Back in Peru with the Swiss connection

The work I'm doing here is quite a “odd one out” in comparison with my more common work portfolio.  Is not a job for the European Union, FAO, SPC, GIZ, NZAid or AusAID… this is for the Swiss government, a rather odd player in the fish world...

reality is always better than fiction

Switzerland Global Enterprise (S-GE) (that used to be called OSEC) is a Swiss government organization that carries out its federal mandates of export, import and investment promotion, with «Enabling new business» as its value proposition. 

Under the Import section they have the Switzerland Import Promotion Programme (SIPPO) that aims to facilitate the entry of a range of food and non food products produced by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) from certain countries into the European Union, Switzerland and other EFTA markets, as indirect way of promoting employment via the expansion of these companies markets.

They provide the SMEs chosen with information about product requirements offer matchmaking services and training courses and put them in touch with potential buyers via trade fair participations as well as buying and selling missions over a period of 3 years.

However, to qualify, these SMEs need to comply with a series of very specific requirements in terms of: structure, capabilities, safety/food safety, social responsibility, sustainability and ethical sourcing to join the programme, and them maintain a reporting schedule of advances

My jobs are: 1) to do the selection of the companies that will be accepted in to the program, by evaluating all the prior mentioned aspects and reporting to Zurich my findings, 2) with the help from my friend Raul from Freshfish.co.nz we design SIPPO’s promotional materials for the selected companies, 3) assist the selected companies on technical issues during the Brussels seafood show (the biggest in the world- I wrote about it here), and 4) write and (typeset for pre-press with the help of Vibeke) technical/training manuals in regards seafood safety regulatory requirements, non IUU sourcing and Ecolabels.

Furthermore, my “boss” is an really nice guy, that takes his job seriously but not himself seriously, so the job feels like a road trip with a lot of laughing, great food and good work done.

It is a “refreshing” job, because I don’t deal with any government organization, the assistance is direct to small and medium companies, and I have seen incredible results in really short terms… the type of results they only dream on the more conventional sorts of “international development” work.

For example 3 years ago, I went up to Sechura (really the middle of nowhere) to evaluate a small company that does rearing of scallops in vertical tube nets in a open bay. The company (pompously named Seacorp) belongs to 2 brothers (both surfers) that refined the ideas and concepts behind the process and wanted to do things their own way. I liked that attitude from them and the really open and transparent approach (besides that we belong to the surfers sub-tribe)

initial stage scallops to be grown

The impact of that type of operation is minimal (smaller than a mussel farm in NZ), as the scallops just filter naturally available plankton that grows plentiful in the bay, and (as a difference of the mussels) is much more labour intensive, hence employing much more local people as the scallops require changing positions to different mesh size “tubes” as they grow.

When I went to their “farm” in 2011 they had 7 employees, as shed and few hectares of sea-based production scallop enhancing area, now they have 35 full time employees (plus 50 seasonal), their own ever growing hatchery (hence no impact on natural populations) and the production area expanded to over 200 hectares of maritime concessions of paid local coastal owners and authorities in two different areas.

From the sales from the 1st year in Brussels, they reinvested in sustainable energy and their local crew. All the electricity on the site is provided by wind turbines and solar panels. They only employs people who live locally, and knowledge is willingly shared through training and courses. They also works with young offenders, giving them a chance at a life outside of crime or prison.

Basically a "Feel Good Story" all around, and only in 3 years with no loans, credits, subsidies, nothing just the opportunity to be where the buyers are and a good product with a good story behind

Even the dream trip to surf the Mentawai islands in Indonesia is to be achieved!

And there are other companies with similar stories, so I see results... I see good people getting the outcomes they deserve by doing things right, so what is not to like from this “odd one out” job.

The relative power of unity

In the Tuna world there is always change... but some stuff seem to be always the same

When the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was established by treaty 10 years ago, the Distant Fishing Water Nations (DWFNs) despite its active participation in negotiations leading up to the treaty, were hesitant to sign on at the first opportunity. Despite being part of the negotiations, they wouldn’t back the newly established regional fisheries management organization for the Pacific. Ind fact, many of these nations still not play their part... WCPFC former director Glenn Hurry, recently quit his job, and as i reported earlier, he wasn't pleased with the bigger players.

The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), which has set itself up as a fisheries cartel, established a vessel day scheme for selling fishing days, with the goal of limiting the then-uncontrolled level of purse seine fishing to conserve tuna and increase its value. PNA has certainly been successful in the latter (tuna revenue flowing to the eight member nations has risen from US$60 million annually in 2010 to over US$250 million last year), if not as successful at the former.

Transhipping in port area is getting better

But when PNA started enforcing the vessel day scheme, most distant water fishing nations balked at accepting it. They had been used to sending fisheries teams to island capitals once a year to negotiate license fees, which historically paid just pennies compared to the profits reaped by the fishing countries. These countries were not about to change a style of operation that had fed their fishing industries for two generations. Now, with the exception of the European Union, all distant water fishing nations with purse seiners operating in the region are fishing under the vessel day scheme. Shall we take bets on the EU’s ultimate acquiescence to the vessel day scheme?

Then there are the Americans, who have enjoyed preferential access to PNA waters since the late 1980s, when a U.S. State Department-backed fishing treaty came into play with all Forum Fisheries Agency islands. The treaty ended years of U.S. flagged boats fishing without paying, ignoring rules, and generally giving the U.S. a bad name in the region. When the treaty’s financial package came up for renegotiation several years ago, the U.S. was paying US$21 million annually. The PNA demanded triple this amount. ‘It’s too much,’ said U.S. negotiators. ‘We can’t pay it.’ Over the ensuing years of negotiation the U.S. side finally agreed to pay $63 million a year, a deal that went through in 2013. Now PNA has upped the access ante because it is increasing the fishing day fee from US$6,000 to US$8,000 come January 1. And the U.S. has tentatively agreed to US$87 million a year to secure fishing access for it vessels. ‘Can’t afford it?’ The better question is, ‘do you want to keep fishing?’ And the U.S. government and industry clearly know the answer to this question.

With it now clear that bigeye tuna are being over-fished, the move for greater control of the longline fishing industry is gaining momentum. Since the 3,000 longliners plying the Pacific generally fish on the high seas, they are more difficult to manage than the purse seiners that fish ‘in-zone’. Still, PNA has announced plans to extend a vessel day scheme to longliners to bring it under the control and management of Pacific islands.

