Marine biodiversity needs more than protection

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

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

He is quite clear:

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

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

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

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

Interestingly he ends his writing with a hopeful approach:

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

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

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

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

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

Economic benefits from fisheries for the Pacific - BENEFISH

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

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

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

Key features of coastal fisheries production

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

Key features of offshore fisheries production

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

Aquaculture production in the region

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

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

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

Some issues in measuring fisheries production in the region

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

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

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

Access fees for foreign fishing

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

Other aspects of access fees

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

Significant findings

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

The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture - 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pride of Pacific fisheries

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

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

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

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

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

Fisheries in the economies of Pacific Island countries and territories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surfing Suva pass from Bob's sailing outrigger

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

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

Review of studies estimating levels of IUU fishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Port State Measures - Legislative Template and Related Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US Tuna Treaty has survived

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

Moving beyond the usual negotiating power

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

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

World Tuna day in Noro, Al Jazeera and US Treaty

I write a lot about Noro (my favorite tuna spot in the world), I wrote about the US treaty before, I watch Al Jazeera news very often and I know and respect a lot the people being interviewed here.

So what is not to promote about this! People I like, saying things that I believe, in a place I love!

Port State Measures Agreement is on... so what happens now?

During my brief time as an "almost senior" fishery officer at FAO, I got the opportunity to meet some very capable people that have a unique view on what are the overarching issues at world fisheries. And I'm very lucky that I maintained a good working and personal relationship with all of them, and they are patient and generous with their time and knowledge to my frequent questions. Can't thank them enough!

PSM in action... doing a boarding in PNG

I been writing about PSMA for a while now (here, here and more ) in relationship to the general work in MCS and in regards "my baby" the UAC# (Unloading Authorization Code) that has PSM as part of its DNA. But really... what it means in practical terms for the countries that signed it and for those that not.

These were the questions I asked a good friend in FAO legal, whom actually I meet in 1998!

The "magic" 25 ratifications/accessions mean that the PSMA is in force for the countries (parties) that have ratified/acceded to the agreement. It practically means that the obligations in the agreement are binding on the parties (i.e. those which ratified/acceded to and lack of implementation can be a cause for dispute and litigation by another party).

It makes practical sense for the parties to PSMA to translate the obligation and requirements under PSMA into domestic law. If a party does not have a domestic law (whether a new law or existing -old- law), that party might not implement the PSMA effectively but it does not absolve that party from its obligation and may be taken to task by other parties for not doing so.

If a State is not a party, it can still comply with the requirements of the PSMA if it finds the requirements to be logical/useful.  If it does not comply with the PSMA requirements, it does not have any responsibility or cannot be challenged by a party for not complying with the PSMA.

How this plays in the context of the WCPFC, that last year decided not to adopt a PSM CMM (Control and Management Measure) proposed by FFA>

Is hard to say if the PSM CMM proposal will be taken up and the direction the WCPFC members will take it to. However, that certain important members of the WCPFC are also parties to the PSMA including USA and the EU, Korea and Indonesia. Among the PICs, Palau and Tonga are already parties. 

I am sure that the parties to the PSMA will not want to see that a CMM of the WCPFC on PSM departs from the PSMA.  The understanding is that PNA and PIC/FFA members of the WCPFC were not keen on the PSMA because they want to have in place first the disproportionate burden CMM.  (I wrote about this here)

However, a "disproportionate burden CMM", would be hard to be implemented as a "generic CMM", it must be linked to an actual activity.  A CMM on PSM, therefore could have provisions on disproportionate burden considerations for PNA and PIC/FFA members.

Japan seems also changing its stance on the PSMA (note that Japan was not in favour of PSMA in the past) and might accede to the agreement soon. In that case, Japan will join the club of PSMA parties in the WCPFC and will put the pressure on for the CMM on PSM to be consistent with the PSMA.

Hence after some wrangling, this all could be good news for us in the region. I believe that any advances in that field are good and as good pragmatic man, i think that the perfect should not get in the way of the good.

in case you wanna know why a left FAO, was a lifestyle decision, I wrote about it here back in 2009 on my original, non-fisheries blog "Life in Development".

ISSF 2015 Annual Report - Collaboration and Advocacy

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s (ISSF) 2015 annual report, released this week highlights the need to foster continuous improvement across global tuna fisheries through collaboration and advocacy.

Resource users transshipping - Resources owners hanging around for scraps

ISSF produces The Status of the Stocks report on an annual basis or more to highlight the health of the world’s commercial tuna stocks and to serve as a measuring stick for progress made and the work still ahead.

The Status of the Stocks measures the status of all major commercial tuna stocks against three key factors: stock abundance; exploitation/management; and environmental impact (bycatch).

