with only 1 fishing boat (a purse seiner) among over 3000 vessels fishing in the region, you know their intentions are to help only… no suspicion of aid for fish there. 

Furthermore, I have yet to work in any country where at the mention that I’m a New Zealander (despite my name and accent), anything else than a smile, or a comment around I have family there, my kids, cousin, myself studied there, I got a scholarship there, and so on.

All this makes NZ a uniquely trusted partner in the region and one that I’m totally proud to work with. 

Enjoy the article and if you are in NZ, thanks for paying your taxes… they do help!

Finally: thank you NZ MFAT for your trust and support, is not taken for granted

Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status

Knowing that something works is rather intuitive, but demonstrating that it does, requires good science to prove it, this new paper by a group a well-known fisheries scientists (in the “there is hope” segment of the field) is a substantial step on that complex task.

good management proves it is possible for us to have a job and catch sustainably… now lets talk about a decent wage

The authors are all well known in their own right and represent 12 different countries (including New Zealand) from a mixture of academic, regulatory and international development organisations.

Their results show that in regions where fisheries are intensively managed, stock abundance is generally improving or remaining near fisheries management target levels, and the common narrative that fish stocks are declining worldwide will depend on the spatial and temporal window of the assessment.

The critical question is what methods will best help improve the status of stocks in places where stocks are currently in poor condition. To do this, we need to understand what methods of management have worked in what social, economic, political, and biological contexts; understand why some stocks have improved much faster than others after a reduction in fishing pressure; and learn how to identify and implement the most appropriate forms of fisheries assessment, management, and enforcement in countries and regions where they are currently limited.

Finally, we need to understand how to use management approaches that leverage healthy stocks into sustainable economic and social benefits for the fishing industry and fishing communities. This article has only explored the biological status of fish stocks, and not the social and economic sustainability of the fisheries.

The authors of this paper provide evidence that the efforts of the thousands of managers, scientists, fishers, and nongovernmental organisation workers have resulted in significantly improved statuses of fisheries in much of the developed world, and increasingly in the developing world. Scientifically managed and assessed fish stocks in many places are increasing, or are already at or above the levels that will provide a sustainable long-term catch.

The stocks of tuna under the management of the Western Central Pacific Commission are an example of good management, under the strong leadership of the Pacific Island countries with the support of the Pacific Island Fisheries Forum Agency in terms of management and compliance and the Pacific Community in terms of fisheries science and data collection/management. They have proven to the world that industrial fisheries can be managed and are not overfished.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in other tuna fisheries in other oceans or in many fisheries worldwide. It continues to be a major challenge to bring fisheries science methods and sustainability to fisheries that remain largely unassessed and unmanaged.

The picture of fisheries management worldwide is a patchy one, and varies geographically and politically. Doom generalisations that all fisheries are collapsing, while perhaps well intended, do not help to fix problems.

Fisheries science, management methods and strategies, compliance monitoring and enforcement are far from perfect, but they are perfectible in time. If sufficient resources, good science, clear governance and geopolitical independence are provided to those organisations and stakeholders in charge of managing fisheries, sustainable long term catch can continue to be possible.

no one is saying that is all great… but things do work when geopolitics and power asymmetries are set aside for good management and compliance

A comparative study of KDEs in import control schemes aimed at tackling IUU in the EU, US & JP.

Is nice to read a study that goes along the line of things one has been saying and writing for a while, and even more so when the authors are 5 big NGOs (EJF, Oceana, TNC, PEW and WWF) that form part of the IUU coalition.

One for the EU, japans does not need one yet, the US SIMP don’t care about state authorities but they have that stupid NOAA 370 form, then the ICAAT BE document, then the MSC CoC (why?) gotta love the present paper CDS world.

In fact, I echo the words of my friend Gilles Hosch as mine when he wrote to me yesterday when I sent him the report: “it is the first time I read something in which I was not involved, covering my area of expertise, that repeats all of my thoughts and conclusions one by one, as published in previous work… that is nice because it tells me that some of our work is getting read, and some of our messages are going through, and are starting to fall on open ears”…

This shouldn't surprise us, as the study quotes our FAO book plus Gilles’ work and my blog on the topic quite substantially. In fact, they contacted me a few months ago to ask me for permission to quote my blog and review the draft, which I happily did, and I’m pleased that most of the 32 recommendations/comments were incorporated.

Obviously I’ll recommend you read it! Is good and clear stuff… I like the ”who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ approach of a seafood product as it moves through the different stages, yet I thought aligning them to the type of states would have been very useful

The objective of the study is to identify areas of convergence, as well as gaps that should be addressed by increased data consistency at a technical level, in order to facilitate trade and improve information exchange and cooperation between key market States. In this context, the study focuses on existing unilateral import control schemes and requirements already in place for the top three seafood market States – the EU, the US and Japan. After providing a brief introduction of existing import control schemes in these markets, the EU IUU Coalition presents a set of best practices based on the FAO guidelines (we were involved in that), existing sources, including peer-reviewed literature, technical documents, and research papers. A comparative analysis of data requirements in existing import control schemes is then provided followed by conclusions and recommendations.

I also like that they acknowledge that: “There is a real risk of a proliferation of non-harmonised unilateral trade instruments to combat IUU fishing. A lack of standardisation and harmonisation among systems can lead to a situation where CDS requirements in multiple systems may be poorly understood and design flaws may pass undetected and be repeated in new systems. For fishers and supply chain actors that currently or may in the future seek to sell or process catch for multiple markets, the costs of complying with different systems could be considerable.”

And that is my biggest frustration with CDS, the market states that impose them don't want to concede to a better global system and part of the reason why I so disappointed with the present status of the CDS discussion worldwide… I’m working with at least 3 organizations on the topic and unfortunately, even in groups of countries with same overall interests (trough regional organizations or RFMOs) no one seems to want to concede anything… and producers nations do not have the power to change markets. 

The simple fact that after 9 years the EU set up an e-system that is only voluntary and for its members only while requiring everyone else to still work on falsifiable paper and the US SIMP bypasses ALL of the authorities of states (flag, coastal, port and processing) responsibility are just telling examples of this malady.

Honestly, other than pointing to this, I don't even know if producing countries, NGOs and small players like me… can’t change anything… CDS is just a set of nice words that everyone seems to say we are doing… but NOTHING has changed in years now… so that is the reason I’m focussing on PSM (vital for CDS in any case) and Labour issues. since it deal with reality and not with bureaucrats that are more worried about their perception, have never worked on a fishing boat or processing plant or yield to political pressure.

The passing of Dr SIdney Holt

Back in the 80’s when I started to pretend to understand how fisheries were managed by studying Marine Biology and Fisheries, one of the 1st book you read is  On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations by Sidney Holt and Ray Beverton which was published in 1957. The book is a cornerstone of modern fisheries science and remains a reference even today. 

Schaefer model of surplus production (biomass dynamic) as a function of stock size showing the major reference points. MSY = maximum sustainable yield; BMSY = the biomass at which MSY occurs; and B0 = the average unexploited biomass of the stock (the average ‘carrying capacity’). @FAO

The Beverton–Holt model sets up a classic discrete-time population model which gives the expected number  (or density) of individuals in a generation as a function of the number of individuals in the previous generation. With time the model was modified and changed, as the original Beverton and Holt per-recruit models assumed knife-edge selectivity and constant fishing mortality and natural mortality for all ages. They assumed that stock is in equilibrium i.e. that the biomass and age -structure are constant from year to year. Also assumed that recruitment is constant from year to year, which is likely to be false at high fishing mortalities when low spawning biomass may reduce recruitment, plus the present variables and changes due to climate change. Yet with no doubt, the man was one of the founders of what we see today as fisheries biology.

So I was saddened to hear of the passing of Dr Holt a few days ago on the 22/12. My interest in his work was also more recent (I quoted him a couple of times) , as he was a hard critic of the concept of MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield). This concept is at the basis of most worldwide fisheries management policies and MSY was adopted at the policy level in 1958.

Yet Carmel Finley in his article, “The Social Construction of Fisheries, 1949”, recognizes that world word two the United States of America (U.S.) were looking for open seas and skies, for military purposes but also for fishing purposes. These objectives were threatened by territorial claims made by some Latin American countries over their neighbour waters. In 1948, with this context of international disputes and tension, Wilber McLeod Chapman was announced as the U.S. State Department under-secretary advisor for the industry. Within months of being assigned to this position, Chapman crafted the U.S. Policy on High Seas Fisheries. The policy had two main goals: uphold the principle of the freedom of the seas and establish fish stocks could be conserved without claiming expanded territorial limits, this second objective scientific foundation was the MSY.

The Policy was published in the Secretary State Bulletin in 1949 (Finley notes that this was not a refereed scientific journal). After the publication of the Policy three fishery treaties and two commissions were signed with different countries: Mexico, Costa Rica, etc, establishing that stocks were to be managed to produce MSY.

In 1953, the International Law Commission recommended that new ocean law was needed to deal with the escalating fisheries conflicts. The United States suggested that a technical conference should be held to give guidance to the law commission. After this request, the International Technical Conference on the Conservations of Living Resources of the Seas was finally held at FAO headquarters in Rome between April and May 1955. The conference was held in the middle of growing tensions because of fishing disputes between different countries, and the U.S. did not want the conference to deal with territorial issues.

The International Law Commission accepted the “technical advice” of the Rome meeting and MSY was adopted at the policy level in 1958 and was included in other highly important international agreements. Namely international agreements promoted by the United Nations.

The first of these international agreements was UNCLOS, the result of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that took place from 1973 to 1982. This agreement defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources, including fisheries. In this agreement, the MSY principle is introduced when defining measures of conservation of the living resources in article 61 and 119.

Some years later, in 1995, the United Nations published the UNFSA which objective was to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks trough the effective implementation of the relevant provision of UNCLOS. Under the Article 5, general principles, the concept of MSY is introduced again…. In fact, UNSFA complements UNCLOS, establishing MSY to manage shared and non-shared fish stocks all over the world.

Is criticism is even more remarkable as Holt served with FAO (as Director of the Fisheries Resources and Operations), as well as Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Director of UNESCO’s Marine Sciences Division among others, from 1953 to 1980… exactly the times that the MSY concept became entrenched.

His opinion about it hardcore (read his article), I just quote some parts here:

”MSY both enthrones and institutionalizes greed. It is a perfect example of pseudo-science with little empirical or sound theoretical basis. As a target for management of fisheries, or even as the anchor for so-called ‘reference points’, it is inadequate and its pursuit increases the likely unprofitability, and even collapse, of fisheries.”. As we have seen, the first MSY notorious international appearance was done by Mr. Chapman who had introduced MSY in the Secretary State Bulletin in 1949, not a refereed scientific journal. Later on, the idea of conservative management by trying to hold exploited populations to provide MSY has become solidified in law and regulations “with no more science than there ever was to support it”.

Holt highlights, for example; the assumption that the biological productivity of the population (and hence the rate of sustainable yield) is determined solely by its size or density. He states that when two populations having the same initial number of individuals, with the same size and belonging to the same specie with the same growth rate may have different behaviours if they have different mortality rates due to both or either fishing and natural causes, this would lead to different productivities and hence sustainable yields. 

Furthermore, he adds that “the sustainable catch in weight and value depends as much on the age and so the size composition of the population as it does on its biomass”. Following this idea determining how old are the animals in the catches and for how long they have been allowed to grow is as important as their numbers or even their combined weight. “MSY calculation depends critically on what ranges of fish size and age are being exploited”

To finalize with Holt reflections about MSY and its use in the world fisheries management it is necessary to say that he has recognized having offered his support for MSY twice in his life, but only because the adoption of MSY was an improve, progressive policy regarding the policy it was being used until that moment.

At the same time, he recognises that twice he enthusiastically offered support for MSY. How come? In both cases – regarding the extreme depletion of the populations of large whales, in 1974, and the EU Commission’s recent proposals to adopt it generally in EU waters – the question was how to get away from a policy of seeking merely current sustainability, instead of the recovery of stocks to more productive abundances and states. Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to notional MSY was in those cases an improved, progressive policy. It has, however, its dangers, as we saw with Japan’s pressure, in the 1970s, to reduce hitherto lightly exploited whale populations – such as the minke and Bryde’s whales in the Southern Hemisphere – down to their presumed MSY ‘levels’. I have since thought that maybe one should not support certain things for tactical reasons that one would not support if thinking strategically. My mother sometimes told me that in some ways a white lie was worse than a real one.

In any case, whatever you think about the man, he made me think and I always like that.

Rest In Peace

Life for those that stay home

I take a rare pause in the fish world… well kind off… fish is not ever totally away in my life! It has been a long year. Lots have happened… from a lot of good work with people around the world (like with my friends in RMI) including our MoU with Thailand to getting the Seafood Champion Award.

nutters galore

Yet in life, there is no free lunch… and while I spent 186 days away from home, the ones dealing with my absence is my family, particularly my two awesome kids. True it has always been like this for them, I used to get on boats now I get on planes, but for them is the same…. 

As with the families of so many fishers… my family see me go and then come back for a while… and then go again… and that is a reality I’m totally aware of. I have yet to meet a fisher that doesn’t get emotional when talking about those “back home” which in many cases nowadays they may not have seen in years.

How is to live like that, and particularly when you parents are immigrants, especially when they are from different cultures from each other… is what caught the attention of two of Radio NZ producers that were doing a series named “where are you really from” and “conversations with my immigrants’ parents. After my daughter, Kika contacted them with “our’ case and they came and spend 2 days with us in August this year.