As pointed out last week at a fisheries meeting by Phil Roberts, the managing director of global tuna supply company Tri-Marine International, ‘When PNA banned high seas transshipment for purse seiners, there were some grips. But then everyone started doing in-port transshipment.’ In-port transshipment meets dual conservation and economic development goals for Pacific islands: it increased the opportunity for monitoring vessel catches, while offering numerous spinoff economic benefits to Pacific ports. One of the key proposals on the table is to halt longliners trans-shipping on the high seas, which is where virtually all of the distant water fishing fleet currently off-loads its catches of tuna—a system that is problematic for effective fisheries management and producing accurate stock assessments.

The longline industry of Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and China is not helping matters, either. The fact that these four nations have, since the start of Tuna Commission a decade ago, failed to provide operational catch data that is a requirement of membership appears finally to be coming to a head. The 17-member Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) issued a strongly worded statement in August calling for action by these four nations to provide data to reduce gaps in stock assessments. An increasing number of Pacific fisheries officials want the WCPFC to sanction these countries for failure to provide the required data.

History tells us that if island countries stay unified, they can gain control over an industry long dominated by distant water fishing nations. Enforcing ‘best practice’ management rules is the only way to ensure the future viability of tuna stocks not only for Pacific islanders, who depend on this for food security, government services and jobs, but for the rest of the world that is increasingly dependent on tuna fish as a food source. The fact that distant water fishing nations have had to be forced, sometimes kicking and screaming, by the PNA, FFA and the WCPFC  to comply with changes to sustain and stabilize the industry, while sharing the benefit with island nations, simply underlines the point that unity works.

The PNA and FFA have proved over the years that there is power in numbers. It’s an example of success for the region that could easily be applied to other economic areas, including deep-sea mining.

Source: here

Fishing in the South China Sea

Competition over resources is one of the primary drivers of tension between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea. This infographic, prepared by the Sumitro Chair at CSIS, provides data on one key flashpoint between China and Vietnam: fishing.

And highlights the obsene ammount of subsidies provided as well...

The potential for conflict among these two cannot be underestimated. Aggressive law enforcement actions, even military action, are not unheard of in the history of fisheries. The Atlantic Ocean offers some examples. While most would say the Atlantic today is a source of fewer security threats than the Pacific, between the 1950s and 1970s the United Kingdom and Iceland had a series of confrontations in the North Atlantic in the so-called “Cod Wars.” In 1995, Canada arrested the Spanish fishing vessel Estai on the High Seas in the North Atlantic when it was fishing for Greenland Halibut stocks claimed and protected by Canada. This “Turbot War” led to a highly contentious dispute in international law. Furthermore, France has arrested vessels on several occasions that it accused of illegal fishing for Patagonia Toothfish in the South Atlantic.

China’s Distant Water Fishing Fleet and IUU fishing

China has been the world’s largest producer and exporter of fish since the early 2000s, with around half its seafood production being exported to developed countries; China is also the largest consumer of seafood. With depleted domestic fisheries, the Chinese fishing industry (and the government agencies that support them) has looked into aquaculture and distant water fisheries to satisfy domestic and export demand.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS-1994), countries have jurisdiction over resources in the waters within 200 miles off their shores, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). UNCLOS further stipulates that distant water fishing (DWF) fleets can harvest surplus fish in countries that do not have adequate capacity to exploit their fishery resources, in return for compensation to the host country. In theory this allows for more efficient fishing in developing countries that lack capacity and benefits those countries financially and technologically. China ratified this convention in 1996. Although UNCLOS addresses fishing within a state’s EEZ, it largely fails to address the problem of high seas fishing.

The UN created other global instruments such as the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS Relating to Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas to address oversight of marine fisheries. The former outlines principles for conservation and management of certain fish stocks, stipulating the use of the precautionary principle and the best available information to form the basis for management of certain fish stocks. The latter was adopted in 1993 and puts responsibility on the flag state for upholding measures for international conservation and management.

China’s DWF fleet is comparatively young, but it is also the largest in the world. As fish extraction rates from China’s coastal waters dropped dramatically in the 1980s, China created its DWF fleet in 1985 and since then Beijing’s policy has encouraged its development over that of domestic fisheries through preferential tax policies and funding allocations.  This fleet has grown tremendously—to over 2,000 vessels—and is likely to see continued expansion.

A study by the European Parliament estimated that, in the last decade (2000-2011), China’s DWF extracted 4.6 million tons of fish annually, the vast majority of which (3.1 million tons) came from African waters, followed by Asian waters, and smaller amounts from Oceania, Central and South America, and Antarctica. Of the 3.1 million tons extracted from Asian waters, the study shows, 2.5 million tons were IUU. 

Fisheries or Geopolitics?

As domestic pressures in their electorates increases, DWF fishing entities like the EU and Japan are required to make an effort to improve their practices, China may take advantage of the thus decreased fishing effort and compensate with an increase in Chinese fishing.

China does not disclose fishing information regarding the countries with which it has bilateral fisheries access agreements. Thus, in practice, all activities of the Chinese DWF—whether or not they are legal—are not transparent. The EU Parliament report notes that “the activities and catches of the Chinese distant-water fleets are almost completely undocumented and unreported, and often, as we shall see, may actually be illegal, thus spanning the entire gamut of IUU fishing.”

There is evidence suggesting that China over-reports its domestic catch numbers to the FAO because Chinese local government officials are rewarded with promotions for exceeding planned catch numbers. In contrast, China’s distant water catch may be under-reported due to international pressure. Overall, Chinese vessels have been reported in 93 countries and Antarctica, though Chinese sources produce a much lower number; the coastal waters in which Chinese fishers have not been spotted are those of the EU, the United States, and the Caribbean.

One of the major reasons for the increased IUU fishing is increasing global demand, especially increasing domestic demand in China. As Chinese citizens are lifted out of poverty and the middle class continues to grow, demand for meat and fish, both of which are relatively expensive, grows as well. Increased consumption of meat is desirable not only because of its high protein content, but also because of its indication of higher social status. A Rabobank study of China’s seafood industry indicates that as incomes rise the percentage of income spent on terrestrial protein decreases and the percentage spent on aquatic protein increases, because certain species of seafood are particular markers of status.

China’s demand for seafood has tripled since 1990 in per capita terms, but it is not just Chinese demand that is fueling IUU fishing, but demand from Japan and Western countries as well. Most of China’s high-value species and about half the overall catch are exported to the EU, the United States, and Japan, and the other half is brought back to China and sold domestically.

In addition to feeding global demand for fish, expansion of China’s DWF industry is a component of the central government’s goals of asserting the country as a rising power and implementing China’s ocean economic development plan. There is a sense of nationalism associated with this expansion, and also an idea that China deserves their fair share of the global fisheries pie. It is also important to note that China is very much emulating more established DWF nations such as the EU and Japan in the expansion of its own DWF industry.