You can see an interactive version of the report here

Some of the key numbers below:

48% of tuna stocks globally are at a healthy level of abundance
39% of tuna stocks globally need stronger management to end overfishing
78% of global tuna catch (by tonnage) comes from healthy stocks
16% of global tuna catch (by tonnage) comes from stocks where fishing is not well managed

Whatever critics may say about ISSF as an industry-funded organization, the people that put this report in place is or the highest caliber, and very respected.

More on FADs usage and politics

There still a lot of conversations about FADs and get asked about them a lot, particularly since there is a drive to ban them completely by some NGOs, while others want to go for better designs to reduce risk of entanglement of sharks, sea turtles, and other organisms while reverting from synthetic to biodegradable materials – to reduce marine debris.

In November of last year, I wrote about them from a more technical point of view here. So I explore different aspects today,  there are plenty of FADs design, but the biggest design feature is that FADs can be of 2 sorts: anchored or drifting, and both can have entangling "bits" attached so is no difference there.

Remember that the whole idea of a FAD is to create the illusion of a big "thing" floating so fish congregate underneath. People put all sorts of stuff underneath the floating part to create that illusion. One of the most common pieces of "stuff" you have on board are pieces of nets, so those are the entangling bit, but then… they are not really big, so the impact, while existent, is not massive. 

Originally, we used to put coconut tree leaves all around and make the "body" of bamboo (see the pic above where you see the netting also), but they require way more maintenance.

Making them biodegradable is great regarding marine debris, and if you get the net bit out, the entanglement accidental catch shall be reduced, but so does the life span of the FAD. The companies are putting expensive electronics on them: sun-powered sonars with satellite data transmission devices are more common than ever, and that does not play well with the concept of “biodegradable.”

In any case, it does not actually deviate from what the fact that juvenile YellowFin and BigEye loves hanging out with Skipjacks and as long as you fish with Purse Seiners you’ll catch them all… while at different ratios along the year.

When it comes to canned tuna, the best "eco-friendly" choice is Pole&Line (P&L) caught fish, and then a bit down the scale "FAD-free" purse seine caught fish.

Is being said that the volume of pole-and-line fish is not sufficient to meet the demand, I personally believe that the issue is costing. P&L makes to cans more expensive due to the higher cost of fishing per ton of product (a P&L catches in year what a Purse Seiner Catches in couple of months), and reality seems to be that the bulk of the consumers are not ready to pay X times more for can of P&L caught, just to satisfy their ethics. Hence "FAD-free" makes up the bulk of the "eco-friendly" product.

The interesting point is that "FAD-free" fishing is a return to school fishing, which the fleets were pushed away off by the “dolphin free” campaign in the 70's and early 80's. It is ironic that free school fishing is now being viewed by many NGO's as the more responsible and sustainable.

A truly wicked twist in this saga is that I heard now from various processors that with the influx of "FAD-free" fish, the canneries we are encountering a much higher percentage of fish with really “soft texture,” hence the levels of rejections and downgrading has increased.

A friend that is processing MSC certified skipjack (hence FAD-free), told me that for him MSC stands for Mushy Skipjack Canned :-)

This “soft texture” may have something to do with a higher level of enzymatic reactions, and the higher body temperature of fish caught while actively feeding in a school during the day, as opposed to fish caught while lazily circling a FAD in the very early mornings.

Free school fishing happens when tuna is feeding "out there". Skipjack feed predominantly on small pelagics, micro-crustaceans and some mollusks (squid). Stomach contents show a huge variety tho, so is obviously a highly opportunistic feeder. (It would eat its own juveniles as well)

From the fishes in the Skipjack diet, Scombers and Thyrsitops are quite represented, and both have high enzymatic contents in the stomach, that associated with the high level of enzymes in the stomach of Skipjacks while feeding (which is when are capturing them) is known to be associated with mush and soft meat.

And this is not just on tuna; we hated it when we were doing trawling for Hake and Hoki in the South Atlantic if the fish was feeding on sardines or anchoveta for the same reason, fish became a mush in no time

So, if the level of rejections has increased which means that the fish is sent to the fishmeal factory. Hence, more fish needs to be caught as to maintain production, (which is usually demand driven by contracts), so the whole situation it is going against one of its initial aims:  catching less fish.

I think that if you had FAD closures for longer or 2 or 3 times a year, then it could achieve a balance... With an estimated 80000 to 120000 FADs deployed, there is no "magic bullet" solution for this... or for anything thing else in life actually :-)

Good harvest controls news from IOTC

The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) adopted harvest control rules for skipjack tuna on 26 May at its annual meeting in La Reunion, a decision jointly lauded by some industry groups and many environmental organizations. The proposal was led by the Maldives, with the support of Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania and Mozambique.

Fish Market in Male, Maldives

The new rules include the identification of target levels of fishing to keep skipjack tuna populations from falling below dangerously low levels. They also call for a reduction of the use of fish-aggregating devices, ban the use of aerial vehicles, including drones, to find tuna schools and prohibit the use of lights at night to attract tuna. This decision is the culmination of months of meetings and collaboration among numerous organisations including fishers, industry groups and retailers.