The outcome of that experience is two podcasts and a small movie. The 1st podcast “Conversations with my immigrant parents” explore the dynamics in our bicultural house (pseudo-Argentinean & Dutch) inserted in a bicultural country (British & Maori).  The 2nd one is called “Voices”… and is more specific on the initial surprises that settling in a new country bring when you compare it with the ones you come off. The little movie is below.

It was a very interesting experience, as it made us realize quite a few things as a family and for me as n immigrant… I don't see myself as an Argentinean really… that is just where I grow up, in a native (as is pre-Hispanic colonization) stronghold in the border with Paraguay, but mostly from an eastern European immigrants stock…

My job is to be almost a “professional immigrant”; I go placers to share life with my local counterparts while living and working in their environment.  Furthermore, I had already spent some time in the pacific before coming to NZ, so what it surprised me was its Britishness of NZ… not its Polynesian roots

The experience made me realize that I just feel like an immigrant that is very happy and really at home in NZ… a very new country that is per se struggling with its own identity as a settler society, that has not yet assumed its deeps roots in Maori identity.

But is the voices of my children and my wife that shine in the podcast, as their vision of the reality we live in, makes me really proud.

I will treasure these podcasts as a time capsule of what my family is in 2019… as things will inevitably change, and what is “our” immigrant story into NZ.

My last day (out of 223) in Majuro

Today was my last day under my present contract (an extension is on the way) as the Fisheries Advisor to MIMRA here in Majuro, and it was a busy one. We had 5 big purse seiners coming in this morning. This means that since the requested port entry a couple of days, my MIMRA colleagues went trough the whole PSM process we designed and implemented. Including the 5 integrated intelligence reports/boarding checklist. As all vessels are WCPFC and FFA registered port entry was granted.

Beau is in control.

Yet MIMRA boards all arriving vessels, three were completely clean trips and we collected the fishing logsheets and contrasted markings and info, yet the other 2 had issues, so we went on board to investigate and collect evidence. There were plausible explanations and evidence substantiating the explanations vessel masters had for the issues we found in the analysis. All vessels were authorised to port use.

The best thing of all is that I was just a total tourist, I just accompanied my colleague Beau Bigler (one of the best young officers I have worked with) who was totally in control of all aspects of the job. And this is quite impressive in the 2nd busiest fishing port for foreign fishing vessels in the world… we will finish 2019 as a record year with over 450 transhipments

It made me remember when we started this process in August 2017, and everything had to be explained and mentored… from the vessel arrival notifications to the serious intelligence analysis we perform around identity, licensing, operations/maneuvering and reporting for each vessel. Changing the way inspections and evidence collection was dealt and so on, it was like bringing a new language.

In total, I have spent 223 days in Majuro since 2017 and we boarded/inspected 257 vessels together. PSM was diffuse concept back then, today is an operational reality and the country is committed to signing PSMA.

Who’s next?

And PSM was 1 of 17 other elements in my workplan, along the months we got to have an inspection plan, a certification system, SOPs galore, we started the process to become an EU recognised sanitary authority, with help from NZ friends, we got o a corporate strategy and a tuna management plan, we work on in-country traceability, supported the MSC certification of the locally based LL fleet, got off all issues raised by the EU, develop a full set specs from boarding boats to tablets and safety gear for procurement by the WB, we set and signed at MoU with Thailand (1st of its kind in the world), we hosted TCC, move to new building, we took the lead on using scales for transshipment monitoring… among other many things… and yet still plenty more to do… most people have no idea how demanding is to operate a fisheries authority.

And at a personal level, I’m also very happy to have secured a grant from the NZ MFAT North Pacific Development fund for the establishment of the Majuro Ocean Sports Club based at the University of the South Pacific Marshall Islands Campus. The funds were used to purchase the equipment 7 outrigger canoes (waka ama) from NZ as to establish an Oceans sports club, initially focussed on outrigger canoeing, but also Ocean Swimming, Stand Up Paddling and Surfing for Majuro’s population.

Only after compiling my final report today, it becomes clear the extent of the work and activities achieved over this time. Needless to say, it was only achievable thanks to the support, trust and hard work of my MIMRA colleagues.  

I’m more than aware that I’m not the usual type of consultant and that I brought some unorthodox thinking, very unusual approaches (and terrible english) to the MIMRA table, yet management was always supportive, while the operational staff was happy to give it a go, even if their agendas are really full. 

So I really want to fully acknowledge and thank the backing of my colleagues (and now friends) among all MIMRA ranks for the support, logistics, facilitation, and enthusiastic participation during the last two years. Only with time you can create trust and be seen as someone working with you, and not just a consultant making reports.

As ex migrant fisherman, that had to start life from scratch in various countries, I’m unfortunately very aware that there is only one thing you cannot buy… an opportunity… it has to be given to you. 

And for the opportunity to do this job I’m truly thankful to NZMFAT and MIMRA management.

Iokwe Majuro… see you next year

when friends and work colleagues are one

Factors contributing to the choice of port for transhipment by Purse Seiners

Recently I was asked to think about what makes vessels to go to one port and not to another one for transshipment here in the pacific, as a continuation of what I wrote in the past about why we have so many transshipments here in Majuro, so I made a lot of questions to a lot of really kind people (thank you all!) plus my own experiences while onboard.

And here is the result, which I’m sure is imperfect, so I welcome all sorts of contributions… something I learned in fishing is to appreciate collective knowledge, as my first fishing master told me “no ones makes it alone”

I identified four main decision-making drivers in deciding which port to aim for transshipment. The factors considered by each driver change and can have very different weight from trip to trip, hence the decision making is a fluid process. The drivers are:

Fishing grounds and Licensing  

Denominated port in licensing conditions: some countries require that transhipments only occurs in their port as a licensing condition, this occurs normally for their own flagged vessels, or those fishing exclusively in their waters as part of chartering arrangements or JV. This, of course, overrides all other decision elements yet is a very crude tool and one that most operators do object.

Proximity to fishing grounds: Distance from fishing grounds to where carriers are available is an important factor, as the tuna trading companies attempt to place carriers in locations convenient to purse seiners based on current fishing conditions, as it is in both parties’ interest to complete transshipment as soon as possible after the purse seiner leaves the fishing grounds. Yet specific needs arising from the fishing trip, the sale of the catch, the logistics involved and the preferences of masters and vessel managers may dictate the use of another port, even if it is further from the ground. 

Specific needs arising from the fishing trip

Services access: Purse Seiners and carriers are complex vessels, there is an incredible amount of machinery and technology that needs parts and maintenance: from propulsion to electricity generators, to hydraulics, to refrigerate 900 tons of fish, to maintain the electronics, etc. While most repairs are done on board if land-based services are needed the preference would always be to those ports having access to well-stocked and capable staff ready to support a rapid turn around.

Helicopter base: While the role of helicopters onboard is coming to an interesting situation, as they compete now with drones and by the fact that most fish are caught on FADs with sonar buoys… they still an important element of the industry. The helicopters don't belong to the boat but are subcontracted by the boat owners from specialised companies, that provide the helicopter itself, the mechanic and the pilot to go onboard. Helicopters need a lot of maintenance, their own fuel, and their own “set up”. Yet the flight to repair base inside a country does require not only proximity to the vessel but also aerospace permissions. The combination of land facilities near the vessel and easiness in the facilitation of their operation while in port is an important driver in the decision making.

Health facilities on shore: While the evacuation of a critically injured crew member is governed by maritime and crew welfare rules, in non “life or death” situations most masters will have no qualms in steaming 24 or 48hs more to get the crew to the port offering the better facilities. 

Flights frequency and connections: a need for international frequent and varied air travel connections for key personnel (including vessel  manager) 

Master of the vessel

Safety of anchorage: the safety of the vessels is the ultimate responsibility of the master of both PS and Carriers. As transhipment occurs on the anchorage of the carrier a good solid ground for anchoring is key to the carrier that often has two Purse Seiners transhipping (one on port and one on starboard) and all depending on the carriers anchor, hence no dragging is paramount. Furthermore, dragging is a consequence of wind and swell exposure, therefore the more protected the anchorage area the better. Therefore, enclosed lagoons would always be preferred over open ones. 

 Quality of the agents: Agent plays a key role in the transhipment tuna world, and is a role not very well studied. They lease in-between vessel owners, captains, traders, carriers, and the line agencies and is their responsibility to have all sorted and can arrange for solutions of most problems arising while providing translation (since the bulk of the fleet speaks some Asian languages. Hence having a variety and quality of Agent’s staff that are available 24/7 is a very important driver

Regulatory reliability: Having all line agencies (immigration, biosecurity, customs, etc) lined up on vessel arrival (no time wasting) is an important element in the transhipment equation. This has to be a 7-day operation.

Easiness of access to shore:  having easy access to a wharf near the main facilities in town for crew influences a master’s choice. These facilities compromise not only food and entertainment but access to local SIM cards with affordable data plans for the crew to communicate with family

The reputation of the Fisheries Observers: with some exemptions vessels get onboard observers that are nationals of the port state where they are transhipping. Repeated bad experiences by the masters with observers (drunkenness, violence, corruption, etc) and/or repeated good experiences with observers from a certain nationality are known to fundamentally influence the master’s preference for certain ports. I have to admit that this one came as a bit of a surprise, but in hindsight makes total sense and totally explains why one of our less serviced ports (yet has some of the best and healthiest observers) get a lot of vessels,

Weak regulatory oversight: weak regulatory oversight in terms of Port State Measures best practices and IUU fishing by national fisheries administrations, can act as a perverse incentive for some skippers. This of course, is not something that states should pursue as an option.

Vessel manager

Costs: Cost is an important factor for vessels managers, the sum of anchorage, berthing, pilot, line agencies, transhipped volumes fees, as a supplementary influence on port choice; yet more expensive ports sometimes leverage this with better services, observers, etc. The cost of agents is also important here and relates to their quality as already discussed

Carriers require a license to operate in the port state (normally on annual basis) and if they have to operate in various states this can add to having them based in one port only.

Relationship with carriers: various options based on existing contractual arrangements with the carrier but also cargo space trading in between operators make the decision making vary from Purse Seiner trip to trip. As operators may offer space to a “rival” if that allows the carrier to be full and head towards the processing country, particularly when there is low stock in the canneries 

Easiness to do business: having a conductive, secure and low bureaucracy business environment is a big advantage for any country into attracting any form of use of ports, transhipments are no difference

Skilled Stevedores: Daniel Calvo Butron told me this is afctor on pther parts of the world, here in the pacific where asian fleets dominate, crew takes care of sorting and loading the nets sling for the transhipemnt so nt an issue for us.

The figures above illustrate the interaction between these areas and how they combine into the election of a transshipment port, which potentially can vary from trip to trip.

Very importantly you don’t need a big wharf for transhipments, just a good lagoon, yet having a wharf that facilitates the provision of services, unloading of fish and gear as well as facilitate inspection, for example, amplifies the benefits of some of the points discussed, but also the needs associated to it.

A big talk is always about the need for a big “net repair yard” on transshipment ports, yet that is only part of the picture, and we need to understand why ad if you need it

Fundamentals of Purse Seine nets design and their repair

Purse Seine nets design, architecture, and construction have had a substantial evolution in the last decades associated with progress on computational modeling. The net plan of a contemporary net of 3000 m long, 300 m depth and weigh and estimate 6 tons (net only), is presented below for illustration purposes.

Schematic diagram of the commercial tuna purse seine of braided knotted nylon netting with different large-mesh panels, mesh size is 300 mm, 450mm at the bottom, the number of vertical netting panel is 20, and the number of horizontal netting panel is 640. Source: Hao Tang et all, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.11.018

These complex designs arise from the understanding of the “adaptive” geometry needs associated with their deployment and hauling, and their “behavior” at depths of up to 300 m under potentially differential currents strength and direction. A schematic diagram of these shape sequence is presented below for illustrative purposes.

The sequential shape of the simulated purse seine gear from shooting to the end of pursing under a pursing speed of 1.3 m/s and current speed velocities of 0.11, 0.40, and 0.38 m/s for the three layers. Note that the seiner pulled into the center of the enclosed net area. Source: Hosseini et all, 2011. DOI 10.1007/s12562-011-0371-6

These advances have made the fabrication (and therefore the repairs) of Purse Sine nets becoming highly complex in terms of capacity, supplies and infrastructure needs.

 Like any other onboard gear, nets require maintenance, different level of repairs and replacement. The reasons for repairs vary yet common causes are wear and tear, bad weather, accidents bad maneuvering, the release of accidental capture, gear failures, etc.

Most usual repairs are done onboard while at sea, as shown in the picture below: 

Medium to major mends require big flat surfaces such as a wharf to extend parts of the net and allow for panels to be fix or replaced, in many cases it would also require a forklift to move the net around, in important to note that in this cases the net remains “integral” and only the parts to be repairs are “landed” while still “attached” to the vessel, hence the wharf and wharf face becomes unusable for other operations. Having a wharf were to extend the part of the net to be repaired, without having to unload the whole net, is a fair compromise solution in many ports that do not have the capacity to expand into a workable net yard (see next section) and/or cannot recruit a net master. The picture below shows one example of part of the net being repaired on a wharf. 

Critical repairs need a net yard with lifting gear, cut netting panels, twine, rings, floaters, etc. As it will involving the total unloading of the net and the removal of the net from wharf face as to liberate it for other operations and let the vessel go.

There are no standardised requirement of size for a net yard, but it can be described crudely as a football field next to wharf, the smallest operational yard in the region is 180x60m approximately of hard surface and incorporates the following facilities: Net handling equipment (hydraulic booms and power-blocks, heavy-duty forklifts, crane truck, etc), Winch house, Lighting, Materials store, Security fence & access restrictions. The picture below shows a panoramic view of a small net yard in the region, from the vessel perspective and then from the winch house one.

