From my personal position (as the absolute “no one I am), private certifications of any sort (such as quality/seafood safety, ecolabels and now labour ones), are unethical and colonial. Their existence is based on fostering the perception that fishers and government institutions (particularly those of developing countries) cannot be trusted with what they do. So they need an external, more "trustable" verification (by an overwhelming number of certification bodies based in developed countries, mostly former colonisers themselves). You know… we just to make sure it is true and "those people" are not doing their usual tricks.... and of course, they have to pay for the certification cost, so the rich people can feel reassured about the food they eat... (the salt in the injury is that seafood has to be imported since the rich people totally destroy their own fisheries)
In any case, when this reaches the RFMO level…. It really ruffles me… since this is one of the few places where the poor and small sit at the same table that the rich and developed.
So to explain the technical insight of what went on, I will use and quote the good work of my friends at the latest FFA Trade and Industry News.
A harvest strategy (also referred to as a management procedure (MP)) is a framework that specifies pre-determined management actions for a fishery or stock necessary to achieve agreed management objectives and respond to changes in stock status. Harvest strategies represent best practice in fisheries management as decisions relating to fisheries or stocks are more consistent, predictable and transparent.
FFA members had two harvest strategy-related proposals to WCPFC19 for potential adoption. The first is a draft Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) for an interim management procedure for skipjack tuna in the WCPO. The MP’s objective is to ensure that the spawning biomass depletion ratio of skipjack tuna is maintained on average in the long-term at around the target reference point (TRP) (50% of unfished spawning biomass) and above the limit reference point (LRP) (20% unfished spawning biomass), with no greater than 20% risk of the LRP being breached. The MP would be applied in a repeating three-year cycle, with the first two cycles treated as a trial; it covers the catch and effort of purse seine, pole-and-line and other commercial fisheries in EEZs and high seas.
In recent years, WCPFC members have demonstrated a general willingness to progress harvest strategy development and adoption for key stocks. However, progress has been slow given the complexity of harvest strategy development and the capacity limitations of some members; the suspension of in-person meetings due to COVID-19 travel restrictions has also hampered progress. According to FFA members, “Not only will the adoption of this MP take better account of uncertainty, including the uncertainties of related to climate change, it will also be an important step in ensuring the effective management and sustainable use of the stock, and meeting the interests global markets in sourcing sustainable tuna products.”
This, of course, has to be seen in the light that the stocks are well managed and stable thanks to the combined action of the FFA membership, the PNA VDS and SPC’s State of the art science and data collection arrangements, so there was no full urgency…(I wish they had the same sense of urgency and were zealots for the reform of HS transhipment or the general mess that is Longline)
The proposed CMM was adopted and, as such, allowed the required scoring for MSC certifications on target tuna stocks (Principle 1), of their client fisheries that required them to be able to demonstrate that there is an available harvest strategy for a key tuna stock. It will also help to inform the development of management procedures for the remaining key tuna stocks.
FFA members also proposed to amend CMM 2014-06 - Establishing a Harvest Strategy for Key Fisheries and Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean to include a new paragraph that explicitly states that ….the Commission shall adopt harvest control rules (HCRs) for skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and South Pacific albacore tunas before the stocks decline below levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY)”. This amendment stems from a condition in the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) fisheries certification standard (MSC SA2.5.3b) that “an agreement or framework is in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”.
Which is needed because recently, the Independent Adjudicator (IA) assigned to an objection to PNA’s scope extension to add FADs (see below) and bigeye to its MSC-certified skipjack and yellowfin free-school purse seine fishery ruled that this condition has not been met by WCPFC. Hence, based on the IA’s decision, PNA’s bigeye scope extension was unsuccessful. While MSC and the IA maintain that there is no system of ‘precedent’ in the MSC objection process, the IA’s decision may be treated as ‘new information by MSC conformity assessment bodies (CABs), potentially impacting future assessments and surveillance audits. Further, outcomes of MSC assessments for target stock requirements (Principle 1) are harmonised across different fisheries.
Currently, in the WCPO, there are 33 MSC-certified fisheries from 18 different fishing nations, accounting for 75% of tuna caught in the WCPO. Hence, FFA members’ proposed amendment to CMM 2014- 06 is likely to be widely supported as it will benefit all WCPFC members with MSC-certified tuna fisheries in the WCPO.
So, of course, each of these 33 fisheries is a revenue source to MSC, the CABs and the lobby organisations that make a living of it. The fishery in the WCPO is regulated in the same way by the WCPFC, is fished by all under the same management, gears, MCS framework, observers, etc., is all the same… and is 75% certified… so the other 25% is not because they don't pay… not because they do something radically different.
So yeah… I just see hypocrisy all around and, to an extent, neocolonial blackmail… Tuna would not collapse next year if the WCPFC didn’t agree this year to a heavily politicked issue needing more consensus.
Pointing fingers at FFA, PNA & SPC that, have been working on this for a long time ain’t fair. I find it disheartening that all this process was used to try to erode the strength of Pacific Islands cooperation and to maintain the money flow of the artificial construct that private certifications are, more than to manage better a stock that is well managed.
I personally think the “scaremongering” was way more about their fear of losing money and their relevance in a world that is starting to see beyond their business model rather than the long-term SKJ sustainability and is actually quite colonial.
But anyway… wanted to make sure that I explained the insight into the situation. As for the rest of us, in the wharfs, offices, boarding and fishing boats, computers with models, sampling and monitors, etc, ... life just continues.
FADs were a big issue a few years ago when it was ruled that they had to stop with compartmentalisation practice… which they gave them self 3 years to do… but this… had to be NOW!