And why is important for the Pacific? Because the DWFN there and those in the WCPFC are almost the same (people and countries). The WCPFC has so far only adopted a work plan for the development of harvest strategies but not much more than that (wrote about it here). We have now a concrete example of a CMM (Conservation and Management Measure) that countries have to follow.

Harvest Control Rules (HCR) are key to a fisheries management mechanism broadly named Harvest Strategies (I wrote about it here).

The proposal for a Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for IO SKJ draws on SC recommendations, including the new guidance on reference points in cases where MSY-based reference points are difficult to estimate. This proposal uses the biomass limit reference point of 20% of the unfished level (BLIM = 0.2B0) and the target biomass reference point of 40% of the unfished level (BTARG = 0.4B0), consistent with the SC advice that reference points based on depletion level should be used for stocks where MSY-based reference points cannot be robustly estimated and with international conventions and current practices followed in other tuna RFMOs.

The proposed HCR has three control parameters that can be tuned to provide better management performance with respect to the Commission’s management objectives and the underlying dynamics of the stock. The values currently proposed for these control parameters should be considered as “reference” values. After consideration of the performance statistics arising from these evaluations, the reference values currently used in this proposal may be replaced with alternative values that the Commission considers more appropriate.

It is important to note that this proposal does not seek to define a permanent HCR for the Indian Ocean skipjack tuna fishery. Rather, it will be necessary to continue work on the development of alternative, potentially better performing, HCRs as more data, improved analysis methodologies, and better scientific understanding of the stock is developed.

While the decision to preemptively create harvest control rules for skipjack before any possible population collapse could occur was lauded, a lot of people are frustrated by the lack of a similar agreement on yellowfin tuna, which (as in the Pacific) is in a worst state and in need of better management.

How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy

Many times when asked about fisheries in the Pacific, I always quickly clarify that whatever little I know is all in the operational and technical side, wich is not the "upper" framework in which the region's fisheries are contextualized. To understand that frame you have to understand the region's diplomacy and geopolitics, and one of the people in the world that understand that at its best is Transform Aqorau, the ex PNA boss.

He wrote a chapter "How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy" in a much larger book called "The New Pacific Diplomacy" (published by the Australia National University Press) that brings together a range of analyses and perspectives on these dramatic new developments in Pacific diplomacy at sub-regional, regional and global levels, and in the key sectors of global negotiation for Pacific states – fisheries, climate change, decolonisation, and trade.

Transform's chapter, and the book in general, are fundamental reading if one aim to understand better not only the global context in wich fisheries operates and the "place" it has among all the other sectors.

I just quote the start and the end of the chapter as the set a reality that many critics don't see:

The geopolitical underpinnings of the region’s tuna management provide an interesting backdrop to this analysis. All of the world’s major trading states are involved in this fishery — Japan, Korea, the United States, the EU, and China. Japan has the longest presence in the region’s tuna fishery. More recently, China has become a major force in the longline fishery. The region’s tuna resources have become a key focal point for the prosecution of the strategic geopolitical interests of these powers. Access to the region’s tuna resources allows them a physical presence over a large geographic area of the Pacific, from which they can pursue their strategic interests.

I don't think that any other region in the world has such a power asymmetry in between resources owners and resources users.  Tuna fisheries are not just fish to eat and money to be made... they are a geopolitical asset. This explains (to me at least) why subsidies are poured into maintaining a fishery that otherwise would be operated at much lower pressure levels.

He concludes:

The complexity of the dynamics in fisheries and the relationships between the Pacific Island states and their external partners is creating new challenges to the way these issues are addressed. The diplomacy of the past, the ‘Pacific Way’, and doing things by consensus is not going to work because of the complexities of the issues that the Pacific Island states now confront. These challenges raise questions about the efficacy of existing regional architectures, the role of nation states, and the need to explore models of integration that can best deliver outcomes for the various fisheries. The PNA arrangements, in which measures are legally binding and where a common currency is shared amongst VDS membership, might be a model that could be considered by other Pacific Island states. It is imperfect, but it has strengthened the negotiation hands of its members.

I have a great appreciation for the work has done at the helm of PNA, but more importantly (at least in my world view) for him personally as a very humble and calm man, I have known him for years now and learned a lot listening to him... and now reading him too!

Providing Decent Employment for Pacific Fishers

The labour rules around fishing have been in the media a lot. The vessels owners from the DWFN in the aim to maximize profits are employing people from the most desperate backgrounds and nations to pay them less every year. And this is for me the real “race to bottom” in fishing.

Welcome to a Taiwanese Longliner

It used to be a good job that was open to pretty much anyone from any background, race and social strata… just do your job right and you'll be ok. But that reality is long gone. The job paid good enough money as long as you were ready to put the effort. It was great for a young guy to make a career, or educate himself, or start a business, or support his family or just make cash to get wasted! But that reality is long gone. I don't believe that a young guy that starts fishing today could make enough money to pay for a place to live and his university studies like I was lucky to do.