Although China has been the largest exporter of marine fish products, significant portions of this amount are fish caught by other countries (i.e. a lot of NZ’s hoki), exported to China for processing cheaply under joint ventures and then re-exported out of China.

This importation requires a Certificate of Origin (CO) and a Health Certificate (HC) (and a Catch Certificate –CC- if going to the EU). The CO is concerned mainly with setting the appropriate tariff level and does not require fully addresses specific information about catch location or catch circumstances. The HC deals with sanitary issues (food safety) and while it in principle includes traceability of the fish to capture, it is not designed for catch origins and volumes purposes.  Their sanitary authority “China’s Inspection and Quarantine Bureau” assigns each incoming batch of fish a unique number and does not permit mixing of different batches, which is the closest measure to traceability that exists within the system, as these identification numbers are reported again when the fish are exported from China. Although there have been improvements in Chinese traceability efforts in recent years, these changes have mostly been driven by concern for sanitation standards rather than fish extraction origins. The EU CC, while in principle was design to address the legality and volumes of the harvested catch, did not took in consideration the complexities of the fisheries value chain, and is (unfortunately) easily fraudable. 

And while the EU has the means to pressure to China in terms of proving the legality of the catches caught and imported under the “control” of Chinese authorities, under the frame of their IUU legislation. It has chosen to focus their attention on smaller and less developed countries such as Togo, Cambodia, Belize, Fiji and Vanuatu; only recently started identifying DWFN players such as Philippines, PNG and Korea (a good move!). Not by coincidence, these countries are not key trading partners for the EU. 

Getting serious with China, on the other side could have serious trade consequences for the EU… even if it could have a massive impact in terms of global IUU fishing. So unfortunately, this Chinese “power card” allows them to continue with “business as usual”.

Key source:  Katie Lebling  -  Wilson Center

Fishy futures and stock exchange

Dr. George Sugihara has gone from an academic career in biological oceanography to the world of high finance, and back again. “Basically, I modeled the fear and greed of mobs that trade.” Now he is applying the lessons he learned in business to the management of fish stocks.

Sugihara’s experience of the markets has changed the way he thinks about managing the ocean’s natural resources. For decades, investors have traded on markets for the future prices of virtually every commodity, from grain crops, through orange juice, to oil. Yet despite worldwide sales of at least US$80 billion a year, there is no futures market for fish. Sugihara hopes to change that. By providing people with the means to make money, and offering a structured financial environment for the worldwide catch and sale of fish, he argues, it should be possible to prevent stock depletion.

He has the luxury of being able to support some of his own research, using a trust fund set up during his Deutsche Bank days. In part, that was how he funded his work, on an analysis of environmental fluctuations and ecological catastrophes in the North Pacific. This suggests that fishing quotas may need to be set more conservatively, and adjusted more frequently to compensate for environmental conditions, than is typically the case. “The way fish quotas are set is wrong,” says Sugihara. “It doesn’t fit nature or reality.”

Imagine, he says, a 1000 Kg fish in an aquarium. Feed it more, and it gets fatter. Feed it less, and it gets thinner. The population (of one) is stable. But put 1,000 1kg fish in that aquarium, and food shortages could result in the deaths of hundreds, because the small fry have less stored body fat—and therefore cannot ride out a short famine. Food abundance does not necessarily mean all the fish get bigger, either; it could en­courage reproduction and a population boom—which might in turn overwhelm the food supply and lead to another bust. It is an unstable system. “That’s the reality of fisheries, of economies, of a lot of natural systems”.

But this instability is not understood by people who run fisheries, Sugihara insists. By law they manage fisheries for “maximum yield.” The notion that such a maximum yield exists implies that fish grow at an equilibrium rate and that the harvest can be adjusted in accordance with that growth to keep yields stable. In contrast, Sugihara sees fisheries as a complex, chaotic system, akin to financial networks.

The practical implications of Sugihara’s work are clear. Current fishing regulations usually have minimum size limits to protect smaller fish. That, Sugihara maintains, is exactly wrong. “It’s not the young ones that should be thrown back but the larger, older fish that should be spared,” he explains. They stabilize the population and provide “more and better quality offspring.”

Most regulations consider each species—sardines, salmon or swordfish—in isolation. But fishing, he says, is like the stock market—the crash of one or two species, or a hedge fund or mortgage bank, can trigger a catastrophic collapse of the entire system. 

Hence we need to work on new kinds of fisheries management schemes. One is the notion of tradable “bycatch” credits. Bycatch refers to the turtles, sharks and other animals that fishing fleets do not seek but catch accidentally. In the tradable bycatch credits plan, fishing boats could be allocated a certain number of credits. As they used those credits, they would need to stop fishing or buy more credits on the open market. As the bycatch increased, the number of outstanding credits would fall, and their price would increase. Fishing boats would thus have financial incentive to minimize their bycatch—because by doing so, they could keep fishing longer.

He has set the Ocean Resource Exchange hoping it will provide an incentive to preserve fish stocks that doesn’t rely on a detailed understanding of complex biological systems, and instead taps into people’s baser instincts. “Show them how to make more money,” he says. The first derivative is likely to be a futures contract for a certain percentage of a fisherman’s catch at an agreed price at a specified time. Another planned derivative is an instrument for trading fish quota allotments, called an ‘individual transfer quota’. “Essentially, these are tradable poker chips or options for fishing rights,” Sugihara says.

Fishermen and investors could hedge their bets, which should reduce the tendency for catches to swing between boom and bust, and give all stakeholders a tangible financial incentive not to cheat and plunder the ecosystem for the maximum short-term return. The motive here is public service,” he says. “I think we can use market forces for conservation.”

Sources: here and here

Mozambique ratifies the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA)

The government of Mozambique has today became the third African country to ratify the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), this is part of the measures towards curve Illegal fishing which is estimated to be responsible for a $35 million loss for Mozambique each year.

Muito legal!!

African countries are highly targeted by distant water fishing vessels that undertake Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.  This is due to insufficient fisheries monitoring and governance in the region.  Mozambique joins Seychelles and Gabon in Africa and other countries globally that have already ratified the agreement.  

The ratification means that Mozambique will be better able to curb illegal fishing practices, close its markets to illegally caught fish and close its ports to illegal operators.