Yet equally important (and not always considered) is that they require the availability of a good Net Master ( a rare and exotic bread these days), able to understand the net plans and identify the parts of the net to be replaced, and in many cases adapt existing mesh to fit the needed parts.

 Finally, there are no guarantees on how many days a year a net yard works, as this will depend (among others) of: how many vessels are required to come, the capabilities of the net master, how much more competitive you are in comparison to Majuro and/or the nets going back to factory onboard carriers.

Transshipment Again and Again on the WCPFC meeting agenda

Not surprisingly transshipment is one of my favorite topics, and this week a new report commissioned by PEW and researched by MRAG was released to coincide with the WCPFC taking place in Port Moresby

have my income in the agenda too!

The report (as most of the work MRAG does) is very thorough and a good insight into the key businesses and processes driving transshipment and whether the current rules and monitoring requirements are effective in achieving the conservation and management objectives of WCPFC fisheries.

Obviously I’m too small of a fish to be visible on their radar because I don’t figure at all even if I been working and writing substantially over the years… I have a long way to go to reach the consultant’s upper leagues!

The only slight criticism I would have made the lack of more substantial separation of transhipment in port from transhipment at sea (a totally different beast), particularly when it comes to excuses of the longlining countries in opposing transshipment in port due to “Pacific ports being unfit for transshipment” due to excuses like lack of  ULT (Ultra Low Temp -50C or -35C for sashimi) freezing capacity, or lack of an EU authorized Competent Authority… these are totally inappropriate excuses because of the miss the basic point that if the fish touches the land…. then it is landing… not transshipment!

Transshipment occurs in between two vessels ed of story… no need to have shore-based facilities or sanitary authorities. In terms of having an EU authorized country, then containerization onshore would be an issue but nor for transhipping… that is such a basic issue that I already criticized in this other report.

I don't think enough differentiation and alignment were made in between transshipping defined as “vessel to vessel” and “landing and containerization”, this latest practice while sometimes referred to as transshipment, but is not. Furthermore, as soon as the fish leaves the boat and is landed (even if in a custom bonded wharf) all sorts of market access and trade implications arise.

If anything (from my experience) if you want to transship ULT fish in between vessels, is much easier (and more importantly safer) to do it in the protected water of a port, rather in the high seas where you are way more exposed to weather events and rain (at -50C freshwater drops causes marks on the fish skin affecting value). 

The other issue how little they explore on why vessels go to a port or to another to tranship and the role that masters, vessels managers, and just the trip characteristics have on this process (so I will write about this on my next blog)

In the meantime, I quote the executive summary only… but read the original… It is really worth reading if you have an interest in transshipment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES       

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention defines transhipment as “the unloading of all or any of the fish onboard a fishing vessel to another fishing vessel either at sea or in port.” In recent years, around 80% of purse seine product and 22% of longline product harvested in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Area (WCPF-CA) has been transhipped on or near the fishing grounds (SPC data; WCPFC, 2018a).

While the practice of transhipment is a longstanding part of the WCPO fisheries landscape, relatively little is known about the ‘business’ of transhipment outside of the main players involved. This includes the key companies involved at all stages, the main factors influencing profitability, the extent of vertical integration and the economic impacts of transhipment regulation. Against that background, the Pew Charitable Trusts commissioned MRAG Asia Pacific to undertake a study of the ‘business ecosystem’ of transhipment in the WCPO. The main aims of the study were to provide an overview of the key businesses and processes involved in transhipment and the extent to which existing monitoring and regulatory arrangements are effective in achieving shared fisheries objectives.

Information to support the study was drawn from four main sources – (i) interviews with key stakeholders in the transhipment business (e.g. fishing companies, tuna trading companies, carrier operators, Pacific island businesses, regional secretariats), (ii) corporate database searches, (iii) the Global Fishing Watch website, which uses Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to track the movement of fishing vessels and (iv) other publicly available information (e.g. WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels’; WCPFC member Annual Part 1 reports, etc).

HISTORY OF TRANSHIPMENT               

The history of transhipment in WCPO tuna fisheries has not been well-documented to date but is believed to have commenced with catch consolidation amongst longliners on a rotational basis. At the industrial scale, most interviewees recalled that transhipment in the WCPO commenced in the mid-1980s. The rapid adoption of transhipment was influenced by the very high value of tuna in the 1980s, at the peak of the Japanese economy. For fishing companies, transhipment was a way of allowing fishing vessels to remain on fishing grounds to maximise profits in a bull market, while for trading companies transhipment was an efficient way of securing supply, and ideally beating the competition to fish at the source.

At the global level, the conventional reefer carrier fleet is both aging and contracting. Since 1980, around 774 conventional reefer ships have been built, of which 527 remain in service (Dynamar, 2018). Most vessels currently in service were built between 1988 and 1994, with very few new conventional reefers built since 2000. Of the vessels built between 1980 and 1990, close to half have been scrapped. The average age of scrapped vessels in recent years has been between 30-42.

In recent years, a key impact on the conventional reefer vessel market has been the rise in the use of reefer containers. Advances in technology and reduced freight costs compared to conventional reefers has seen the container sector increase its market share in the total seaborne trade of refrigerated foods from 50% in 2000 to 82% in 2017 (Dynamar, 2018).

we don’t mind you checking us out!

CURRENT TRANSHIPMENT DYNAMICS                

As of March 2019, there were 418 ‘fish carrier’ vessels authorised under the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels (‘the RFV’). Panama has the largest fleet of flagged carriers with 123 vessels, followed by the Philippines with 111 and Japan with 85.

Carrier fleets  

Other key flag states include Korea (31 vessels), Liberia (21), Taiwan (16) and China (12).   Seven other flag States have 19 registered vessels between them.

The average age of all registered carriers is 25 years. Over half the current fleet (52%) were built between 1980 and 1995, with only 17% of carriers built since 2010. Amongst the main flag States, China’s fleet is the newest with an average age of 2004 while Taiwan and Thailand have the oldest fleets, with an average year of build at 1978 and 1980 respectively. Of the main flag State carrier fleets, China, Liberia, Panama and Taiwan have the highest rates of high seas transhipment authorisation.

Of the 232 carriers on the RFV >1,000 GT in March 2019, we estimated 137 were active in transhipping fish from the WCPO in 2017-18. Of these, over half (75, 55%) were flagged to Panama. Of the remaining fleets, Korea had the next highest number of active vessels with 27 (20%) (owned by only 7 companies), followed by the Philippines (14 vessels, 10%) and China (9 vessels, 7%).

The average age of active carriers is 27-28 years. Around 65% of active vessels were built in 1991 or before, meaning the many are approaching the age when owners would consider scrapping them (Dynamar, 2018). Only around 12% of active vessels were built in 2000 or later.

Ownership and operational control arrangements for carriers involved in tuna transhipment in the WCPO are dynamic and varied, but can broadly be categorised into three main types:

• Charterer model – Under this model a chartering company leases a carrier vessel, owned and crewed by an independent owner. Two basic modes of charter are available – a time charter, under which the charterer leases the carrier for a defined period of time (e.g. one year) and a voyage/space (or ‘spot’) charter, under which the charterer ‘buys’ space on a carrier for a voyage at a time. The chartering model is the one favoured by each of the three main purse seine tuna traders in the WCPO (FCF, Tri Marine, Itochu) and is perhaps the most common operational model;

• Integrated fishing-carrier companies - a number of fishing companies own and operate their own carriers as part of an integrated supply chain. These companies tend to be larger, with a sufficient critical mass of catching vessels to justify their own carrier. Many also have interests in post-harvest processing facilities and use carriers as component of an integrated supply chain. Many of the newer carriers commissioned in the past decade have been commissioned by integrated fishing-carrier companies; and

• Logistics service provider - these companies tend to have no interest in fishing vessels – they’ve come into the tuna transhipment business from the ‘shipping end’, not the ‘fishing end’. Their main interest is in providing a commercial service to transport fish from the fishing grounds to processing facilities or to market.

The ownership and registration arrangements for carrier vessels are often deliberately opaque. Over time, there has been an increasing movement towards registering reefer carriers with flag States operating open registries, or so called ‘flag of convenience’ (FOC) states. Of the 232 carriers >1000GT on the RFV, 147 (63%) are registered to FOC States. Interviewees noted that the key factors driving the trend towards FOC states were favourable tax arrangements, discretion around company ownership and low compliance costs. In recent years, the presence of an approved EU Competent Authority (CA) has also emerged as an important consideration in the choice of flag State.

Purse seine transhipment

"In 2017, around 1,306 transhipments were reported in the WCPO purse seine sector, accounting for 952,151t of product (~ 79% of total purse seine catch).  Although a total of 33 ports hosted transhipments in the period 2015-2017, activity was highly concentrated around a number of key ports, mainly in the central Pacific.  Majuro was the key transhipment port, accounting for around 37% of all reported transhipments, while Pohnpei and Funafuti accounted for 16%, and 12% respectively.  Our estimates indicate that somewhere in the order of 110-120 carriers (>1,000GT) were involved in purse seine transhipments in 2017/18.

The main considerations involved in coordinating carrier fleets servicing the purse seine sector are described, together with a ‘typical transhipment’.  The key companies involved in purse seine transhipment in the WCPO in recent years are summarised including the main tuna traders, integrated harvester/carrier companies""and standalone carrier operators."

yea is a foggy world the longline one

Longline transhipment           

The factors affecting the profitability of a carrier trip were broadly the same across both longline and purse seine sectors, as well as between operators. The overwhelmingly dominant driver of profitability across both sectors was the time taken to fill up and unload.   Time can be lost at the fishing end - e.g. if another trader beats you to the fish, or the fishing slows down – or the unloading end – e.g. if offloading is slow and the trader has to bear the cost of demurrage. To that end, carrier operators/charterers (e.g. tuna traders, logistics service providers) work in very close cooperation with prospective fishing vessels in the planning of trips and must make careful judgements about whether sending a carrier is economically justified.

In 2017, around 1,306 transhipments were reported in the WCPO purse seine sector, accounting for 952,151t of product (~ 79% of total purse seine catch). Although a total of 33 ports hosted transhipments in the period 2015-2017, activity was highly concentrated around a number of key ports, mainly in the central Pacific. Majuro was the key transhipment port, accounting for around 37% of all reported transhipments, while Pohnpei and Funafuti accounted for 16%, and 12% respectively.  Our estimates indicate that somewhere in the order of 110-120 carriers (>1,000GT) were involved in purse seine transhipments in 2017/18.

The main considerations involved in coordinating carrier fleets servicing the purse seine sector are described, together with a ‘typical transhipment’. The key companies involved in purse seine transhipment in the WCPO in recent years are summarised including the main tuna traders, integrated harvester/carrier companies and standalone carrier operators.

In the longline sector, the key fleets involved in transhipment in the WCPO are the distant water bigeye/yellowfin and albacore fleets operating on the high seas. As at March, 2019, there were 2581 longline vessels on the RFV. Of these, 2,050 (79%) were authorised by their flag State to tranship on the high seas under CMM 09-06. Of the 18 States which flag longline vessels in the WCPO, only six authorise their vessels to tranship on the high seas: China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, USA and Vanuatu. Collectively, the Taiwanese, Chinese and Japanese fleets account for 83% of all high seas authorised longliners.

In 2017, the Taiwanese longline fleet accounted for around half of all high seas transhipments. China accounted for the next highest number (25%), with the Japanese fleet accounting for less than 2% of all reported events. The nature and operation of the main longline fleets involved in high seas transhipment in the WCPO are described.

The number of reported high seas longline transhipment events has increased by around 60% between 2011 and 2017 (at least some of which may be the result of better reporting). Much of the increase has come from the Taiwanese fleet (an almost four-fold increase in reported transhipment events between 2013 and 2017), with increases also evident in the Chinese, Vanuatu and Korean fleets.

In 2017, around 22% of the total estimated WCPFC-CA longline catch of the three key target species (BET/YFT/ALB) were transhipped on the high seas according to transhipment declarations received by the WCPFC. Bigeye recorded the highest proportion, at 42.2% of total catch, with albacore and yellowfin 18.9%, with at 11.6% respectively. The majority of reported high seas transhipments occur in tropical areas (20oN – 20oS) between 170oW and 120oW.

The number of carrier vessels receiving longline transhipments remained relatively stable between 18 and 27 during the 2011 – 2017 period, although the composition of flag States changed considerably.

Longline companies indicated there are substantial efficiencies associated with transhipment at sea, in particular reduced fuel costs and avoiding loss of fishing time associated with streaming to port. This was particularly the case for small vessels who have limited fish and fuel holding capacity and would spend proportionally more time steaming. Other benefits included cheaper bunkering and provisions, no licensing and port fees and less administrative paperwork and agent’s fees. Several large vessel owners advised that transhipment at sea was central to the operation being viable. Many longline companies told us they actively avoided transhipping in Pacific Island ports because of the higher level of compliance scrutiny involved.

The key companies involved in high seas longline transhipments in the WCPO are described, together with the dynamics of carrier fleet organisation.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE            

Broadly, the membership of the WCPFC can be split into three groups based on the extent to which they participate in, and ultimately support, high seas transhipment:

• ‘supporters’ of high seas transhipment - these countries, most notably DWFNs Taiwan, China and Korea, have fleets who rely heavily on high seas transhipment as part of their operational and economic model. Broadly these countries are strongly supportive of maintaining ‘properly regulated’ high seas transhipment;

• ‘opponents’ of high seas transhipment - these countries, most notably the FFA/PNA member countries, have no involvement in high seas transhipment (other than Vanuatu flagged vessels) and strongly support transhipment reform. Broadly, the basis for their position is three-fold: (i) they are concerned that weakly regulated and monitored high seas transhipment represents a significant weakness in the MCS arrangements for shared stocks in the region, (ii) they see transhipment at sea rather than in adjacent PIC ports as a lost opportunity to deliver economic benefits to PIC communities; and (iii) related to (i), they see high seas transhipment as a missed opportunity to undertake comprehensive (and cost effective) compliance checks on vessels in port; and

• The ‘others’ – these countries have a range of nuanced positions which don’t fit neatly into either group above.