I think that is very sad. Working on a fishing boat is a worthwhile experience, fishing still is one of the few apprenticeship structures that still survive. You learn from your elders, you work as a team in a not very forgiving environment… your life depends on the guy next to you and his life depends on yours. Whatever much or little I achieved so far asperson and as professional, is mostly based on knowledge I learned or strengthened by working in fishing.

Years ago I fished in the Ocean Breeze (a NZ flagged purse seiner owned by Simunovich Fisheries) with Pedro Souza a 6th generation tuna fisherman from the Madeira Islands of the Atlantic coast of Portugal. His formal education was very limited, but he had the an immense accumulative knowledge of tuna fisheries. Every sunset he would gaze the horizon and tell me what fishing would be like the next day, and he was always right.

He would see in the horizon 'signs" that for him were big as buildings, but I barely distinguish them. Needless to say, I learned a lot from him, but most of his knowledge would go with him to his grave. None of his 3 kids continued with fishing, is just not attractive enough. Money is no good, long time away from home, hard physical work... most young people in developed countries have other alternatives.  Hence going at sea is not attractive anymore except for those from really desperate backgrounds and countries that will be happy with very little, and even so they get abused.

Pedro Souza 2nd from the right, next to me Apolino Marques from Peru, the other 2 are the Gomez brothers also from Madeira. Simunovich Fisheries was a great company to work for, I have a life long respect and gratitude to them.

My colleagues at FFA worked with ILO to tackle the issue a fair labour practices in the Pacific fisheries. At least in the Pacific we are trying to make sure that Pacific Islanders get a fair share of what is after all their fish. So I was really pleased when this publication was released today. Besides the fact that they use many of my pictures.

I quote its contents:

Fishing is critical both to survival and subsistence of many Pacific Islanders, as well as long-term prosperity in the region.

Although the vast Pacific Ocean creates economic challenges for Pacific island countries – which are often small and isolated from large markets - the size and natural wealth of this ocean also contains extraordinary natural resources of fish, particularly tuna.

The Pacific Islands domestic tuna sector adds around US$446 million to the combined GDP of the region per annum, and fishing contributes to more than 10% to GDP in countries such as Tuvalu, Federate States of Micronesia and Kiribati.1

Although the Pacific region reaps important economic benefits from licensing fees for vessels catching fish in their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) – which are home to the world’s largest tuna fishery – there are still untapped opportunities to further benefit from this valuable resource.

More than 60% of the tuna caught from Pacific Island EEZs is harvested by foreign vessels and more than 85% is taken out of the region for processing, highlighting considerable scope to develop domestic industry. Pacific Islanders could not only benefit through domestic processing, but also increased employment on fishing vessels, which currently employ relatively few workers from the region.

Skipper of a P&L vessel from NFD in the Solomon Islands, with well paid 100% local crew it was one of the happiest vessels I ever worked. Everyone had training and reasonable time at home.  Unfortunately companies like NFD are the exception and not the norm

Increasing employment in the fishing sector is a key goal…

In 2015, the Forum Fisheries Agency developed a Regional Roadmap for Sustainable Pacific Fisheries, approved by the Pacific Island leaders, which sets the direction for future management of this industry. The Roadmap identifies seven clear goals for oceanic and coastal fisheries which member states have committed to achieve over the next ten years. Among them is the important goal of creating 18,000 new jobs in the tuna industry within the next decade – which would include employment in tuna processing, vessel crew, observers and fisheries management staff.

Current figures indicate that there are around 18,000 jobs currently held by Pacific Islanders in the sector, requiring a doubling of jobs to meet the goal.

… but cannot come at the expense of unsafe, exploitative conditions

While high unemployment figures in many parts of the Pacific certainly suggest a need for greater opportunities in the fishing sector, it is important above else to ensure that these jobs are decent and safe.

Fishers commonly have conditions of work that are vastly different from those experienced by workers in other sectors. The fatality rate of fishers is typically several times higher than for other workers. Fishing is hazardous even compared with such occupations as fire-fighting and mining. Being out at sea often means being away from professional medical care, which can be particularly dangerous in the case of serious accidents.

Many fishers live as well as work in their vessels, in conditions that can be cramped and congested. There may be long periods away from home and very long working hours. Access to adequate food and drinking water – as well as to recreational facilities when fishers are off-duty – can be an issue. Fatigue, linked to long hours, has been identified as a serious problem.

There are other features that make the fishing sector different. For example, fishers are often paid on the basis of a share of the value of fish caught, in whole or in part, by the vessel (rather than receiving a fixed wage). Fishers may not be employees in the conventional sense, for a great number are owner-operators or considered to be self-employed.

All this means that the sorts of procedures and safeguards which may be in place for workers working in shore-based occupations and industries may not be appropriate or effective, thus contributing to a “decent work deficit” for fishers.