The key identified IUU fishing risks in Mozambique includes fishing without a license, unauthorized transhipments, failing to report catches and making false reports, keeping juvenile fish or fish that are otherwise protected, fishing in closed areas or during closed seasons, or using prohibited fishing gear that damages ecosystems. These practices endanger community livelihoods bearing in mind that two-thirds of Mozambique’s population lives along the coast and depends on fish as a key source of food and employment.

The Port State Measures agreement is a cost-effective way to ensure national and international action to prohibit vessels that are suspected of illegal activity from landing at ports or receiving port services.

The Port State Measures Agreement was brokered by 92 nations through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and was opened for signature on November 23, 2009. The agreement will take effect once 25 parties have signed it.

If fully enforced, this agreement will help close ports to vessels suspected of illegal fishing and block illegally caught fish from entering the global market.

At a personal level it is very satisfying as I lived with my family there in 2002, working on a Fisheries MCS (Monitoring, Control and Surveillance) regional strengthening project, and made friends that are today the responsible for the implementation of this agreement. Parabéms!

The warming depths

Over the past few years one of the biggest questions in climate science has been why, since the turn of the century, average surface-air temperatures on Earth have not risen, even though the concentration in the atmosphere of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has continued to go up.

This “pause” in global warming has been seized on by those sceptical that humanity needs to act to curb greenhouse-gas emissions or even (in the case of some extreme sceptics) who think that man-made global warming itself is a fantasy.

People with a grasp of the law of conservation of energy are, however, sceptical in their turn of these positions and doubt that the pause is such good news. They would rather understand where the missing heat has gone, and why—and thus whether the pause can be expected to continue.

The most likely explanation is that it is hiding in the oceans, which store nine times as much of the sun’s heat as do the atmosphere and land combined. But until this week, descriptions of how the sea might do this have largely come from computer models. Now, thanks to a study published in Science by Chen Xianyao of the Ocean University of China, Qingdao, and Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, Seattle, there are data. 

Dr Chen and Dr Tung have shown where exactly in the sea the missing heat is lurking. As the left-hand chart below shows, over the past decade and a bit the ocean depths have been warming faster than the surface. This period corresponds perfectly with the pause, and contrasts with the last two decades of the 20th century, when the surface was warming faster than the deep. The authors calculate that, between 1999 and 2012, 69 zettajoules of heat (that is, 69 x 1021 joules—a huge amount of energy) have been sequestered in the oceans between 300 metres and 1,500 metres down. If it had not been so sequestered, they think, there would have been no pause in warming at the surface.

Hidden depths
The two researchers draw this conclusion from observations collected by 3,000 floats launched by Argo, an international scientific collaboration. These measure the temperature and salinity of the top 2,000 metres of the world’s oceans. In general, their readings match the models’ predictions. But one of the specifics is weird.

Most workers in the field have assumed the Pacific Ocean would be the biggest heat sink, since it is the largest body of water. A study published in Nature in 2013 by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, argued that cooling in the eastern Pacific explained most of the difference between actual temperatures and models of the climate that predict continuous warming. Dr Chen’s and Dr Tung’s research, though, suggests it is the Atlantic (see middle chart) and the Southern Ocean that are doing the sequestering. The Pacific (right-hand chart), and also the Indian Ocean, contribute nothing this way—for surface and deepwater temperatures in both have risen in parallel since 1999.

This has an intriguing implication. Because the Pacific has previously been thought of as the world’s main heat sink, fluctuations affecting it are considered among the most important influences upon the climate. During episodes called El Niño, for example, warm water from its west sloshes eastward over the cooler surface layer there, warming the atmosphere. Kevin Trenberth of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research has suggested that a strong Niño could produce a jump in surface-air temperatures and herald the end of the pause. Earlier this summer, a strong Niño was indeed forecast, though the chances of this happening seem to have receded recently.

But if Dr Chen and Dr Tung are right, then the fluctuations in the Atlantic may be more important. In this ocean, saltier tropical water tends to move towards the poles (surface water at the tropics is especially saline because of greater evaporation). As it travels it cools and sinks, carrying its heat into the depths—but not before melting polar ice, which makes the surface water less dense, fresh water being lighter than brine. This fresher water has the effect of slowing the poleward movement of tropical water, moderating heat sequestration. It is not clear precisely how this mechanism is changing so as to send heat farther into the depths. But changing it presumably is.

Understanding that variation is the next task. The process of sequestration must reverse itself at some point, since otherwise the ocean depths would end up hotter than the surface—an unsustainable outcome. And when it does, global warming will resume.

Original source here.

New fish labelling rules are to apply EU-wide from 13 December.

The new rules are part the revamp of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, specifically its Common Market Organisation regulation, which also covers fishing, production and marketing. The regulation 1379/2013 – (OJ L 354 of 28.12.2013), covers both wild caught fish and aquaculture products.

The 13 December application date is important because it was chosen to ensure consistency with the date that most labelling requirements apply under the food information to consumers regulation (1169/2011). Existing fish labelling rules will apply to 12 December and products labelled or marked before 13 December 2014, which do not comply with the new regulation, may be sold until stocks have been used up.

The new regulation covers all fishery and aquaculture products sold to consumers or mass caterers in the EU. However, the regulation allows Member States to exempt small quantities of products sold directly from fishing vessels to consumers. It requires fishery and aquaculture products either to be labelled - or for retail sale of non pre-packed products, the mandatory information to be provided by means of commercial information such as billboards or posters - to show:

• {the commercial designation of the species and its scientific name;
•  the production method, in particular by the following words “… caught …” or “… caught in freshwater …” or “… farmed …”;
• { the area where the product was caught or farmed, and the category of fishing gear used in capture of fisheries, choosing from seines, trawls, gillnets and similar nets, surrounding nets and lift nets, hooks and lines, dredges or pots and traps;
• whether the product has been defrosted (apart from ingredients present in the final product, foods for which freezing is a technologically necessary step in the production process and fishery and aquaculture products that have either been previously frozen for health safety purposes or which have been defrosted before the process of smoking, salting, cooking, pickling, drying or a combination of any of those processes); and,
•  the date of minimum durability, where appropriate.

For a mixed product that consists of the same species but which has been derived from different production methods, the method for each batch shall be stated. Where the mixed product consists of the same species but which has been derived from a variety of catch areas or fish–farming countries, at least the area of the batch which is most representative in terms of quantity shall be stated, together with an indication that the products also come from different catch or fish-farming areas.