Our discussions indicated that the response to any ban on high seas transhipments in the WCPO would be complex and difficult to predict with any certainty.

Taiwanese and Korean fishing companies indicated their vessels would return to east Asian ports (either their homeport, or Japanese/Korean market ports) rather than unload in PIC ports on the basis that (i) east Asian ports offer a range of services (e.g. cheap provisions/bunkering, technicians, etc) unable to be provided by PIC ports, (ii) freight costs would be saved by delivering fish direct and (iii) vessels would avoid the higher costs and stronger compliance regimes operating in PIC ports. Companies

were of the view that while ‘many’ operators would go out of business, smaller boats would be hardest hit given limited economies of scale and a higher proportion of steaming to fishing time. One operational response may be a contraction in fishing effort away from the more distant fishing grounds in the central and eastern Pacific towards more westerly grounds, closer to east Asian ports.

Some fishing base operators in PICs thought that a ban on high seas transhipment may mean many current high seas vessels would begin to make partnerships with companies like them who knew the ‘local scene’. One consequence then may be increased requests to reflag vessels to PICs, or alternatively register charters.

For vessels able to survive the shorter-term economic impacts, many longline companies thought there would be a longer-term market and operational correction– fewer fish being caught means higher catch rates over the longer term, as well as higher prices for fish, so those able to stay in the game may receive some longer term benefits. To that end, the impacts of a ban would be dependent on each individual operation’s capacity to adapt to the new environment. Longline companies also indicated that if PICs had better container services they would consider unloading in port, but to make in port landing attractive they would also need better support services – food, bait, fuel, etc.

At the carrier company end, all operators thought that a high seas transhipment ban would increase costs. In addition to a requirement to pay PIC license fees, carrier operators made the point that in the longline sector carrier companies are dealing with much smaller volumes than purse seine, making it operationally harder to coordinate a full load (even harder if the number of longline vessels reduces).

If a high seas transhipment ban saw a proportion of the longline fleet go out of business with many of those remaining choosing to offload direct to east Asian ports, there would likely be a contraction in the carrier market. The impacts are likely to be hardest felt by those operators who own, rather than lease, carriers given the capital involved. A contraction in demand may precipitate the scrapping of some carriers nearing the end of their productive life.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING  

The main instrument regulating transhipment (at least on the high seas) in the WCPFC-CA is the Conservation and Management Measure on the Regulation of Transhipment (CMM 09-06).  Despite isolated successes, any clear-eyed assessment is likely to conclude the CMM has not achieved its objectives. Contrary to the intention to allow at sea transhipment only in limited circumstances, the number of vessels authorised to tranship on the high seas is almost double those that aren’t (2,355 Vs 1,229 as at April, 2019), the number of reported high seas transhipments in 2017 was more than twice that in 2012 (with the number of offloading vessels increasing by 90% over the same period, albeit at least some of this may be an artefact of better reporting), and the quality of information available to the Commission to independently verify reported catches remains very limited.

There is no doubt a range of reasons why implementation has not matched expectations, but three arguably stand out:

• Weak implementation of the observer program - although intended by CMM 09-06 to be a primary tool to verify compliance, the high seas observer program appears to be largely ineffective at the moment. There is limited use of standardised forms or manuals and only a fraction of data collected by observers has made its way to the WCPFC to date. Crucially, the absence of observer information on catch volumes and species composition limits capacity to independently verify information submitted in transhipment declarations.

• No agreement around guidelines for ‘impracticability’ - A key component of the CMM is a prohibition on vessels from transhipping on the high seas unless “it is impracticable for certain vessels … to operate without being able to tranship on the high seas…” Despite a number of attempts, no guidelines have yet been agreed around ‘impracticability’. In the absence of such guidelines, the CMM requires CCMs to apply interim guidelines, namely that a ban on at sea transhipment would cause significant economic hardship and the vessel would have to make ‘significant and substantial changes to its historical mode of operation…’. The fact that CCMs have paid limited attention to these interim guidelines is evidenced by the fact that more than 470 vessels on the RFV currently authorised to tranship on the high seas were built in 2010 or later – and therefore could not have had to make changes to their ‘historical mode of operation’. Moreover, the fact that five of the six CCMs who authorise their longliners to tranship on the high seas authorise >98% of vessels indicates that authorisation is being applied as the ‘default’ position, rather than after some ‘meaningful’ analysis of impracticability.

• No serious attempt to encourage vessels to tranship in port - In the spirit of encouraging vessels to tranship in port, paragraph 35 (v) of the CMM requires CCMs of both offloading and receiving vessels involved in high seas transhipment to “submit to the Commission a plan detailing what steps it is taking to encourage transhipment to occur in port in the future”. To the best of our knowledge, no CCM has submitted a plan.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                 

There is little doubt that high seas transhipment faces challenges. Weakly monitored high seas transhipments have long been linked to laundering of illegal catches and broader IUU activities (e.g. Gianni and Simpson, 2004), while in more recent years serious concerns have been expressed around the capacity of at-sea transhipment to facilitate human trafficking, forced labour and other human rights abuses (e.g. ILO, 2013). These problems have led to increasing calls both globally (e.g. Ewell et al, 2017) and regionally (e.g. by the PNA) for ban on high seas transhipment.

For Pacific Island countries, their interest in high sea transhipment reform is strong and legitimate. Despite agreeing the WCPF Convention in 2004, which requires CCMs to encourage transhipment in port, and despite CMM 09-06 reinforcing the intent of the Convention, PICs have seen little practical progress from DWFNs to encourage transhipment in port. At the other end of the spectrum, DWFN fishing companies see high seas transhipment as a legitimate and globally widespread practice which generates efficiencies and forms an essential component of their operation. Subject to an effective management and monitoring regime, there should be nothing wrong, they argue, with businesses seeking the most efficient means to carry out their legitimate operations.

It is these polarised positions which set the scene for the upcoming review of the transhipment CMM. While on the surface there appears little common ground to be found, it is not inconceivable that both positions can be satisfied, at least to some extent. Getting to this future will require a range of reforms and investments, including:

CCMs should comply with the spirit of the WCPFC Convention to encourage transhipment in port.
Two main measures are required to demonstrate compliance with the intent of the Convention:

1. Those members who’s fleets currently tranship on the high seas should be required to submit tangible plans detailing the steps they will take to encourage their vessels to tranship in port.

2. WCPFC members should agree the circumstances under which it is impractical for a vessel to tranship in port.

Any vessel for which it is deemed impractical to tranship in port must be subject to a compliance regime that gives confidence that all transhipment activity is tightly controlled.
Key measures of an enhanced monitoring regime for high seas transhipments include:

3. Monitoring on all offloading vessels (e.g. longliners) (electronic monitoring or observers)

4. Examining the utility of EM on receiving vessels (e.g. carriers)

Measures to independently verify transhipment activity should be strengthened
A range of measures to strengthen capacity to independently verify transhipment reporting would be beneficial:

5. All CCMs which authorise vessels to tranship on the high seas should submit evidence of the processes andmechanisms they use to verify transhipment information submitted by their vessels.

6. Arrangements for the implementation of the transhipment observer program should be strengthened.

7. The Secretariat should consider additional measures to independently validate transhipment activity (e.g. inclusion of AIS data in transhipment analysis)

In addition to these core recommendations, observations are made around ensuring equivalent monitoring of fish transported via refrigerated containers and enhancing the attractiveness of PIC ports for longline unloading/transhipment. Observations are also made to improve the utility of carrier vessel information on the RFV.

Experimenting with dynamometers for monitoring weights of transhipped tuna

Knowing exactly how much fish a Purse Seiner really caught is not an easy task… nor for industry or for the for the fisheries authorities. Traditional scales are impossible to use on board, and the priority is getting to fish into low temperatures as soon as possible, since is fundamental for food safety and quality, particularly when you have a big set of over 100 ton in the water. So the captains and observers work on estimates… and while they are very good at it… still an estimate, and while a few tons of fish every set may sound like much… they do accumulate over the year among all the fleet.

Only once the fish is unloaded for “weight in” generally at the cannery, or sometimes before containerisation at port do we get to know the real/verified weights. Yet, this event happens weeks or months after the catching event, and the data (if it makes it back to us in the pacific) could take even more time.

The less time we have in between harvest events and the more accurate weights information, the better for all. Since weights per specie are fundamental and benefit all sorts of fisheries decision making, just to name a few: crew and skipper (catch shares on top of salaries), vessel managers (profitability and insurance), carriers (liability/insurance/payments, etc), science and regulators (stock assessments, target and reference points, under and miss reporting, etc) so… the more accurate the data, the better decision making.

But how can we do that before the fish leaves the region? Well, a Purse Seiner catches and carries about 800 to 1700 metric tons depending it size and age, and then it can take up to a week to transfer their catch to a carrier. It’s a slow process involving putting the frozen fish in nets on deck of the Purse Seiner and hoisting it into the carrier with a crane.

I been thinking for a while that by weighing each the of the nets with frozen fish being moved across to the carrier we could get a much better estimate of the true volumes caught, and the work of the transhipment monitors could focus more on species composition than estimating the weights of the nets to the nearest 100 or 50Kg .

So I came with the idea of determining the weights using hanging crane type scales (called dynamometers) with wireless remote weight display attached to the hooks of the cranes used during the operation, as an opportunity to record accurate transhipment weight data and eliminate the challenges and issues relating to estimates. I played a bit with a couple of of very cheaps ones (220USD) here in Majuro and in Tarawa with quite good initial results, so it was time to get serious about it.

testing “el cheapo” a few months ago

So with the usual support of my friend (and kind of older brother) Hugh Walton from FFA and the usual operational support of my colleagues here MIMRA, I presented a project proposal to FFA and SPC to research the feasibility of the concept and to evaluate what type of hanging crane scales will do the job best.

Everyone was on board with the idea, and as a result, I spent quite a lot of time looking at crane scales and we decided to buy 4 different models, and then last week, as a team with Feral Lasie FFA’s PEUMP MCS Adviser, Malo Hosken SPC’s EM /ER Specialist (and good friend), plus MIMRA’s legends Beau Bigler and Melvin Silk (all in the pictures below), we tested the 4 different types of remotely operated electronic crane scales during the transhipment of the locally flagged PS Marshalls 201.

We evaluated each model against attributes such as precision, robustness and ease of use, battery performance / recyclability, price and connectivity, to name a few. And we are all quite happy… besides playing with amazing tech it was great to work with very professional yet relaxed crew… I personally totally loved it

Being Majuro the busiest transhipment port in the world and MIMRA one of the most forward-thinking fisheries administrations in the Pacific, it was just was the logical choice to do this research here. The results would benefit not only RMI, but the whole region as there is transhipment activity in Kiribati, FSM, Tuvalu, PNG and Solomons.

Now that we proven the concest and chosen the best scale, we will continue the work in 2020 with the general aim of standardising their use for monitoring the weights all tuna transhipped in the region, but equally important to improve the operational management and data acquisition process of the port monitor operations, using Majuro as the bussiest scenario.

The good thing about the job is that also it oppen other ideas of things that could be done on board (like putting one of these babies on the brailer, to check the weight comming on board) and many more that I shall write about once the report is approved by all parts

On weeks like this one, I think I have the best job in the world

loving my job while testing “el cheapo” model

FAO Guidance framework on social responsibility in fisheries and aquaculture value chains.

he is te reason why we have cheap tuna

It was a weird day… while I’m jumping in btween Purse Seiners here in Majuro, testing crane scales to find one that adapts the best to the job of giving us a much better handle of the volumes of fish transhipped in port in the pacific (results in a future blog). Back in Vigo, the FAO COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT) has its meeting and they discussed the work I was involved with earlier this year on social responsibility.

It was weird because here I’m with Salim, the guy you see in the picture avove… I have 2 weeks more of work here before I go to my loved ones… he has two years more in his contract (out of 3 without going home). People like him who would be the ultimate beneficiaries and the main interested part of what was being discussed in COFI, yet he would never be there… in fact, most people there, never worked on fishing boats,they go home on the weekends, has a salary, etc… that detachment is totally unfair in my opinion.

They discussed this document, that outlines the process, development and proposed future work of FAO in the development of a Guidance framework on social responsibility in fisheries and aquaculture value chains, in accordance with the FAO’s mandate given by the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT) in 2017 and the recommendation by Members on future guidance on social issues during COFI in 2018. 

The guidance (as most things with FAO)  is voluntary in nature.

• is global in scope. All fisheries and aquaculture value chains are considered, covering upstream and downstream activities involving fish and fish products, including pre-harvest, harvest, and post-harvest.

•  is primarily addressed to any business actor to ensure socially responsible fish and fish products, regardless of its stage along the value chain, its size (self-employed, small, medium and large), its nature (private or public), and its nationality (domestic, foreign or multinational).

• should be implemented by focusing on any actor working in any capacity in fisheries and aquaculture value chains through the promotion of a human rights-based approach.