The ILO Convention on Work in Fishing (C188) was adopted in 2007 with overwhelming support from governments, workers’ and employers’ organizations around the world. It covers a broad range of issues particular to the fishing industry, including minimum age for work, minimum standards for work agreements, rest periods, standards for living conditions and food on board, occupational safety and health and basic medical care (see on Key Provisions of C188).

It is important to ensure that Pacific Island countries have a strong institutional and legislative framework, and an effective training regime to prepare and support fishers, to ensure that these workers can be safe and make a decent living through which they can support themselves and their families.

Ensuring good standards of work isn’t just good for workers, but also for business

The fisheries sector has been connected with slave labour and bondage in some parts of the world. The United States Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report has noted evidence of trafficking in this sector in parts of Asia, as well as in some Pacific Island countries.

This is a terrible risk for the fishers concerned, but also has consequences for the marketing of seafood products from the countries which are thought to be connected with such exploitation. Not only may consumers refuse to buy brands that are associated with abuse of workers, but large markets such as the EU may boycott exports from a country that is given a ‘red card’ under its illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) regulation.3

Thus, creating an environment where fishers’ rights are protected isn’t just good for human rights. It’s also smart for maintaining good brand reputation and increasing exports.

Challenges exist to creating decent work

Employment conditions can vary significantly between different vessels and types of vessels. Ensuring good working conditions can be particularly challenging in the longline fisheries where very cheap labour is readily available and living and working conditions can be sub-standard.

However, establishing more rigorous and standardised fishers’ work agreements, or minimum elements of such contracts, is possible, and can be an effective strategy to protect fishers.

The ILO’s Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188), and the accompanying Work in Fishing Recommendation, 2007 (No. 199) set important standards for safe and decent employment on fishing vessels (see on Key Provisions of C188 below).

Another important priority is to ensure that Pacific Island workers are properly trained and more likely to be recruited by companies operating in the region.

… But there are ways to progress forward

Some of the key priorities going forward are:

1. Establishing regionally agreed minimum standards, consistent with international standards, to ensure that countries in the Pacific are not played off against each other in a race ‘to the bottom’.
2. Developing a harmonized approach to intervention by port states with regard to labour matters on foreign flagged fishing vessels visiting their ports (see Box on ‘Understanding Key Terms’), including what to do in serious cases such as forced labour and trafficking. This would minimize negative consequences on the development of the port states’ seafood processing sectors.
3. Supporting recognition of qualifications and employment pathways. The vast majority of Pacific Island vessel crew are serving in relatively lower-level roles with limited opportunity for promotion, including to role of captains, fishing masters and chief engineers. It is important for training to be recognized not only among Pacific Island countries but by other flag States fishing the Pacific.
4. Expanding domestic processing capabilities. While recognising that not all States have the opportunity to expand or develop domestic processing opportunities, this sector has seen the greatest increases in employment over the past 10 years, specifically in Papua New Guinea but also in the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Republic of Marshall Islands and Kiribati. In particular, the sector employs a large number of women, which can be good for increasing gender parity, but should also make States consider the need for personal safety standards and child care provision. Opportunities can be further enhanced through ensuring that countries have a conducive climate for investment, well-developed career pathways and associated training and priority systems to link fisheries access to enhanced domestic investment and associated processing. Several countries already provide preferential access to locally based fleets that supply processing plants, and may have scope to require more of this fish to be landed for processing. Members can also consider requiring minimum landings by foreign access vessels. The region needs to work collaboratively on innovative and enforceable options creating decent jobs in this sector, with the support of organizations such as the FFA and the ILO.

Understanding Key Terms

What is a flag state?

A flag state in relation to a fishing vessel, is the State under whose laws the fishing vessel is registered or licensed. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Article 94, provides, among other things, that “every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag”. This includes fishing vessels. Convention No. 188 sets out that a State “shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control over vessels that fly its flag by establishing a system for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Convention…”

What is a port state?

Port states are those in whose ports foreign fishing vessels may stop. Port states which ratify C.188 may inspect the conditions of such foreign fishing vessels (‘exercising port state control’) for compliance with the Convention and may take action when conditions on board are found to present a hazard to the safety and health of the crew.