Catch area

The regulation also lays down origin labelling rules for the indication of the catch or production area. In the case of fishery products caught at sea, it says that the label should state the name in writing of the sub-area or division listed in the FAO fishing areas, as well as the name of this zone “expressed in terms understandable to the consumer, or a map or pictogram showing that zone.” However, a waiver clause, allows labels to give the bigger FAO fishing area, as long as fish were not caught in the Northeast Atlantic (FAO Fishing Area 27) and Mediterranean and Black Sea (FAO Fishing Area 37).

Labelling on aquaculture products, should state the Member State or third country in which the product reached more than half of its final weight or stayed for more than half of the rearing period or, in the case of shellfish, underwent a final rearing or cultivation stage of at least six months.

Additional voluntary information

In addition to the mandatory information Article 39 allows labelling to give other information on a voluntary basis, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. This can be:

• date of catch of fishery products or the date of harvest of aquaculture products;
• the date of landing of fishery products or information on the port at which the products were landed;
•  more detailed information on the type of fishing gear, for example Danish seines, pelagic pair trawls or driftnets;
• in the case of fishery products caught at sea, details of the flag State of the vessel that caught those products; environmental information;
• information of an ethical or social nature;
• {information on production techniques and practices; and,
•  information on the nutritional content of the product.

However, the regulation makes clear that voluntary information shall not be displayed to the detriment of the space available for mandatory information on the marking or labelling. It also states that no voluntary information shall be included that cannot be verified.

To prevent fraud between different fish species especially with cheaper species being substituted for more expensive ones, the regulation provides for DNA testing and other techniques to be used. “For the purpose of consumer protection, competent national authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in this Regulation should make full use of available technology, including DNA-testing, in order to deter operators from falsely labelling catches,” a recital states.

Ecolabelling

A key aim of the CFP overhaul was to ensure sustainable fisheries, yet the new labelling provisions do not include eco-labelling.

A standard EU eco-labelling scheme for fish could come later as the regulation acknowledges, “The use of an eco-label for fishery and aquaculture products, whether or not they originate from inside or outside the Union, offers the possibility of providing clear information on the ecological sustainability of such products.”

The regulation adds, “It is therefore necessary for the Commission to examine the possibility of developing and establishing minimum criteria for the development of a Union-wide eco-label for fishery and aquaculture products.”

Article 36 also states, “After consulting Member States and stakeholders, the Commission shall, by 1 January 2015, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a feasibility report on options for an eco-label scheme for fishery and aquaculture products, in particular on establishing such a scheme on a Union-wide basis and on setting minimum requirements for the use by Member States of a Union eco-label.”

Assisting PNG with the EU's "yellow card" in terms of IUU fishing

In June the EU (via DG Mare) enacted two decisions (2014/C 185/02 and 03) warning the Philippines and Papua New Guinea that they risk being identified as countries it considers non-cooperative in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

The decision highlights that these countries (in the EU view) are not doing enough to fight illegal fishing. It identifies concrete shortcomings, such as lack of system of sanctions to deter IUU activities or lack of actions to address deficiencies in monitoring, controlling and surveillance of fisheries.

The decision does not, at this stage, entail any measures affecting trade. Both countries are being given a 'yellow card' warning and a reasonable time to respond and take measures to rectify the situation. The Commission has also proposed an action plan for each country to address the shortcomings. Should the situation not improve within six months, the EU could take further steps, which could entail trade sanctions on fisheries imports, as was done recently with Guinea, Belize and Cambodia (IP/14/304).

The decisions follow a long period of informal discussions with the countries in question since 2012. A formal procedure of dialogue with these countries to resolve the identified issues and implement the necessary action plans will now take place.

And as it happens in these cases there is a bigger and longer history behind… PNG and the Philippines have been “fishing bedfellows” for a while now, hence both had to be in the spotlight even if Philippines carries a much bigger “fault” on this than PNG, said so… they have been quite complacent too.

PNG has a big EEZ and the northern waters are very good tuna fishing grounds, Purse seining is by far the most significant fishery accounting for 98% of the total tuna catch (over 700,000 tons). Not surprisingly, PNG has an established onshore tuna processing industry with four companies in three locations, these plants collectively employ more than 8,000 workers as well as generating further upstream and downstream benefits.

PNG is an ACP (Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific) country, and as such has tariff free access to the EU market under the Cotonou Agreement. Duty free access to the EU market, coupled with the recent Rules of Origin relaxation under global sourcing provisions, enables PNG to compete against lower cost sites of production for exports to the EU.

Picture by my brother Hugh Walton (actually!)

Philippine companies were clever and over 12 years ago took an early advantage of this opportunity, and diverted much of its processing capacity and fleet to PNG. And it paid off… (but they took a big gamble, PNG is not an easy place).

In parallel, during 1998/99 (my fist time there under a ADB programme), PNG itself came up with a new operating model for its fisheries authority, instead of the usual ministry/department that get its (normally pathetic) operating funds from the Ministry of Finance/Treasury, PNG created a independent National Fisheries Authority, who directly collects all fisheries related revenues, covers it budget and then passes the surplus funds to treasury (a brilliant move). This reform was lead by  through a team of mainly national experts including PNG's own Blaise Kuemlangan at FAO, led by then Secretary for Fisheries Joseph Gabut, who reviewed the outdated 1978 Fisheries Law in 1992/93 and legislatively incorporated the NFA through the Fisheries Management Act of 1994.  The 1994 Act was later reviewed, repealed and replaced by the 1998 Fisheries Management Act.  The latter Act did give additional powers to NFA but most of what you see in the Fisheries Management Act of 1998 was already there in the Fisheries Management Act of 1994.

Fisheries related income exploded, and as a consequence NFA has been the best funded Fisheries Authority I ever worked with… but as we seen before (not only in fisheries) economical expansion and growth need to be accompanied by a parallel development on controls and transparency… and that has not been the case.

In 2013, of the 259 purse-seine vessels authorised to fish and land in PNG, only 15 were PNG-flagged, 43 were PNG-chartered (domestic-based mostly Philippine flagged vessels) and 201 were foreign vessels fishing under access agreements. Imagine the difficulties arising of managing and controlling such a fishery… particularly when you have various different access agreements and the pressures that DWFN (with not regards for transparency) can exert.

At the same Spanish based tuna industry did not like much all this tuna catching and processing explosion, because they rely on foreign caught whole tuna that they could process there and make add value, hence having that tuna caught and process by the competitors in other places that allowed them enter duty free their market wasn't part of the idea. They have been on each other case for years now.

With the introduction of the EU IUU regulation and Catch Certification Scheme the EU closed its market to fish that cannot be proven to come legal origins, and that is exclusive responsibility is from the “Flag State” for validate the certificates saying that fish was legally caught… so from that perspective PNG only should deal with the landings of its “own” 15 vessels, but at the same time deal with tons of certificates provided by other countries and deal with “processing and non processing statements” over these Catch certs.