• can be particularly useful for governments in creating a positive environment and promoting socially responsible value chains, as well as for unions, civil society organizations, non- governmental organizations, associations, research and academic institutions, international organizations and all others concerned with the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

But most importantly it consolidates internationally recognized principles to ensure social responsibility in fisheries and aquaculture value chains, it does not bring new ones (and we were very careful about that)

The objectives of this Guidance are: 

1. to improve social responsibility in fisheries and aquaculture value chains; 

2. to promote human and labour rights, including decent work; 

3. to facilitate compliance by presenting a compilation of relevant international principles; 

4. to serve as a practical instrument of reference to assist actors in establishing or in improving any framework required for the exercise of socially responsible fisheries and aquaculture value chains; 

5. to support the formulation and implementation of appropriate measures; 

6. to enhance transparency along the fish value chains, which can improve traceability initiatives; 

7. to strength interlinkages and exchange of information among the actors, particularly through collaboration and cooperation; 

8. to contribute to a more socially sustainable sector generating economic and environmental benefits to all; 

9. to assist actors in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

General Principles 
This Guidance is based on international human rights anchored in the International Bill of Human Rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and instruments and standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO). 

This Guidance is based on the following general principles: 

1. Sovereignty of countries in complying with all relevant laws and regulations; 

2. Clearly and widely publicizing policies, laws, decisions and procedures in applicable languages and formats accessible and applicable to all, equally enforced and independently adjudicated (“rule of law”); 

3. Non-discrimination under law and policies, as in practice; 

4. Equality and equity based on a balanced and fair participation of all actors or interested parties; 

5. Differentiated responsibilities of actors in the fisheries and aquaculture value chain; 

6. Clear accountability of each actor throughout the value chain; 

7. Transparency, particularly in connection with preventing any form of corruption and fraudulent practices; 

8. Practicality, viability and clarity of measures or actions implemented by actors; 

9. Not creating unnecessary obstacles or barriers to trade. 

The following specific principles shall be observed to secure compliance with social responsibility based on this Guidance: 

1. Human rights and dignity: Recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable human rights of all individuals.

2. Labour rights: Recognition and respect of the core international labour standards setting out the fundamental principles and rights at work (i.e. freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; effective abolition of child labour; and elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation) and applicable international labour standards to ensure decent work in fisheries and aquaculture along value chains. 

3. Equity and justice: Recognition and promotion of fair treatment, equity and equitable rights for all, in particular for gender, age, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, and for vulnerable communities and small-scale fishers, taking into consideration the national context. 

4. Non-discrimination: No actor should be subject to discrimination under law and policies, as well as in practice, including the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment or occupation. 

5. Respect of cultures: Recognition and respect of any traditional form of organization, local knowledge and associated practices, including traditional communities, small-scale fishers, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and religion or beliefs. 

6. Health and safety: Adoption of appropriate practices to protect the health, welfare and safety of actors in the activities along the value chains, including the prevention of threats and hazards. 

7. Transparency: Clearly defined roles and activities of all actors throughout the value chain. 

8. Consultation and participation: An active, free, effective, meaningful and informative participation of actors and groups of actors throughout the value chain in decision-making processes, including social dialogues. The engagement and support of actors affected by those decisions, including facilitating feedback and responding to their contributions. 

9. Gender equity and equality: Women and men shall fully equally enjoy all human rights in any sort of context while acknowledging differences between them. Specific measures shall be implemented in order to accelerate de facto gender equality, by empowering women, including leadership assignment. 

10. Recognition of small-scale fishers:  Having regard of their singularities, small-scale fishers shall enjoy all human rights in any sort of context, and in particular decent working conditions; access to information; labour, health and social protection. 

11. Distinctive aspects of child labour: Children shall enjoy the same human rights accorded to all people, but they also have distinct rights to protection according to their age. Every child has the opportunity to develop physically and mentally to his/her full potential at different ages and stages of development, including access to education. The work of any child (1) below the required national minimum age of work; (2) that poses work concerns when the child is too young, or (3) considered altogether unsuitable because of its detrimental nature or conditions, shall be abolished. 

12. Fair integration of migrant workers: Having regard their vulnerability, migrant workers shall enjoy all human rights in any sort of context, and in particular decent working conditions, access to information, labour protection and the necessary assistance and support from either their home or host country. 

The general and specific principles are interdependent, interrelated and interconnected, and shall be taken into consideration as a whole into a holistic approach.

Relationship with Other International Instruments 
This Guidance shall be used, interpreted and applied in conformity with the relevant rules of international law, including the obligations of States under international agreements to which they are a party.

Nothing in this Guidance prejudices the rights, jurisdiction, and duties of States under international law. 

This Guidance is complementary to, and supports national, regional, and international initiatives that address human rights and sustainable development.

Cooperation towards a Socially Responsible Fish Value Chain 
A socially responsible fisheries and aquaculture value chain is achieved when the private sector, governments, civil society, the United Nations system and other actors cooperate between them, all together, towards an effective implementation of human rights. 

The scale and ambition of the results associated with this Guidance are based on working in a spirit of solidarity, in particular solidarity with vulnerable actors and communities, small-scale fishers, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. 

Specific Activities of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Value Chains 
This Guidance also comprises a set of Appendixes elaborating on general and specific principles, taking into consideration the specificities of the fisheries and aquaculture value chains. 

These Appendixes provide complementary and specific measures and tools to facilitate compliance and to ensure social responsibility. 

Gender equity and equality, distinctive aspects of child labour and fair integration of migrant workers shall be explicitly present in each Appendix. 

The Appendixes to this Guidance constitute an integral part of this Guidance. 

For each of the following activities, a separate appendix will be developed: 

• Small-scale fishing 

• Industrial fishing 

• Aquaculture production 

• Processing 

• Distribution 

• Retailing 

The Appendixes are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, more than one Appendix should be used when there is a combination of activities. 

New Appendixes addressing additional activities in the fisheries and aquaculture value chains can be added after being submitted to the FAO Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT).

——
And while all this is in principle basic stuff that should be there already, surely it will be argued against by many… which saddens me…

In my case, my interest is not only professional but personal… you see the guy in the picture above, he can’t be at COFI to push for the FAO guidelines on social responsibility in seafood value chains. I was him once many years ago. I want for him what I had... a good job that could help me go forward in life, yet he will never have that opportunity. Is not fair

And maybe, my taking part is totally unrofessional… but I can’t help my self… Fishing has been my life for the last 37 years

For the record : Salim has a contract, gets paid regulaly, is well feed, can disembark anytime if he feel like, no violence on board, overall he is happy to have a job. We could argue exploitation (as in other industries) but not slavery at sea. My message: be thankful for your blessings!

This is me on deck... my happy place, with some of the most grateful and unpretentious people you’ll ever meet.

Alternative pathways to sustainable seafood

You gotta love a science paper that has this quote: “if a person only has a hammer, every problem starts to resemble a nail” 

Bey bro: Pretty much every Purse Seiner in the Pacific catching skipjack is MSC certified… so should be alright with this ones hei!

I had short but very interesting conversations with one of the authors of this paper, Megan Bailey (yet to know the others)… yet reading their paper seems like a familiar affair. I remember from ecology at university the concept of Guild,  which is any group of species that exploit the same resources, or that exploit different resources in related ways.

I’m a very different species to Megan and the crew at her lab in the Marine Affairs Program of Dalhousie University, yet I see things in very similar ways in the ecolabels arena even if coming pretty much from the other end of the fisheries spectrum. And is a great feeling when you see own formed ideas about ecolabels from the operational area (I wrote a lot about that) coming in parallel to the ones they see in academia.

 The paper also elaborates well on what relational seafood supply chains (RSSC) are, as it is a growing concept in the field and one that will metamorphosise in unexpected ways yet to be seem

 As always, please read the original (this one is for free!!!) … I just quote the bits that hit me the most.

Abstract

Seafood certifications are a prominent tool being used to encourage sustainability in marine fisheries worldwide. However, questions about their efficacy remain the subject of ongoing debate. A main criticism is that they are not well suited for small‐scale fisheries or those in developing nations. This represents a dilemma because a significant share of global fishing activity occurs in these sectors. To overcome this shortcoming and others, a range of “fixes” have been implemented, including reduced payment structures, development of fisheries improvement projects, and head‐start programs that prepare fisheries for certification. These adaptations have not fully solved incompatibilities, instead of creating new challenges that have necessitated additional fixes. We argue that this dynamic is emblematic of a common tendency in natural resource management where particular tools and strategies are emphasized over the conservation outcomes they seek to achieve. This can lead to the creation of “hammers” in management and conservation. We use seafood certifications as an illustrative case to highlight the importance of diverse approaches to sustainability that do not require certification. Focusing on alternative models that address sustainability problems at the local level and increase fishers’ adaptive capacity, social capital, and agency through “relational” supply chains may be a useful starting point

 Introduction

Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist from Columbia University, famously observed that if a person only has a hammer, every problem starts to resemble a nail. His point is that too much focus on a single instrument or approach is often problematic. A “hammer” can thus be defined as a tool or strategy that is excessively endorsed or deployed in situations where it is partially or wholly ineffectual. The hammer metaphor has been discussed in a range of contexts and disciplines, including within the realm of marine conservation (Koeller, 2011). Degnbol et al. (2006:535) equate hammers to a type of “tunnel vision,” theorizing that tools become hammers when problem solving occurs in disciplinary silos. We focus on the application of sustainable seafood certifications in marine fisheries and consider how certifications are becoming a contemporary hammer in the marine conservation and stewardship toolbox. Our intent is not to diminish the role that seafood certifications can play, since they have been shown to promote sustainability (Gutierrez et al., 2012). Rather by framing certifications as a potential type of hammer, we aim to bring greater attention to the importance of alternative approaches to sustainability that are distinct from as opposed to derivatives of them.

Expansion of Seafood Certifications

The theoretical basis for certifications is established on the idea that by differentiating “sustainable” seafood from “unsustainable” seafood, fishers that voluntarily engage in better fishing practices will be rewarded with higher prices for their catch. However, this economic incentive has not consistently materialized. Instead, consumers often express a preference for eco‐friendly seafood (Jaffry, Pickering, Ghulam, Whitmarsh, & Wattage, 2004; Wessell, Johnston, & Donath, 1999), but tend to be reluctant to pay more when they go shopping (Jonell, Crona, Brown, Rönnbäck, & Troell, 2016) or prefer locally branded products (McClenachan, Dissanayake, & Chen, 2016). Furthermore, price premiums that have been realized have not generally been distributed to fishers (Bellchambers, Phillips, & Pérez‐Ramírez, 2016; Pérez‐Ramírez, Castrejón, Gutiérrez, & Defeo, 2015). This makes the link between consumer behavior and economic reward for more sustainable production practices tenuous.

Although seafood certifications have other auxiliary benefits, including helping to better organize fisheries management, the gap between theory and practice has necessitated a range of “fixes” geared toward sustaining and increasing participation (Figure 1). Barclay and Miller (2018), for example, point out that the incentive structure for certifications has changed from one based on reward to one based on penalty. This shift is often interpreted as coercion by the fishing sector, which is reflected in the testimony provided by a fishing representative during a hearing on seafood certifications in the United States convened by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee: “We are participating in an MSC evaluation,” states the representative “… because we feel we've been forced into it” (MAFAC 2013: 102). The reorientation of certifications from reward to penalty has been facilitated, in part, by the emergence of alliances between nongovernmental organizations and large retail companies. Through these partnerships, major retailers such as Wal‐Mart that control many consumers’ access to food pledge to source exclusively from certified fisheries, whereby closing off markets to those who are not certified (Ponte, 2012).

Figure 1: Seafood certification programs are theorised to incentivise sustainable fishing practices by way of financial reward. However, certifications have not consistently created financial benefits for fishers. To address the misalignment between theory and practice, a series of “fixes” have been implemented (solid line) or proposed (dotted line), which have created their own challenges. Despite these investments, the success of seafood certifications remains the subject of ongoing debate

Using a conservation tool as a hammer

There is nothing inherently problematic with making deep investments in conservation tools. However, in the case of seafood certifications, these investments are being made despite legitimate concerns about their efficacy and execution (see Wijen & Chiroleu‐Assouline, 2019 for an overview). Furthermore, there is a general consensus that certifications do not work well in small‐scale fisheries or developing world contexts (see Gulbrandsen, 2010 for an overview). Indeed, despite targeted efforts to encourage these sectors to participate, only 8% of the fisheries that are certified by MSC come from developing countries (Duggan & Kochen 2016) and in regions like Latin America and the Caribbean only 4% of fisheries are certified (Pérez‐Ramírez et al., 2015). This represents a significant gap considering an estimated 37 million people participate in small‐scale fisheries (FAO 2012).

Moving beyond hammers

Recognizing that no one approach or strategy will be a panacea to global challenges or complex issues, caution should be taken in trying to apply useful conservation tools, such as seafood certifications or relational seafood supply chains (RSSC) , too broadly. While our focus in this paper is on seafood certifications, we posit that there are likely other hammers being used in fisheries and other natural resource sectors. Avoiding this tendency will require greater investments in designing, testing, and promoting alternative and legitimate approaches that offer solutions for the diversity of fisheries in operation today, and those that will emerge in the future.

Japan prepares its own CDS (and I’m on my way there!)

Fish is soul food for the Japanese citizens, and it is an integral part of the Japanese culture as it  comprises more than 40% of animal protein consumed each year. Japan is the 2nd largest seafood importer after the EU, but the biggest in terms of a single country. The main suppliers to the Japanese market are China, the United States of America, Chile and Thailand, while the top imported products are shrimp, tuna, salmon and trout. Japan’s fish exports are marginal in comparison, with the total value of Japanese imports 8 times greater than that of its exports.

Hopefully it says what I meant… (love my infographics tho)

Japan is also the world's largest market for high value species, importing 470,000 tons of tuna every year, and of course, this high import rate makes it vulnerable to the inadvertent import of IUU fish (as any major Market). Yet interestingly, Japan does not have operational market access requirements for it seafood, not for IUU fishing nor for seafood safety.