Key provisions of C188

The Convention on Work in Fishing addresses issues essential to ensuring decent work on fishing vessels. In particular, the Convention:

• Establishes the responsibilities of fishing vessel owners and skippers for the safety of fishers on board and for the safety of the vessels (Article 8);
• Sets a minimum age for work on board fishing boats and requires special protection for young fishers (Article 9);
• Requires fishers to undergo periodic examinations of their medical fitness for work on fishing vessels (Articles 10-12);
• Requires that fishing vessels are sufficiently and efficiently manned (crewed), are under the control of a competent skipper, and that the fishers on board are provided sufficient rest periods (Articles 13-14);
• Requires fishing vessels to have a crew list and fishers to have the protection of a signed work agreement, setting out the terms of the work they are performing (Articles 15-20, and Annex II);
• Entitles fishers to be repatriated when their agreements expire – and for other reasons, and prohibits making fishers pay to obtain their jobs, or blacklisting them (Articles 21-22);
• Addresses how fishers are paid and that they shall have the means to send money home to their families at no cost (Article 23-24);
• Sets standards for living accommodation and food on board (Articles 25-28, and Annex III);
• Establishes requirements for occupational safety and health, as well as a basic level of medical care on fishing vessels; (Articles 31-33);
• Ensures that fishers benefit from social security protection no less favourable than that provided to other workers in their country; and, at a minimum, provides protection in cases of their work- related sickness, injury or death (Articles 34-39).

The Stable Structure of Ocean Ecosystems

While most of what I write is about is around present-day fisheries, this paper tickled my Marine Biologist's interest. It has a very interesting illustration and conclusion.

The paper by Elizabeth Sibert and colleagues was published here, but I got the info from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography news. These researchers identify three periods of open ocean community structure driven by competition from other organisms, but not climate change.

They review 85 million years of fish fossil records (microscopic fossil fish teeth and mineralized shark scales known as denticles preserved in sediments on the seafloor) and found that the basic structure of the ocean ecosystem – the ratio of fish compared to elasmobranchs such as sharks, skates, and rays – has remained stable for periods of tens of millions of years, despite extreme environmental changes caused by climate shifts of the past.

The team found that there have been two major events in which the make-up of ocean life changed substantially. One of those events was the Cretaceous/Palaeogene mass extinction 66 million years ago to which scientists attribute the disappearance of dinosaurs. Sibert and colleagues had earlier found that the abundance and diversity of fishes exploded once many of their main predators went extinct. Shark abundance, however, neither rose nor fell at the extinction.

For the next 45 million years, the ratio of sharks and fishes remained stable, while absolute abundances of both groups rose and fell in concert alongside changes in global climate, suggesting that the structure of the ecosystem was resilient to climate change.

Another transition 20 million years ago saw a sharp drop-off in the number of sharks in the world’s oceans, alongside a dramatic increase in variability of fish abundance, suggesting that sharks suddenly spent considerably less time in the open ocean ecosystem. The researchers conclude that what triggered changes in the community structure has to do primarily with how competition with other marine organisms – including plankton, invertebrates, seabirds, and marine mammals – influenced the balance of life in the oceans.

“It is really striking that the community structure is so stable during each of these long intervals,” said Sibert. “It shows that it takes a major disaster or evolutionary regime shift to change fundamentally how the consumers in the ocean interact.”

The researchers concluded that drastic swings in global climate, including periods of intense warming analogous to what Earth is experiencing at present, did little to alter the long-term structure of the marine vertebrate community. Sibert said those episodes from prehistory, though, do not serve as a guide for potential changes in marine ecosystem structure today, since the rate of today’s modern global climate change is much faster than anything experienced in the past, and the impact of human interactions with the oceans has no precedent.

Sibert’s co-author, Scripps paleobiologist Richard Norris, said that during the transition from “Cretaceous” oceans to “Paleogene” oceans 66 million years ago saw the disappearance of highly abundant invertebrate organisms called ammonites. Their mass extinction released fishes from predation and allowed them to explode in abundance in the warm greenhouse world of the Paleogene. Later, in the Modern ocean system, the evolutionary diversification of marine mammals, seabirds and large pelagic fish that compete with sharks, alongside the dramatic increase in variability of fish production, may have driven shark abundance down in the open ocean.

EU Market Access for Fishery and Aquaculture Products

Since 2007 different international organizations have contracted me to write a Seafood EU Market Access conditions type guide/manual aimed to explain in "an easy way" what is needed to export to the EU, and it has never been an easy task.

Exporting seafood to the EU is not an obligation, and it requires an equal amount of effort by the government authorities and the private sector of the exporting countries. Compliance and understanding of the required systems of official assurances are paramount to access the EU market.

In 2007 ITC (International Trade Centre, a joint agency of the WTO and the UN) published the 2 first editions under the name of "How to export seafood to the EU", then SIPPO in 2011 requested an updated version that included a guide to the main Ecolabels called "EU Market Access (Health and IUU)  & Eco-labelling for Fishery and Aquaculture Products" and here in Spanish. Then again in early 2015 new written version was published (but without Ecolabels section) in English and Spanish but going much deeper into the EU IUU Catch Certification and displaying the very basics of the Certification of Origin.

This time, I'm going as a "solo publisher" with this updated edition of my EU Market Access for Fishery and Aquaculture Products version 2016.

This book (60 pages) is a guideline to the regulatory requirements for exporting seafood products to the European Union. It describes the EU system of official assurances, the main regulations, requirements for the Competent Authorities and operators along the value chain with regards to health and “non-IUU” Catch Certification.