But the EU points that “The PNG authorities confirmed their awareness that information on catch certificates issued by flag States for fish directly landed in PNG for processing are regularly incorrect. This incorrect information in catch certificates is mainly due to the fact that PNG authorities do not share data available to them, in particular Vessel Monitoring Scheme (VMS) and landing declarations, with the flag State, and not even in cases where irregularities are established. Consequently, the flag State authority has to base its catch certificates on the information available to it, which may be incomplete, incorrect and not verifiable. PNG authorities however sign processing statements in full awareness that the catch certificates issued for the catch processed in PNG are incorrect.”

Now this has a few readings: on one side, if the other nations do not have the “the information available to it, which may be incomplete, incorrect and not verifiable” how come they validate their certificates?  They should just not do it until they get the necessary Information. Furthermore, under which authority does PNG becomes a “police man” type role where it becomes its responsibility to question the “legality” of these other countries certificates.

Now this does not exonerates PNG of responsibilities under Port State Measures and is very clear as well that they have not lived up to their own required standards in terms MCS and licensing arrangements, where lack of transparency and clarity leads to a confusing situation particularly with their bilateral arrangements as ‘special conditions’ are applicable to approximately 80 % of PNG fishing licenses.

So my job here is to support capacity building of the NFA personal that way strengthen its role to satisfy their international obligations and the EU objections

this is reality here, not a show for turists

Further Context 

In parallel to all this, PNG is going trough a resources explosion bonanza… gas, oil, mining, and so on are fuelling the economy to an incredible pace, and with that the issues of transparency and the dripping down effect of wealth are major… add that the country pretty much went from a completely fragmented tribal structure to a full independent nationhood in a period of less that 100 years. Politics are quite complex here (a year ago the country had 2 parallel governments at once!). Infrastructure is very basic on one side and completely out there on the other (I have seen here the biggest helicopters ever!)

And you don’t have to dig deep to find that clan structure and traditional believes to still very present, almost in your face, (if you are a good observer) along the latest mobile phones, late model Land Cruisers, fully fenced compounds, great smiles and full on in your face violence and danger.

I’m not even mention the untouched beauty of some of the places and the difficulties of making a nation with over 700 distinctive languages.

I never worked anywhere as challenging and fascinating as PNG, and after so many years I come to work with friends. Yes they have many issues, but they are doing what they can with the same right to make mistakes the rest of the world had over 1000 years without punishing scrutiny. 

 Disclaimer 

 The EU made a game changer with IUU Catch Certificate and the IUU regulation, with all it intrinsic failures it requires countries to upgrade their fisheries control systems and that is a good thing, we just need to make the system better and more fair. Furthermore, while the EU put the rules (beyond how good they are) they also put the assistance to the countries. I'm here  via funds from the NZ government and a EU funded programme.

Newer high-res climate change model predicts lesser impact on skipjack fisheries

A higher-resolution ocean modelling exercise has predicted climate change will have lesser impact on western Pacific tuna fisheries in the 2060s than prior assumed, says a recent paper by R.J. Matear et all in the Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography Journal. 

The Western Pacific Warm Pool is a region of high tuna catch, and how future climate change might impact the tuna fisheries is an important regional issue.

By using a high-resolution ocean model forced by the simulated climate of the 2060s, we investigate whether enhanced spatial resolution and bias correction of the mean state could alter the climate change projection for the western tropical Pacific and examine the consequences this might have for tropical tuna distributions. For most of the physical environmental variables, enhanced resolution and bias correction had only a minor impact on the projected changes.

The climate projections showed a maximum surface warming east of the Warm Pool, a shoaling of the thermocline in the Warm Pool, and an eastward expansion of the Warm Pool. In the Warm Pool, the shoaling of the thermocline raises the nutricline into the photic zone and increases phytoplankton and primary productivity, a feature that is most evident in the high-resolution model projection but also weakly present in the coarse-resolution projection. The phytoplankton and primary productivity response to climate change was where ocean model resolution produced a clear difference.

With enhanced resolution, the simulation had stronger and better-defined zonal currents, which were more consistent with observations. Along the equator, the high-resolution model enabled vertical current shear mixing to generate a sub-surface phytoplankton maximum both inside and outside the Warm Pool, which is an observed phenomenon.

With climate change, the enhanced-resolution model projected enhanced vertical shear mixing, increased vertical supply of nutrients to the photic zone, and increased sub-surface phytoplankton concentrations. The increase in sub-surface phytoplankton concentrations helps to offset the decline in surface phytoplankton concentrations and results in a projection of almost no change in the western tropical Pacific primary productivity.

In contrast, the low-resolution model projected a substantial reduction in phytoplankton concentrations and primary productivity; such a response is typical of climate change projections for the region.

Importantly, enhanced resolution dramatically altered the projected response of phytoplankton and primary productivity to climate change. Using the enhanced-resolution model, the projected increase in the size of the Warm Pool with little change in primary productivity and in suitable habitat for skipjack tuna suggest that by the 2060s climate change will not have a large impact on skipjack tuna fisheries.

Sources: Climate change projection for the western tropical Pacific Ocean using a high-resolution ocean model: Implications for tuna fisheries and Skipjack tuna fare better under high-res model

Fish Art

To no surprise... I like all things fish. And the ones that my friend Lili Devo creates, always put a smile on my face...  see for your self.

Non proud records - WCPFC Higher Ever Catch of Skipjack

Skipjack catches during 2013 in the Western Central Pacific (WCP) reached the highest ever-annual volume reported for the region.

Lots of it... but not better money for the catch

As WCPFC reported in its "Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean" for 2013 at SC10 in Majuro, last year's skipjack catch was 1,784,091 M/T, nearly 5,000 tons than the previous record-holding year 

The WCPO is the most significant fishing ground for skipjack tuna (almost 70 % of the world's landings of the species). Skipjack is the most important species in the canning industry; in 2012, just over 1.6 million tons of canned tuna ready product were produced worldwide. 

Around 77 % of the skipjack catch in 2013, was caught by purse seine vessels (over 1.7 million tons). And a declining proportion (9%) was taken by the pole and line,  a more sustainable fishing method that harvest less volumes and is more selective, which as a consequence renders more costly Skipjack, unfortunately the canning market is not able (or willing) to pay more for a better sourced fish. 

Much better fishing, employs more locals... but is more expensive, and most people don't want to pay the difference

It's clear from the WCPFC report that these big landings haven't necessarily meant better economic returns for the Distant Water Fishing Nations.