Yet in terms of the IUU side, things are to change as the Fisheries agency and the parliament (DIET) have been discussing the need to have some form of unilateral Catch Documentation Scheme as the EU CCS and one could argue the US SIMP supposed to be (see here for details).

They have been quite interested in due diligence and learn from the shortcoming of both systems and trying to not make the same operational mistakes, which is awesome.

Hence my trip there, I been invited to give a seminar at the DIET and to have some talks to people of the Fisheries Agency.

I have to find my way the 2nd member’s office building and (horror!) wear a suit and tie!

There is quite few people involved in these process, so I don't really know a lot of the way they are going, but I’m very interested to help.

So far the signs are positive, the idea is to:

• Base it on FAO's guideline on the catch documentation scheme (even if it is unilateral)

• Use the EU model principle of involvement of the government (yet may not only be flag state, but hopefully coastal and port state have a role)

• Be electronic

• Initially targeting species selected based on a risk-based approach (not all species will be included at once as target), with the aim of increasing the target gradually

• Target species selection and criteria designing for the species selection will be conducted by a newly establishing task-force under the Fishery Policy Council.

• The idea is not to violate the WTO’s rule of non-discrimination among domestic and import products, as the new fisheries law, established the end of last year, says most of the major domestic fisheries need to report their catch information anyway.

 Apparently some concerns  around “what if the amount of seafood that processing companies deal decreases due to this CDS how do you (gov't) compensate?" was raised, in a very polite and calm manner. Which is in principle very interesting, yet this has not happen (meaning not changes in volumes imported) in the EU with almost 10 years of implementation or the US so far… without noticeable changes in the traded volumes entering the EU, either the present EU system is not working or there is no IUU fishing… I think the answer is obvious… (references below) 

In any case, I’m very exited to go there… with Japanese efficiency all presentations were sent ahead of time and translated (as you can see on the translated part of one slide of my presentation)

Anyway, form the industry side, is again another requirement to comply with… like if the EU and the US ones weren’t enough! So hopefully Japan (with or without my help), does something practical and effective on their CDS… as that would be a novelty!

——-

One of the basis of setting the EU CCS up was that figure that 20% of the fish traded is IUU, hence if the CCS scheme would be effective we would have seen a lowering on imports. A 2014 DG MARE commissioned report[1] on finding 56 recognises that: “The analysis was specifically designed to report trends in the volume of several species codes identified in the CN. With the information used (analysis of trade statistics, Member States analysis and discussions with EU traders), the results showed that no impact on trade in relation with the IUU Regulation can be detected”

Furtherer, an later OCEANA report found that because Spain’s better systems trade increased in Portugal and other countries with less stronger systems.

On the other side, then have been some rejection and some issues with certificates, yet they relates mostly with problems with the certificate (the piece of paper) and represent very little of the full volumes entering. 

A EU parliament commissioned report (2) concluded: “Furthermore, the monitoring and supervision of the EU IUU Regulation by the EC to date has been opaque, patchy and incomplete. Until this is improved, accountability will be limited, and the required checks and balances will not be in place. There are existing provisions in the EU IUU Regulation that are not being instituted at all (e.g. alerts), and those that are being instituted are not being recorded (e.g. SLOs, audits, biennial reports) nor being standardised (e.g. training, procedures). This applies to actions with respect to EU MS (section 4.3.3), actions with respect to third countries and transparency and the availability of data generally (section 4.3.4). No information is available on the reasons and number of rejected or blocked consignments since the entry into force of the EU IUU Regulation. This makes it impossible to evaluate the actual impact of this Regulation on the imports of IUU FAP into the EU”

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/iuu_regulation_final-report_en.pdf (STUDY ON THE STATE OF PLAY REGARDING APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1005/2008 OF 29 SEPTEMBER 2008, ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY SYSTEM TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING (IUU REGULATION) SPECIFIC CONTRACT NO)

2.http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513968/IPOL-PECH_ET(2013)513968_EN.pdf. COMPLIANCE OF IMPORTS OF FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS WITH EU LEGISLATION

The EU yellow cards Ecuador

The EU has been quite silent on the Yellow cards front for a while, but the came up with one that was on the talks for a while now.

I have to disclose that I’m quite partial to Ecuador, I worked there a lot during the last time they had problems with the EU, this was in 2007 in regards their market access issues around the seafood safety side, and we pulled it off by restructuring the way the Competent Authority for those issues operated.

Then I was there again in 2011, to assess their issues with the EU IUU Catch Certification Scheme, and it does not surprises me that some of my recommendations then are in line the reasons why the yellow card came to them 8 years later.

Manta (the tuna capital of the America’s) in the background.

Seafood to Europe is BIG business for Ecuador, they are the 2nd biggest exporter of Tuna and the 1st one in shrimp, so their industry has big influence in politics. But furthermore, massive EU capitals and companies have strong presence in the tuna industry.

I wrote in the past that is was quite suspicious that being the IUU definition well standardised, somehow the EU focused their trade related measures (TREMs) on the Pacific Islands, while the US on Ecuador and Central America…

So I guess the political winds changed and they rightly focus now in that region… there studies that link IUU levels with general transparency of the country… and it was quite remarkable that no country in Latin America (not the most transparent societies) was yellow carded.

The good news for Ecuador is that in the same way we did with the sanitary side in 2007, when they are against the wall, they are fast to change. And the reasons behind the yellow card are not too dissimilar to the ones that we (I was involved from the beginning) had to deal in PNG, Philippines, Solomon Islands and then Thailand… and we got out of it! So the solutions and systems have been tested before… now is up to them to find the political will and assume the costs that this will incur.

In their (as usual self laudatory) press release the EU outlined their key areas of concern… in any case they are right… Ecuador needs to pull its game on the following areas:

• The legal framework in place is outdated and not in line with the international and regional rules applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources.

• Law enforcement is hampered by this outdated legal framework, inefficient administrative procedures and a lenient approach towards infringements. As a result, the sanctioning system is neither depriving the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU fishing, nor deterrent.

• There are serious deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activity of the tuna fishing and processing industries.

• These deficiencies undermine the reliability of the traceability system upon which the certification of the legality of the catches is based.

Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative

I been criticised for many years now on my opinions on ecolabels and private certifications. I don't object to their alleged objectives (of course we all want sustainable and safe seafood) but mostly their implementation methods and the fact that they are a just one more business with standards drafted by the rich, but paid by the poor. I said once that I don't participate in that whole “certifications world” because I think they are “at best hypocrisy and at worst neo-colonialism. I know is quite extreme, but it passes the message… furthermore I’m not an academic that write nice papers and has the “credibility” of universities or institutions.

Yet, I correspond with them, mostly answering questions “from the field” perspective. So is nice to see my opinions also expressed into wider perspective with much nice words and arguments in some scientific papers written by much smarter people than me. 

 This is the case of this paper, written by quite a few well know authors even if I only corresponded with 3 of them (Michael F. Tlusty, Megan Bailey, and Simon Bush). I’m actually sometimes envious of academics with salary jobs, as they get paid to go to congresses, teach, write articles like this one, while I come from a more operational background and as a self-employed scientist, writing papers and going to congresses is a cost that is hard to justify… I wish there was a halfway path.

The abstract already set the tone, so quote it and also some of the parts that resonate the most to me, but as I always read the original! (if you don't have access via institutions, there are “grey” alternatives, or better ask the authors for a copy.

Abstract
The dominant sustainable seafood narrative is one where developed world markets catalyze practice improvements by fisheries and aquaculture producers that enhance ocean health. The narrow framing of seafood sustainability in terms of aquaculture or fisheries management and ocean health has contributed to the omission of these important food production systems from the discussion on global food system sustainability. This omission is problematic. Seafood makes critical contributions to food and nutrition security, particularly in low income countries, and is often a more sustainable and nutrient rich source of animal sourced-food than terrestrial meat production. We argue that to maximize the positive contributions that seafood can make to sustainable food systems, the conventional narratives that prioritize seafood's role in promoting ‘ocean health’ need to be reframed and cover a broader set of environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. The focus of the narrative also needs to move from a producer-centric to a ‘whole chain’ perspective that includes greater inclusion of the later stages with a focus on food waste, by-product utilization and consumption. Moreover, seafood should not be treated as a single aggregated item in sustainability assessments. Rather, it should be recognized as a highly diverse set of foods, with variable environmental impacts, edible yield rates and nutritional profiles. Clarifying discussions around seafood will help to deepen the integration of fisheries and aquaculture into the global agenda on sustainable food production, trade and consumption, and assist governments, private sector actors, NGOs and academics alike in identifying where improvements can be made.

1. Introduction
In this paper we argue the sustainable seafood narrative needs to be reframed to more accurately represent the present and future role of seafood in global food systems. Doing so can create greater coherence between state and NGO attempts to steer seafood sustainability. Sustainability in a broad sense is operationally defined as production that balances socio-economic benefits while maintaining environmental integrity now and into the future (Asche et al., 2018; Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; Tlusty and Thorsen, 2016). However, the study and measure of sustainability is often reduced to a narrow, and usually environmental, single-factor dimensionality (Béné et al., 2019, Fig. 1), such as stock status and management effectiveness, or habitat impacts of fish farming. Such reduction opens up opportunity for strategic positioning, where the sustainability claims will differ based on the definitions and metrics specific to NGO, industry, and / or national interest groups. The political nature of such decisions means that completely overcoming such conflicts is unlikely. Nevertheless reframing some of the misleading narratives that shape the choices of different sustain-ability metrics can help redirect sustainability agendas (and their me-trics) to be more aligned and ultimately more effective. In the rest of this paper we reframe three key misleading narratives for sustainable seafood. First, seafood's role in creating a healthy ocean needs to be reframed into a vision that integrates seafood sustainability within a broader global food system framework (Fig. 1). Second, the focus of improvement needs to be reframed beyond the narrow scope of producer practices and extended to broad issues that may arise at other or multiple nodes of the value chain (Fig. 1). Third, ‘seafood’ is a broad category, and this needs to be acknowledged as a heterogeneous cate-gory of food with equally heterogeneous environmental, nutritional and social impacts. The rest of this perspective paper discusses the role, focus, and categories of seafood, emphasizing how they need to re-framed to best integrate fisheries and aquaculture products into the global agenda on sustainable food production, trade and consumption.

2. Avoid the ‘healthy oceans’ trap
Ocean health is a global public environmental good. Although marine fish stocks and a large portion of aquaculture are dependent on healthy oceans (Kleisner et al., 2013; Naylor et al., 2000), it is un-realistic for the seafood narrative to create a direct causal link between the implementation of better practices by fishers and fish farmers alone and improved ocean health. We argue that framing seafood Second, the ocean health narrative draws attention away from a suite of non-ocean-health issues, including the linkages between aquatic and terrestrial food production systems and impacts from freshwater aquaculture. The most prominent of these are aquatic-terrestrial linkages are through feed. Agricultural products are used in aquaculture (Froehlich et al., 2018; Newton and Little, 2018; Troell et al., 2014), and conversely, marine ingredients provide inputs for terrestrial live-stock production (Shepherd and Jackson, 2013). Similarities in land feed-crop use, water use, and effluent impacts mean that fed aqua-culture has more in common with terrestrial animal agriculture than with capture fisheries (Roberts et al., 2015). Fuller recognition of the links to terrestrial systems and their environmental implications will require NGOs and policy makers to move beyond ‘ocean health’ perspectives. As we argue in the following section, this will also require a more systemic understanding of seafood sustainability that extends far beyond the practices of fishers and fish farmers alone. sustain-ability primarily in terms of ‘ocean health’ can blur the role of seafood in global food systems in two ways.

First, NGO performance indicators largely target the effects of fishing and fish farming that include unregulated and unreported fishing, destructive fishing methods, the conversion/loss of coastal habitat, and use of marine ingredients in aquaculture (see for e.g. Agnew et al., 2009; Naylor et al., 2009). While critical, the ocean has a myriad of increasing threats beyond, but impactful to, seafood including but not limited to dead zones, plastic litter, acidification and climate change, and changes in ocean circulation (Vázquez-Rowe, 2020). We argue that the sustainable seafood movement, and all its actors, needs to broaden its scope regarding sustainability dimensions included in standards, assessments and campaigns, in order to substantively contribute to ocean health and food systems.

3. Improvements throughout the entire value chain
The sustainable seafood narrative has been overly narrow in its approach by offloading action for improvement on the shoulders of producers (Bailey et al., 2018; Bush, 2017). This productionist bias (Fouilleux et al., 2017) places a major burden on fishers and farmers frequently located in low-income countries, while actors located throughout the rest of the seafood value chain receive far less attention and pressure to improve.

4. Embrace the diversity of seafood
The ‘seafood’ in the sustainable seafood narrative encompasses around 2500 species (FAO, 2018; Hornborg et al., 2016) across all trophic levels from primary producrs to top carnivores, spanning sea-weed, finfishes, mollusks, crustaceans, cnidarians, echinoderms, am-phibians, and reptiles, that can all be harvested from the wild or farmed on land, including freshwater or in the sea. This multitude of species is typically represented in reports as crude sectoral categories (e.g. fish, farmed fish, trawl fisheries) or as a single animal-source food (fish) next to beef, pork, and/or chicken (Clark and Tilman, 2017; Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Tilman and Clark, 2014). The reality is that assessing the environmental impact and/or nutritional benefits of seafood re-quires a more detailed consideration of different combinations of species, production, and processing techniques he bulk of research and advice by sustainable seafood programs is focused on those few species groups traded on international markets largely destined for consumption in high income countries (Ward and Phillips, 2008). Likewise, consumption patterns within high income countries do not follow global production patterns (Jonell et al., 2019). In the U.S., ten species account for 84% of all seafood consumed (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2018). Within aquaculture, shrimp, pangasius, tilapia, and salmon, are the groups that are particularly popular in high income countries (Belton and Bush, 2014) yet represent only ∼24% of global aquaculture production by mass (FAO, 2018).