Each chapter has a “basics” section at the opening, and then further subsections develop some of the most important topics related to the subject.

Import rules for fish and fisheries products are harmonized, meaning that the same rules apply in all EU countries. For non-EU countries, the European Commission is the negotiating partner that defines import conditions and certification requirements.

The two most important regulations affecting fish and fishery products seek, among other objectives, to protect final consumers’ health and close EU markets from products originated from Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities. Under these regulations all the fishing products have to be captured, manipulated, elaborated, transported and delivered following standards that are established by European legislators, taking into account European realities and addressed to European citizens.

While they are two “technical” regulatory sets (Health and IUU) and a trade one (Origin) that the exporting country needs to comply with, the most complex requirements are with health, so it is fair to say that the “main” authorisation requirement is the one in place for health certification.

The EU sees aquaculture products from a “farming” perspective, so their importation runs under a “parallel system” as the value chain from the farms to the processors has to comply with the same requirements for that of wild caught fish. But on top of that, they need to comply with an “extra” control system in the form of an annual control plan run by the Competent Authority (CA) on heavy metals, contaminants, residues of pesticides and veterinary drugs.

This publication should be used as an initial reading to understand the very basics. It is strongly recommended that you follow up with all the original references available in the last chapter with the links to download all the regualtions and resources.

Thailand signs the Port State Measures Agreement

Thailand, IUU fishing, the labor conditions on some of their vessels are a lot on the news at the moment (and I'm in Thailand at the moment). They have been hit (justifiably) from a lot of angles: EU IUU yellow cards, slave labor exposes, Greenpeace campaigns, and the lot.

On the way to a Bangkok party?

I'm not going to even try to dissect the whole tangled mess. But yes... Thailand has not been particularly clean, but then nor they have been push to be clean by the international community, nor the clients. They have a very efficient and effective production system, they have been good on the food safety side, but as it comes out now their fisheries controls have been quite useless.

Not surprisingly they are running every where now trying to plug holes, good on them... however there is always a risk to choke when you re trying to swallow to much. The signing of the FAO PSMA is however very significant, and if they manage to implement it, it could turn the tide a bit!

I'll quote from my friend Pramod's blog, as he is much better writer than I'm and hit the sport on the situation

Thailand is a major player in global seafood trade and processing of fishery products. Among the major fish producer countries Thailand was ranked 14 in 2012 with capture fisheries landings of more than 1.6 million tonnes. However, Thailand exhibits its dominance as the third largest exporter of seafood in the world (8.1% of the global seafood exports valued at 8079 million US$ in 2012) after China and Norway.

With bulk of the production dependent on imported raw material from other countries ports play a major role in entry of products for both legal and illegal origin. Currently, very little is known about the extent of inspections in Thai fishing ports? With a sprawling network of fishing ports spread across Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea, more than 15 ports cater large fishing vessels while 12 smaller ports cater imports for smaller vessels from Malaysia, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Vessels wishing entry are required to inform authorities at least 48 hours in advance and both Thai port authorities and the Department of Fisheries have the authority to deny entry for foreign vessels. In most cases, fishing boats are allowed to land.

In order to strengthen catch inspections Thailand is also developed an electronic system for the traceability of fish and fishery products (under the guidance of my friend Gilles Hosch) . Under the new Royal Ordinance on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) that came into effect from November last year more intense inspections are required to deny entry to illegal vessels and strengthen inspections at ports (However is not working yet)

Thai has some massive Challenges:

• Imports of huge volumes of frozen and processed seafood from foreign countries poses challenges for inspectors at ports. More than 50% of the imports comprised of tuna, followed by frozen fish (38%), cephalopods (6%) and shrimps, etc.
• Multiple agencies are involved in fisheries inspections at ports before cargo is cleared by customs.
• There is very little information on current state of inspections at Thai ports (EU – Yellow card has led to progress on several fronts in both administration and legal contexts).
• There are significant landings of fish and seafood products of Thai origin in fishing docks spread along both coasts.
• Domestic fishing fleet of more than 50,000 trawlers. VMS transponders have already been installed on 2100 trawlers above 60 gross tonnes.
• There is currently no data on number of foreign flagged reefers and fishing vessels visiting Thai ports and what percentage is inspected each year (and here is the key issue around tuna)

For the sake of world fisheries, I hope they get the act together and are able to deliver. While we are trying to choke IUU from the capture side, countries are processing the IUU fish that still being fished, and many fingers point here.

World Tuna Forum In Bangkok - 2016

As every two years, in late May the tuna commercialisation world meets in Bangkok. Is no doubt the biggest event of its kind and a total talk fest. I'm again being invited to talk about the developments in fisheries controls we are doing in the Pacific, and this year I focused on the eCDS initiative.

I'm always ambivalent about my presence here. Almost every speaker mentions sustainability, and fight against IUU and the whole lot. But then, the DWFN keep adding capacity, finding gaps in the system, employing people from the most desperate backgrounds and nations to pay them less every year, while milking to the max the subsidies cow.