During 2013, the economic condition of tuna fisheries in the WCP went down compared to 2012 as prices for skipjack declined significantly, while fuel costs remained high. 

The value of the tuna catch in WCP last year fell by around USD 1 billion, down to USD 6.2 billion, of which only less that 450 million stays in the region.

And while the Skipjack stock is relatively healthy in comparison to yellowfin and bigeye (whose juveniles get caught with skipjack by purse seiners... record volumes of catch for less money, is not something that anyone should be proud of.

Busy Fisheries August in Majuro

Majuro (Republic of the Marshal Islands) is not an international hub in most aspects, but if you care about tuna science in the pacific, it's the happening place, during the first 2 weeks of August. 

Is hard to get lost in Majuro...

From the 1 to the 5, the Pacific Islands Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) has its Science Working Group, in prep for Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee 10. At the same time (from the 2-4) PNA (that is based there) has it’s meeting on Target Reference Points and Harvest Control, and then from the 6 to the 14, WCPFC SC 10th regular session there. 

All WCPFC member countries get together and discuss the tons of papers and scientific reports provided to them in function of the priorities and requirements agreed in prior sessions. 
It is a complex process and dense process, and while I’m not there (I’m on the training/implementation side) reading the documents presented always enriches my knowledge. 

From the many in this session, I really liked one of the most challenging and innovative presented, that has the authorship (among others) of two collages and friends whose brains and work ethic I really admire, Carola Kirchner and Richard Banks. 

Carola has been working on a Bioeconomic Model for tuna fisheries to assess potential economic outcomes under alternative management options; as globally, the value of including economic information in the management of fisheries is being increasingly recognised. 

For most fisheries, the long-term maximum economic yield (MEY) that can be achieved occurs at higher biomass levels than the long-term maximum sustainable yield (MSY), therefore providing a buffer against scientific uncertainties to help ensure ecological sustainability of the resource as well as providing higher economic returns.

Her paper proposes a model that will allow both an examination of management limits that maximize a specified economic outcome (e.g., fleet profitability), and a comparative analysis of economic outcomes by gear for any set of management options. Also, the model allows for the analysis of biological consequences of fishery conditions that achieve various economic outcomes.

Downtown action...

She uses the results of the  2014 MULTIFAN-CL stock assessments for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas and the 2012 assessment for south Pacific albacore as the basis of the biological and fishery dynamics. For the economic component, the net present value (NPV) of profits is calculated over a 20-year time horizon in order to provide a measure of the relative economic outcomes of different management options. 

In the projections, effort for four defined fisheries – tropical longline, southern longline, and associated (fish aggregation device - FADs and floating log sets) and unassociated (free-school sets) purse seine – was varied individually between +25% and -50% of 2012 levels. Future recruitment was assumed to follow the long-term spawner-recruitment relationship. 

Some examples of the types of patterns they found in these preliminary results include:

• Catch revenue can be expected to fall under 2012 effort levels, with southern and tropical longline fleets becoming unprofitable. Profits are predicted to exist only in the purse seine fishery;
• There is scope for increasing profits through reductions in effort. 
• Increased stock sizes are expected to increase profits through increased catch per unit effort, but this conclusion is based on standard catch / abundance relationships and developing alternative models of the relationship between abundance and fishing success will be crucial to determining robustness of results; and
• Positively, the abundance of all four species is predicted to increase under scenarios that maximize NPV of profits.

As the bioeconomic model is further developed, there are many applications and extensions that could be possible, e.g.:

• Economic evaluation of the trade-offs between FAD and free school fishing approaches within the purse seine fishery;
• The incorporation of additional economic strata so that the model reflects not just the fishing fleets but other economic units such as coastal states within whose EEZs fishing activity takes place and who gain economic benefits from the selling of access rights and/or on-shore processing and other related industries. 

I find this kind of work very progressive and hopeful, as decision are made in base of money, so proving that fishing “better” can provide more benefits that just fishing “more” is the way to go.

I hope that the delegates at the SC10 consider the inclusion of this work in the scientific research plan of the Committee, and to encourage industry collaboration to ensure the most accurate economic information is available for inclusion.

First Fisheries Management Lesson

"The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed"

Mahatma Gandhi

Insung 7 a Korean vessel with IUU fish on board ends its 9 month drift in Montevideo

A Korean fishing vessel accused of illegal fishing, will be able to put an end to 9 months at sea and finally enter the port of Montevideo in Uruguay on Aug. 5.

Don’t know the author from this excellent picture … if you do, please let me know so i credit her/him

The 647-ton Insung No. 7 departed Busan Port last year, but after catching Patagonian toothfish between June and Oct. 30 it was refused entry to sell its fish at any maritime port due to its alleged illegal catch. It could only enter ports to buy supplies and oil only (and this is debatable)

The Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) refused to issue a Catch Certificate based on its vessel monitoring system, which indicated the ship crossed repeatedly into Argentina's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

"Although the company denied it, we have hard evidence that while it was at sea it crossed into Argentina's EEZ 11 times," said an official at the ministry.

Without a Catch Certificate, no vessel can dock and sell its fish according to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) agreement.

As a result, the vessel has been at sea for almost nine additional months without docking. During that time, food, necessities and fuel have been loaded from passing cargo ships. 

"Since July this year, we have negotiated with the Uruguayan government, asking them to allow the vessel to dock without a catch document. We asked them to do so for humanitarian reasons," the official said. "We also told them that there is a suspicion the vessel engaged in overfishing, but no final conclusion has been drawn," she added.

The vessel's 30 crew members including the captain reported to local media last month that they were in poor condition. They said that because the ministry didn't issue the certificate they were forced to stay at sea despite being short on food and oil.

The Korean MOF has been criticised that it put European Union concerns over illegal fishing ahead of its own nationals. The EU designated Korea as a preliminary IUU fishing nation last year. After an on-site investigation by visiting EU officials in June, its final verdict has been delayed until January next year.

Don’t know the author from this excellent picture … if you do, please let me know so i credit her/him

The ministry official said that such criticism is groundless. "It is the fishing company that owns the ship which has been at odds with the government. It has taken its crew hostage and is jeopardising their lives.

"Entering a port is possible at any time, if the captain of the vessel wanted to. It was their decision not to enter the port. Since April we kept asking the vessel to enter any nearby port, but it insisted we should issue the certificate first and then investigate possible illegal fishing," the official said.

"That is not possible especially when the vessel left evidence of its activities." 

