The objective of this Convention that established WCPFC is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. and that is what they endeavour to do.
So it was very interesting for me to be in the plenary this last week in the Cook Islands. Sadly, there was not much advance in the 3 areas I work the most; MCS for LL had some lukewarm advances but nothing to rave about, the High Seas Transhipment CMM (I’m writing a blog after this exclusively on the mess that HS Longline is) and the rollover into its 4th year of discussion of the fishers' labour CMM.
RFMOs are complex beasts, each with its own complications and culture. If they didn’t exist, we would have to invent them.
I’m not arguing that RFMOS are a panacea to all fisheries issues, far from that …. but they are MUCH better than nothing! And there has been quite a lot of experience gained over the decades in designing them better and research on operating them with lessons learned.
The key advantage that an RFMO will immediately bring is that there would be a table where people will talk and agree to comply (at least on paper with rules). Some key tools relate to their fundamental workings: a science committee that assesses the stock status and agrees to conservation and management measures, a technical and compliance committee that set up the basis of a vessel registry, a VMS, a compliance monitoring schemes, an IUU list and so on...
They were designed with the common good in mind; we all work together to fulfil the objective of ensuring, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks.
So in principle, they are supposed to work as an antidote of what Hardin called the tragedy of commons… according to this concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a fishery, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up wrecking its value.
So far, so good… yet I see in the way they work that the tragedy of commons still applies, but on a more nuanced level, not as “individuals” but as those representing the member states.
I guess that as part of human and institutional nature when it comes to the geopolitics of fisheries, it does not seem a rational choice to exercise voluntary restraint when acting on behalf of a country– if they did, the other countries would merely take advantage – even if the predictable result is a tragedy for all… so a delicate game is played.
And of course, this is not any sort of moral issue by the people in the room; I know their hearts and intentions are in the right place, yet they have a job to do and a line to hold.
I noticed the situation during the meeting, but with different dynamics between the Pacific Island countries and the DWFN…
Fisheries in this region are, after all, of the Pics. My Nauruan Friend Monte Depaune said something to me many years ago that was illuminating: “for non-Pacific Islands and Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) the issue of tuna sustainability is one of long-term financial benefit. However, for coastal States PICs it is also an identity and food security issue, one that DWFNs have less trouble with, as they can leave… but PICs cannot”.
So the level of cohesion, unity and, to an extent, “altruism” inside the Pacific Islands block is quite high, yet even so, the 2 subgroups in between FFA (PNA and the newest South Pacific Group - SPG) have sometimes very different interest… albeit not always as different as in-between PICs and DWFN.
Yet the point I’m making is that the common interest of the RFMO is to close the door to newcomers (less pie to share for everyone) and then to try to concede the less possible to the common good by defending their sometimes minimal (in comparison to the whole value of the fishery) interest to the extent of wreaking the common good.
They do this either by suggesting non-committal language, applying for exemptions and footnotes, or diluting language to the point of reading more like policy than conservation and management measures (CMMs).
And inside these setups, countries play some 3D chess, where all sorts of horse-trading go in and shrug negotiation strategies, which are unique to watch and be part.
Yet it all feels a bit like we are using a Teetotum (a six-sided die to play "put and take"), the sides of the die are- "Put one", "Take one", "Put two", "Take two", "All put" (every player puts in) and "Take all"… where most use “put one” and “take two”.
But as I said in my last post: I can only admire the delegates and the policy advisors of FFA and PNA for their stamina and chess-type strategies to achieve their objectives. This respect and admiration extend to the people in the WCPFC secretariat and the chairs of the working groups… they keep it going and focused after hours of discussions with very different views over the same issue… I finish the day exhausted… I don’t know how they do it… full respect.
The same goes for the science crew of SPC; they get the role of the oracle at short notice, with queries on the potential impacts of new proposals during negotiations.
I have heard many voices talk about the failure of RFMOs, particularly in the high seas… I don’t think is correct. RFMOs are an institution that works inside an intercountry framework based on diplomacy, tradition and geopolitics… so if there is a problem not on the institution itself, but on the bigger picture
In any case, it was great to be there, and I’m very thankful for the elassos learned, yet that work is not my cup of tea. I see my work closer to the fishery itself in operational and research areas.