On the other side, in this world if you are not seated at the table, you are dinner. So I learn to accept that these are the rules of the game, and here is a description of the players.

I have to admit that I appreciate INFOFISH invitations to be a speaker at all their Tuna events while my message is technical, I'm very forwards with the disparity in between what I hear in this meetings and what I see in the Pacific.

Pacific Island Developing States have, in my opinion, invested proportionately much more than the DWFN in MCS and Fisheries Information Management Systems. Particularly in comparison with the nations with the highest numbers of fishing vessels in the region, such as China, Taiwan and Korea. These nations have virtually not supported any Authorities strengthening programmes, nor seem to put much effort into their obligations to control they own vessels IUU fishing, as specified by various international treaties.

This year my presentation finished with one of my usual questions:

How fair is expecting the Fisheries Authorities of small developing coastal and port states, to take on the burden of controlling the vessels of rich Distant Waters Fishing Nations that neglect their obligations, while subsidizing their fleet with amounts that far exceed the global estimates of IUU fishing? 

Purse seine bycatch utilisation in Pacific Island transhipment ports

Every two months the FFA Trade and Industry News* gets published and is always good reading (if you are into Tuna news of course!). This edition has one article that I will reproduce, since is a topic I'm quite interested, does not really gets much attention, and is related to "leakage" an effect of transhipping I wrote about before.

The utilization of purse seine bycatch that is unloaded during transshipment in Pacific Island country ports is a relatively small, but important aspect of transshipment that provides benefits to PICs. The ports of Majuro, Tarawa, Pohnpei, Rabaul and Honiara have hosted the largest volumes of transshipment activity in the WCPO, roughly one million tonnes in total in recent years**.

The utilization of purse seine bycatch (rainbow runner, oceanic triggerfish and others), as well as that of small target tunas, including those damaged during fishing or freezing operations, can provide various benefits to Pacific Island locations where transshipment takes place.

Activities relating to utilization of these segments of the purse seine catch are usually unrecorded and are for the most part unregulated. Recent estimates have put the total annual volume of bycatch and undersized or damaged target tunas that are unloaded for local consumption in the five major transshipment ports at between 1,000 to 1,500 tonnes***.

Cash or barter transactions with vessel captains, crews, middlemen and others creates a “grey economy” that can provide seasonal employment and income to the participants, as well as an additional protein source for consumers. On the negative side, unregulated transfer of bycatch from fishing vessels may have some detrimental social impacts relating to women trading sex for fish, as well as food safety issues.

The various means of unloading, distributing, marketing and otherwise disposing of this unwanted (by the vessel) catch depends on a variety of factors, some of which are unique to the port concerned. In Majuro for example, the local preference for reef fish means that brine frozen bycatch and unwanted tunas have a very limited local market. By comparison, the estimated 600+ tons unloaded annually in Solomon Islands finds a ready market in an urban population that includes a large number of low wage earners and a large central market in close proximity to transshipping activities in Honiara. In Rabaul and Pohnpei the apparent suppression of or lack of interest in regularized marketing has resulted in back-door ‘leakage’ that nevertheless finds its way to local consumers by a variety of means. One of the main concerns in Tarawa has been competition with local fishermen that has been addressed in the past by allowing only one marketer of unloaded bycatch and designating certain areas on the atoll that are off-limits to its marketing.

There are several hurdles to improving the benefits to PICs from bycatch and small tuna unloaded in transshipment ports, not the least of which is a lack of data on these activities at almost every level. In spite of most transshipment ports being in or near urban areas, these locations are small on even a regional scale and are relatively isolated from potential markets for value-added products. The loining plant in Majuro for example identified high freight costs to world markets for its fish meal as one of the major factors that make the product only marginally profitable.

Currently, the further development of reliable supply chains to local markets are also hindered by several factors, including the impacts of FAD bans which can lower bycatch volumes and changing fishing conditions that can alter transshipping patterns amongst the ports concerned. At least one organization, ISSF, has undertaken studies on a global basis to address some of these issues and has funded one pilot project in the region to help identify means by which benefits to PICs can be increased****.

It is clear, however, that ‘one size will not fit all’ situations and this needs to be kept in mind when regulatory or other controls on unloaded bycatch are considered.

* Prepared for the FFA Fisheries Development Division by Dr Liam Campling, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, Dr Elizabeth Havice, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Mike McCoy, independent consultant, all Consultant Fisheries Trade and Market Intelligence Analysts, Fisheries Development Division, FFA.

** Unpublished return port data; author’s own analysis

*** A. Lewis, pers. comm.; author’s own analysis

**** A. Lewis, Exploration of Market Viability for the Full Catch Retention of Non-Tuna Species in Purse Seine Fisheries: Interim Report, ISSF Technical Report 2014-12, ISSF, December 2014. Available at: http://www. iss-foundation.org