5. Conclusion-reframing the sustainable seafood narrative for greater inclusion into the global agenda on ecosystem and human health

By highlighting the interdependence between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and placing seafood in the wider food system we can better understand and act in response to the varied role that fisheries and aquaculture production plays in the equitable delivery of high quality low-impact food for human consumption. This is a specific case of a broader call to equally address impacts of all food production to de-termine linkages underlying a better understanding of the true cumu-lative impact of our current food system (Halpern et al., 2019). Ap-plying a food systems approach to seafood could enable the development of more effective state regulations and private-voluntary tools to promote more sustainable production along the entire supply chain (Bailey et al., 2018). This would help NGOs, industry, govern-ment and academia alike to move beyond the simple equating ‘sus-tainable seafood’ with ‘ocean health’ and allow for integration of sea-food into wider policy debates centering on planetary health, food equity, and human nutrition.

Overall, we identify three direct benefits of taking a ‘seafood sys-tems approach’, building on our arguments above.

First, conventional narrow narratives that prioritize ocean health need to be replaced with broader, more comprehensive visions of sus-tainable seafood production. NGOs and businesses communicating im-provements in sourcing need to address outcomes honestly. Importantly, a systemic approach will move research and policy alike beyond proximate impacts of seafood production. Instead it can enable us to understand the contributions that a full seafood system makes, alongside those from agriculture, to a set of common challenges in-cluding climate change, eutrophication, etc. along with linkages of seafood production to the wider context of each other (i.e. fisheries and aquaculture) and inter-connected terrestrial systems. From this per-spective species/production/supply system combinations of seafood should move to appropriate metrics that facilitate comparison not only with one another, but also with terrestrial animal and crop production.

Second, there is a need to broaden the focus to advance beyond the productionist agenda that identifies producers, primarily in low income countries, as being mainly responsible for seafood sustainability. Instead, research and policy should expand sustainability problems and solutions away from a fixation on production and producers, to include trade and traders, processing and processors, and consumption and consumers. In that sense, a food systems perspective would highlight better the interlinkages between these practices and actors, showing that positive social economic and environmental changes can be made along the value chains that can affect sustainability.

Third, seafood should not be treated as a single broad aggregated category in sustainability assessments, but rather should be recognized as being differentiated based on varying production systems, edible yields and nutritional profiles. Communication of the benefits and im-pacts of seafood must adopt a nuanced approach that better accounts for the potential environmental and social consequences of this im-portant food, and the ways in which environmental externalities can be reduced through the consumption of lower impact foods. Discussing fisheries and aquaculture products as part of a food system will increase our ability to develop lower impact future food solutions and create a more food and nutrition secure future (Hicks et al., 2019).

This paper is not the first to call for consideration of seafood within a food systems context (Béné et al., 2015; Olson et al., 2014). However, the continued lack of food system approaches to seafood sustainability continues to raise concern among the seafood research community. Many of these production systems and supply chains have laudable attributes that can be leveraged to help improve the environmental and social impact performance of food systems globally. By developing a seafood systems approach, fisheries and aquaculture can be main-streamed into the global agenda on ecosystem and human health. While such inclusion is not a panacea for all impacts that arise from producing food, it will contribute toward a more food-secure future.

Current status of the DWFN Purse Seine Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific

I get asked a lot to "explain" in a training brief, "how" the tuna Purse Seine fishery operates in the Pacific...and in particular the Purse Seine one, I normally refer them to a 2015 blog entry I did on “the canned tuna industry in the pacific”, which was based on a excellent a great publication by my friends and colleges Hamilton, McCoy, Campling et all "Market and Industry Dynamics in the Global Tuna Supply Chain" published by FFA/DevFISH II in 2011. Now this publication by FFA has been updated (Market and Industry Dynamics: Western and Central Pacific Ocean Distant Water Tuna Purse Seine Fishery) by my friends and colleagues Dr. Elizabeth Havice, Mike A. McCoy and Dr. Antony Lewis (who recently wrote a similar work on the longline fishery).

I just quote below the executive summary, but this the type of publication people like me uses a lot as reference for years. Is compulsory reading, if you have any interest on the who does what in terms of DWFN Purse Seine in the region.

The purpose of this report is to provide industry and market intelligence to Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency members regarding the current status of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) distant water purse seine tuna fishing industry. This report largely focusses on six major distant water fishing nation (DWFN) purse seine fleets operating within the WCPO – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, US and the Philippines. Cross-cutting and fleet-specific industry dynamics are identified, and where possible, implications for PICs are drawn out. 

WCPO Distant Water Purse Seine Fleet Overview 

The Japanese pioneered tropical purse seine fishing in the WCPO, developing a commercial fleet in the mid-late 1970s. Several US purse seiners operating in the EPO commenced experimental voyages into the US-Pacific Trust Territory in the mid 1970s; by the early 1980s, the US purse seine fleet had shifted to the WCPO. Around the same time, the Philippines, Taiwan and Korea commenced purse seine fishing in the WCPO. China was the last Asian distant water fleet to enter the WCPO purse seine fishery in 2001. 

From 1990-2006, the total number of purse seine vessels operating in the WCPO was relatively stable, ranging from 180-220 vessels. From 2007, vessel numbers increased gradually, when the vessel cap was replaced by a limit on fishing effort under PNA’s Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme (VDS). In 2015, purse seine vessel numbers peaked at 308, but have since declined steadily to 271 vessels in 2018. The number of Pacific Island domestic vessels (i.e. Pacific Island-flagged, chartered and locally-based foreign vessels) has gradually increased since the mid-1980s, reaching 126 in 2018. 

In the mid-1980s, when the WCPO purse seine fishery was first developing, annual catch was 400,000- 450,000 mt, accounting for around 40% of total WCPO tuna catch. In 2018, total purse seine catch was 1,910,725mt, accounting for 70% of total WCPO tuna catch. The WCPO fishery is essentially a skipjack fishery, accounting for 65-77% of purse seine catch; yellowfin accounts for 20-30% and bigeye only 2-5%. 

WCPO purse seine vessels target skipjack and yellowfin in free-swimming schools and around man-made drifting fish-aggregation devices (FADs) and floating logs. There are long-standing concerns about high levels of incidental by-catch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin by purse seiners fishing on FADs. While stock assessment results indicate both WCPO bigeye and yellowfin stocks remain healthy, the recommended scientific advice is that management measures which reduce fishing mortality of fisheries that take juveniles should continue to be considered. 

The majority of purse seine catch in the WCPO is supplied to canned tuna processors in Thailand. Raw material is also supplied to canned tuna and cooked loin processors in American Samoa, Central/ South America, Philippines, Korea, China, Vietnam and Japan. Around 100,000 mt/year is processed by plants based in PNG, Solomon Islands, and Marshall Islands. The largest markets for canned tuna remain the EU and US. Purse seine-caught skipjack from the WCPO is also used to produce the Japanese product, katsuobushi. Purse seine vessels with ultra-low temperature (-45 to -55°C) freezing capability also supply yellowfin for lower-grade sashimi products. 

There are a range of developments and key issues which have impacted the WCPO purse seine fleet – some have emerged in recent years, others are long-standing: fleet expansion, Pacific Island countries’ fleet development aspirations, FAD management, sustainability, traceability and labour requirements, fisheries access, market access, EU-IUU Fishing Regulation, fish and fuel price fluctuations and changes to fisheries management and regulation. 

Taiwan 

The Taiwanese fleet and Taiwanese capital are major players in the WCPO. Since 2004, Taiwan Government has instituted a limit of 34 Taiwan-flag purse seine vessels. At the time of writing, there was also an estimated 29 Taiwanese beneficially-owned purse vessels operating under PIC flag (90% flagged to PNA countries), bringing the total fleet to 63 vessels. Fourteen vessels with significant Taiwanese investment also operate under US-flag. 

Taiwan’s purse seine vessel ownership is primarily family-based; most of the larger family-owned operations also own and operate vessels in other fisheries, notably, distant-water longline and squid/ saury fisheries. The purse seine fleet (Taiwan flag and beneficially-owned) is relatively young, with between 50-60% of vessels less than 10 years old, four of which were constructed in the past 2-3 years. 

In 2018, the Taiwan distant water purse seine fleet catch was around 193,000mt and ranged from 160,000-237,000 mt between 2013-2018. The majority of fishing takes place within PNA EEZs, with only 95 high seas days allocated to Taiwan flag vessels by WCPFC. Taiwan’s purse seine fleets, whether flagged in Taiwan or elsewhere, are essentially transhipment fleets that do not deliver directly to processors; the majority of catch is sold to global marine products trading company FCF and is delivered to Thailand or other major tuna processing centres for canning. 

Taiwan has faced considerable criticism from NGOs and others on the crewing conditions of its distant water fleets. Most of the criticism has focussed on distant water longliners, but the purse seine industry also feels some of that pressure. Some segments of the Taiwan fleet have sought commercial advantage by obtaining MSC certification. 

Korea 

The Korean distant water purse seine fleet is modern, efficient and largely profitable; Korean vessels are the highliners of the WCPO purse seine fleet, with average annual catches of over 10,000 mt per vessel. Total catch by the Korean flag vessels ranged from 246,000 – 270,000 mt/year between 2014- 2018. The fleet fishes over a wide area of the WCPO, but with an increasing proportion of catch taken in eastern areas in recent years when El Niňo conditions have predominated. Fishing in high seas is restricted by the WCPFC to 207 days per year. 

In 2018, the Korean-flag fleet consisted of 27 vessels and has been relatively stable for some years. Since 2013, the number of beneficially-owned Korean vessels involved in PIC joint ventures has grown to 14 in four countries, taking the total Korean-owned fleet to 41 vessels. The re-flagged vessels have typically been replaced by newly constructed Korean-flag vessels. Korean onshore investment in PICs has been limited, despite proposals developed for PNG and Solomon Islands. For the Korean flag vessels, 17 of the 27 vessels (63%) are less than ten years old. By contrast, the PIC-flagged joint venture fleet is ageing, with 12 out of 14 vessels (85%) over 20 years old. 

With the exception of one vessel, the Korean flag vessels are all owned by three large companies; two of which are vertically integrated into processing, whereas the third supplies two separately owned Busan-based canneries under contract. All companies have diverse interests beyond tuna fisheries.

The fleet tranships nearly all of its purse seine catch in PIC ports. A portion of the transhipped catch is returned to Korean ports for delivery to five domestic canneries for processing (120,000-130,000 mt/year), with the balance (~ 170,000 mt) going to canneries in other countries, primarily Thailand, Vietnam and Ecuador. Most Korean purse seine companies are reported to now have at least some of their vessels fitted with PS-special ULT refrigeration capability to produce lower-end sashimi markets in Korea and Japan. 

Sustainability certification and ecolabelling have yet to gain much traction in the domestic processed fish market. However, there are some moves from fishing companies to obtain third-party sustainability certifications (MSC and Friend of the Sea) for export markets. 

Japan 

The Japanese fleet, early pioneers of industrial purse seine fishing in the WCPO, is no longer a dominant fleet, but remains a stable presence. The Japanese fleet has been relatively stable in terms of vessel numbers in recent years, as a result of government restrictions on distant water vessel numbers (capped at 35 since 1997). The fleet is comprised of 28 Japanese-flagged vessels and five vessels operating in joint venture under the FSM flag; the majority of the vessels are older and smaller than competing fleets from China, Taiwan and Korea. Historically, the Japanese Government has strictly regulated the size of the vessels. However, this policy has been relaxed in recent years, allowing for several larger vessels to be constructed (1,800 GT). The Japanese purse seine fleet is an ageing one, with 17 of the 28 active DW vessels (61%) over 20 years of age. Ownership is quite diverse, with two companies owning five vessels each, and the remainder of the companies owning 1-3 vessels each. The Japanese distant water purse seine fleet continues to operate primarily in the western part of the WCPO; it only has 121 high seas fishing days. 

The Japanese tuna industry historically was involved in onshore investments in processing, founding two important Pacific Islands processing plants that are still operational today (though no longer with Japanese involvement): Soltuna in the Solomon Islands and PAFCO in Fiji. However, presently, those in the Japanese fleet have expressed little interest in either onshore investments or in further joint-venture operations. 

The Japanese fleet primarily returns to Japanese ports to offload, and as such, does not rely on PIC transhipment ports. Though the Japanese Government has relaxed requirements to compulsorily offload in Japan, the fleet largely retains the practice. The additional costs of returning to Japan ports to unload for most of the fleet are claimed to be partly offset by the reduced VDS access fees (fewer fishing days required), and access to better maintenance and repair facilities needed for the ageing fleet than available in Pacific Island ports. 

The Japanese-flag fleet caught 177,000mt in 2018. The fleet continues to supply the Japanese market, which includes a broader range of product types in comparison with other fleets. These include: katsuobushi, sashimi and canned tuna. All Japanese vessels now have varying levels of purse seine special capacity for storing a portion of catch for sale to higher value markets. No Japanese purse seine fisheries are known to be seeking MSC certification or participating in PNA’s MSC program, likely a reflection of limited domestic consumer interest in eco-labelled product.

China 

Since the early 2000s, the Chinese purse seine fleet has grown considerably through a combination of new construction and acquisition of used vessels. Vessels are either wholly or substantially owned by large state-owned enterprises or by private sector companies. There are currently fifteen vessels in the China-flag fleet operating in the WCPO, and an additional six beneficially-owned Marshall Island flag vessels, three of which were constructed in 2019. Fourteen of the fifteen China-flag vessels are currently chartered to Kiribati. The six Marshall Islands-flag vessels are associated with the Pan Pacific Foods Ltd. loining plant in Majuro, Marshall Islands. The total catch of the Chinese-flag and beneficially-owned WCPO fleet could be in the order of 150,000 mt/year based on current vessel numbers. 

China government subsidies given to distant water tuna fisheries for operations (mainly fuel), replacement vessel construction and the building or expansion of overseas bases have encouraged increases in the fleet. As long as China requires a certain percentage of catch returned to China for processing by vessels receiving subsidies, and fishery access in PICs is available to Chinese purse seiners through bilateral agreements, joint fishing ventures and chartering, it is unlikely that Chinese firms engaged in the WCPO purse seine fishery will make any further large investments in processing in Pacific Island countries. The Chinese government’s financial support for the establishment of bases has been primarily taken up by its longline industry in FSM, Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Samoa. 

Recently, the fleet has been fishing mostly in eastern PNA EEZs - Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Nauru. China has only 26 high seas fishing days; however, the Marshall Islands-flagged vessels have unlimited high seas access. With the exception of small volumes delivered to Pan Pacific Foods in Majuro, catch is transhipped in PNA ports. The production of China’s purse seine fleet is closely linked to China’s tuna processing industry, which processes purse seine-caught tuna into loins for export and cans for both foreign and domestic markets. There is currently no production of ULT PS-special yellowfin within the fleet, although two vessels have ULT capability. The 10% tariff imposed by the US on loins imported from China was increased to 25% in May 2019. It is believed that the net result of these increases is greater export of Chinese purse seine-caught tuna to Thailand. So far, the domestic market in China for canned tuna has not taken off despite efforts to encourage growth. 

In recent years, China has been making a concerted effort to be seen as a law-abiding participant in the WCPO purse seine fishery. Harsh penalties have been instituted for infractions of China’s domestic laws, WCPFC management measures and other requirements. 

USA 

The US fleet has long been active in the WCPO. Since the 1980s, its fishing activities in the region have been facilitated by the US Multilateral Treaty, which provides the fleet with access to all FFA members’ EEZs for up to 40 vessels. Prior to the introduction of the VDS in 2007, the US fleet had declined from 40 vessels to around 12-14, largely due to increased competition from lower-cost Asian distant water fleets. 

As the VDS was designed to limit fishing effort and increase access fees for all distant fleets fishing in PNA EEZs, the US Treaty appeared to offer a refuge from uncertainty, as its terms continued to offer unlimited fishing access in all Pacific Island Party EEZs for pre-negotiated fishing license fees. To take advantage of this opportunity, owners of approximately 16 vessels – primarily from the Taiwan fleet – were added to the US flag in joint ventures with US citizens around 2010. This reinvestment, along with US flagged vessels that had previously left the WCPO and returned to the Treaty, revitalized the US fleet to 40 operational vessels. By 2017, however, that number declined with 34 US vessels active in the WCPO. In the coming licensing period, a total of 31 US flagged vessels are expected. Eight vessels have been recently announced as being sold, citing uncompetitive conditions operating under the US flag and a lack of support from the US Government. If the sales are concluded, the US fleet will be further reduced to around 23 vessels. Operators within the US fleet have developed several responses to cope with changing access conditions under the US Treaty – purchasing some bilateral days in favour of multilateral fishing days, maximising high seas and US EEZ fishing days, re-engaging in the EPO fishery and leaving the US flag (through vessel sales and/or re-flagging). However, the future of the US Treaty remains uncertain. The fleet’s total catch volume has steadily declined alongside vessel numbers – in 2014 total catch was almost 313,000 mt; by 2018 this had declined to 165,000 mt. 

The US fleet has two distinct operating models, with one segment of the fleet (the ‘old’ fleet) typically fishing further in the eastern portion of the WCPO to serve American Samoa’s processing sector (and for some, also EPO processors). The other segment (the ‘new’ fleet of Taiwan-built vessels) fishes throughout the WCPO and operates under a transhipment model, delivering to processing plants in Thailand and the rest of Asia and occasionally, Central/Latin America. The eastern high seas is a significant fishing ground, particularly for the ‘old fleet’, with 1,270 fishing days allocated. 

Several non-state regulatory issues – including eco-labels and shifts in design to non-entangling and biodegradable FADs – are now firmly on the radar of US vessel owners. Vessels in both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ fleet hold MSC certifications for free-school caught skipjack and yellowfin. Members of the US fleet are taking note that social responsibility, particularly concerns over labour standards are gaining attention, though formal regulation is still in its infancy. 

Philippines 

The Philippine tuna industry was among the first to develop on a large scale in the WCPO. Today, the beneficially-owned Philippines purse seine fleet of 91 vessels is collectively the largest in the WCPO in terms of vessel numbers, with a total annual catch of over 300,000 mt. It is comprised of domestic purse seine vessels which fish mostly within Philippines and High Seas Pocket 1, Philippines flag vessels fishing mostly in PNG under distant water or locally-based foreign access arrangements and PNG-flag vessels beneficially owned by Philippines companies operating under charter to PNG-based canneries. These vessels are owned by four Philippines companies. In general, the Philippines flagged fleet is comprised of older vessels which are relatively small in size in comparison with other fleets, making it a relatively less efficient fleet. 

Diverse Philippines tuna industry presence remains at the heart of the large PNG tuna sector, with around 60 locally-based foreign, PNG flag vessels and distant water purse seine vessels and ownership of four of the six operational canneries in the country. All of the fishing companies are key suppliers to canneries in the Philippines. Most of the plants in the PNG processing sector continue to operate well below capacity, despite the global sourcing component of the EU Rules of Origin, given that affiliated vessels export high volumes of catch to the Philippines. After several false starts and a crowded investment space, there seems little appetite to expand the Philippines involvement to other PICs, other than bilateral or multilateral fishing access. 

Whilst the Philippines distant water fleet has not made a concerted as yet to move towards MSC certification, Philippines PNG vessel owners as a group are moving towards certification, independent of the existing PNA/Pacifical MSC certification.

and you think you have hard job

Implications for PICs 

Fleet dynamics have largely settled out following the significant increase in fisheries access prices associated with the PNA Vessel Day Scheme. Issues surrounding vessel day price and conditions vary fleet by fleet. High cost operators express concern about the increasing price of fishing days. Some lower cost operators note that fishing day prices have affected their bottom lines, but expressed more concern over consistent availability than price per se. There is continued concern about inconsistency on the definition of a fishing versus a non-fishing day. 

Increasing cooperation among PICs and the PNA, in particular, has generated impacts beyond the increases in access fees. First, it is evident that VDS is driving a continued need for improved efficiency in vessel design and fishing. This kind of capacity and effort creep is an expected outcome that PICs will continue to encounter as they work to collectively increase control of the fishery. 

A second is that recent years have also seen modifications in fishing access relationships and dynamics. The VDS and the FSMA are important examples of these, but additional innovations have emerged in turn. For instance, the US Treaty has created a wider range of geographically specific fishing day options and some vessels have begun to participate in new sub-regional pooling arrangements with PNA members and Tokelau. As the price of fishing access under the VDS continues to increase there are further opportunities for such innovations. Notably, fleets are also beginning to think ahead to the spatial changes to fish stock distribution expected to emerge as the effects of climate change continue to develop, which also might forge new access relationships relating to an increase of fish biomass in the eastern high seas areas. 

A third major dynamic that has emerged is growth in PIC-flagged and domestically registered vessels. This change has been driven by the potential opportunities for beneficial access relationships generally. More specifically, it also offers potentials for reduced fishing access prices compared to the VDS, other flexibilities such as exemptions from FAD closures and plays a role as an agent for the construction of new vessels for foreign states that otherwise have high seas effort limits and capacity limits on fleet size. Access relationships are influenced by considerations such as the prices and terms of access, as well as fish abundance and market access concerns.

The 15th meeting of the WCPFC Scientific Committee

Every year the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC gets together for a few days where the delegates of each member country, get to review the latest science relevant to the management of migratory species in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), and make formal recommendations to the WCPFC meeting held in December each year.

This is the big meeting for my friends in the scientific team of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Pacific Community (SPC). OFP is the WCPFC’s scientific and data management services provider, as the reported in the latest SPC Fisheries Newsletter.

The OFP papers and presentations to this meeting provide the backbone for important discussions on scientific aspects of the largest tuna fishery in the world. It is also the key path­way through which OFP’s work translates into concrete outputs for Pacific Island communities. The OFP team was heavily involved in presentations and working groups for all four themes reviewed by the SC: data and statistics; stock status; manage­ment issues; and ecosystems and bycatch mitigation. 

SPC – in collaboration with FFS – provided the latest tuna catch information for the WCPO. The provisional tuna catch for 2018 was estimated at over 2.7 million tonnes, with a delivered value of just over USD 6 billion. This catch level was the second highest on record, and represented just over 80% of the to­tal Pacific Ocean catch and 55% of the global tuna catch.

Given the impact of our new knowledge on bigeye growth on the estimated status of this stock, there has been great interest in improving our understanding of the biology of all tuna stocks in the WCPO. The latest ageing results devel­oped in collaboration with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia for both bigeye and yellowfin tuna were presented to this meeting of the SC. While there is still more work to be done, this new information will feed into new assessments of both of these stocks that are scheduled for next year. 

This year, new stock assessments were presented by SPC for WCPO skipjack, southwest Pacific striped marlin, and WCPO oceanic whitetip shark. 

The skipjack assessment benefited from a new understand­ing of the stock’s biology that was provided by Japanese col­leagues. Similar to bigeye tuna last year, this changed our perception of the status of the stock slightly, but it contin­ues to be in the ‘green zone’ of our ‘Majuro plot’ (i.e. not overfished, and not subject to overfishing) (Fig. 1).

This assessment will form the basis for further work in 2019 to inform the WCPFC as to whether the interim target refer­ence point for the stock (the level the stock should be at to achieve what managers want from the fishery) should be adjusted.

In the discussions on management issues, SPC scientists presented work to support the ‘harvest strategy’ approach to tuna stocks. This approach focuses on longer-term ob­jectives for fisheries and stocks, and aims to move away from annual short-term decision-making. This work is ongoing, and the latest developments in the framework for skipjack and South Pacific albacore were presented.

A key future development is a consideration of the con­sequences of managing the fisheries of one stock on other stocks caught in the WCPO. This ‘multispecies’ issue was the focus of two different SPC papers, which highlighted the interactions that need to be taken into account when developing both target reference points for bigeye and yel­lowfin tuna stocks, and when developing harvest strategies for these stocks and key fisheries.

Two SPC-led analyses related to fish aggregation devices (FADs) in the WCPO were presented.

The first, in col­laboration with the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), evaluated the latest information from the PNA FAD track­ing programme. It presented the spatial pattern of FADs, whether areas of higher FAD densities had different tuna catch rates, and the fate of FADs, particularly those that drifted outside the main fishing grounds of the companies that owned them and eventually beached on shorelines or coral reefs.

The second, in collaboration with industry partners Tri Marine and South Pacific Tuna Corporation, presented preliminary analyses of the patterns of tuna ag­gregation below FADs, as estimated by echosounders fitted to drifting FADs. Echosounder use on FADs is now wide­spread throughout the fishery, and has the potential to pro­vide novel and valuable information for scientific analyses. Insights into the pattern and rate at which tunas may aggre­gate around newly deployed FADs, trends just prior to fish­ing set events, and the spatial pattern of biomass estimates were presented for the first time. 

Ongoing tagging of tuna around FADs, to examine how long individuals remain around FADs and their behaviour while they remained there, has begun to identify some of these patterns in relation to factors that influence tuna aggregations such as local FAD density, moon phase and time of day at the FAD. This exciting work has already provided some interesting results that may help identify new mitigation measures for the catches of small bigeye and yellowfin in sets around FADs.

Finally, reflecting the fact that target tuna are not the only marine species caught during fishing operations, we developed estimates of annual seabird mortality using the latest information collected by regional observers. Bycatch estimates in the purse-seine fishery were very low (approximately one mortality per year). In longline fisheries, for which mortality estimates were higher, the spatial pattern of incidences was examined for the most recent years, where enough observer information was available. Increasing the coverage of observers on longline vessels would help improve these calculations and highlight approaches to further reduce impacts.

In addition to SPC’s work, contributions were also presented by our scientific colleagues who work across the Pacific, including an assessment for North Pacific striped marlin by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, alternative assessment approaches for sharks by Dragonfly Consulting, es­timates of shark release mortality by the United States, and a report from a workshop on the issue by the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction project, work on biodegradable FAD designs and ecosystem indicators by the Eu­ropean Union, and safe release guide­lines for birds developed by New Zea­land scientists. 

Next year’s proposed assessments for SPC include bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Further work for OFP in 2019 includes the WCPFC’s Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) meeting, and the WCPFC meeting to be held in Port Moresby in De­cember, where the SC’s and TCC’s recommendations are reviewed and translated into actual management measures and regulations. 

At personal level, I have known and respected immensely the work of my colleagues of SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) since I came to the Pacific, and when people read tuna doom news (saying more or less tuna is getting extinct!) and then ask me about it… I refer them to their work because is top class and unbiased.

To be clear, I’m not saying everything is perfect… far from it. But thanks to the work of A LOT of good people that are trying really hard, things are not doomed in the Pacific. And when I read those doom news like this one, I feel like they are spitting on the work of the best people we have