When it enters the port, the catch will remain on board. By cross checking the catch records, the government will investigate the allegation. Once confirmed, the fishing company will face a fine or a suspension of fishing order for a certain period of time.

The Insung No. 7 already made the bad news in 2012, when illegally took $600,000 worth of Patagonian toothfish from the Southern Ocean in 2011, four times its allocated quota. CCAMLR members tried to designate it as an IUU vessel, but the Korean delegation vetoed this, and the ministry just fined the company $1,800 instead.

And the before that (for a better reason) when it rescue the survivors of its sister vessel the Insung No. 1, that capsized in the Ross Sea in December 2010, killing half its crew.

Korea has one of the worst records when it comes to fisheries compliance (I wrote about it here and here) but as well in terms of safety at sea.

Original source here

IMO Numbers for Fishing Vessels

Following the lifting of the exemption of fishing vessels to the IMO Ship Numbering Scheme, we should encourage all fishing vessels to get a IMO number.

They can apply at http://www.imonumbers.ihs.com 

Orion I. Mar del Plata, Argentina. Photo by M. Cappizano

What are IMO numbers?

The IMO introduced its Ship Identification Number Scheme in 1987 to help prevent maritime fraud and enhance safety and security; it has successfully served for decades to identify merchant vessels and is widely recognized by users and stakeholders as the best available global identification system for ships. In 1996, the system became mandatory for cargo and passenger ships. IHS Maritime, a division of the global information and analytics company IHS, administers the scheme on behalf of the IMO.

The unique seven-digit vessel number, preceded by the letters “IMO,” provides the foundation of IHS Maritime’s global maritime database. The number stays with a vessel until it is scrapped and never changes, regardless of the ship’s owner, country of registration or name. The records based on the IMO number provide an independent audit trail for each vessel; IHS Maritime continually updates and cross-checks this information against multiple data sources.

Unlike merchant vessels, automobiles, and even cellphones, fishing vessels are not required to have unique identifying numbers that stay with them from construction to scrapping. Although fishing vessels have names, call signs for radio transmissions, and other identifiers, these are not permanent and can be changed by owners quickly and easily.

Taiwanese longliner operating in the Pacific

The lack of mandatory, unique, and permanent identifying numbers makes it difficult for authorities to distinguish specific vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, and unregulated, or IUU, fishing, and to track misconduct and gather evidence when they suspect unlawful activity.

As a result, vessel owners, even those who have been blacklisted for IUU fishing, can circumvent control measures and continue to fish without being traced. They can operate for years with no accurate record of their activities, operating condition, or compliance status. 

The solution: mandatory, unique, and permanent ship identification numbers in accordance with the standards of the International Maritime Organization, or IMO.

Resourceful fisherman... making the best of what you catch. Love it.

When you start catching too much trash in your fishnets, make furniture. That’s what these UK fishermen are doing, and they even have a furnace on board, so while some of the crew are hauling and clearing nets, others can be feeding the cauldron and assembling the stools, which they call sea chairs.

What’s even better is that you can do it too. Here’s their manual

original source here

Is the EU IUU Regulation working?

The EU’s Regulation to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing is the most far-reaching and influential system of its kind in operation today and re-defined the traceability landscape of trade flows of fish when it entered the world stage in January 2010. At its heart lies a catch certification scheme that aims to guarantee legal origin of fisheries products entering the EU market.

Taiwanese longliners in the Pacific

However, my friends Gilles Hosch and Shelley Clarke  published in 2013 a study “Traceability, legal provenance & the EU IUU Regulation” providing a detailed analysis of the regulation and how its certification scheme is applied on the ground for whitefish and salmon imported into the EU from Russia via China.  They report critical flaws in the scheme’s architecture, as well as much potential for ineffective implementation, including widespread and often undetectable document fraud. 

They note that to date no data have been made available to suggest that the IUU Regulation is actually deterring IUU fishing, or that volumes of illegal fish entering the EU market are in fact diminishing. They also state that there is no evidence to substantiate the concern that the EU’s certification scheme is now deflecting illegal fish to other, supposedly less tightly regulated markets.

They suggest that until critical gaps in the catch certification scheme are effectively addressed, proposals that other countries should replicate the EU IUU Regulation are premature and that the EU should focus its efforts on improving, completing and strengthening the Regulation and the catch certification scheme which lies at its core.

They note that if the EU fixes the Regulation and can demonstrate its effectiveness, it has the potential to become a very valuable model and tool for a global legal provenance traceability scheme that could then start to effectively deny market access to fish derived from illegal sources – and hence combat IUU fishing in a serious and meaningful manner. Original source here

Controlling volumes landed at the place that holds the truth... were the figures decide what people gets paid!

I completely agree with their views, based on my experience working on the issue since 2009, mostly from an evaluation and implementation perspective with the Pacific Islands and Latin American countries, and after realising quite early that the complexity of the trade flows in the industry represents a massive challenge for the effective implementation of the EU IUU Regulation. (I was one of the experts of the 50 country wide programme Europaid/129606/D/SER/Multi - Assist Third Countries in the Implementation of the EU-IUU Fishing Regulation)

Furthermore, during 2013-14 I was involved as a contributor and reviewer in a European Parliament study, evaluating the effectiveness of the legislation, that provided very similar conclusions. 

The design of the forms left critical issues out (like details of the date and port of unloading!), the fact that not all fish from one landing is exported to the EU (and even less at once or in one consignment!), just to name a few.

The responsibility of the captain to state that the vessel operated legally was passed to the processing factories, as the catch certificate is actually initiated processors and not by the vessel’s masters, it may be useful to remember that fish does not “turn IUU” inside a processing plant, fish is caught and landed illegally!

Even the concept of a Catch certificate was lost when  the EU's DG MARE issued the Weight in the Catch Certificate (WICC) note in mid-2010 stating that the “weight in the catch certificate" should only cover the volume in consignment to be exported to the EU and not the volume of the catch landed, hence it just became another export certificate.

On top of all these, the whole system becomes based on photocopies of photocopies after 1st sale and many other elements that debilitated the system, and in some cases gave some IUU fishing operators a base to legitimise “fish laundering” in way not possible before.

Lots of explaining to be done in regards the regulation, what it intended to do, and what i really does

Although many third countries have reinforced their Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems in an effort to guarantee true validation of the CC, in many cases the validating authority does not have all the elements, regulatory understanding or resources to fully ensure that the fishing products covered by a Catch Certificate are IUU free, and particularly when their fleets operate outside their waters. Nor the EU has the capacity to crosscheck the authenticity of the certificates, which at this stage are mere export certificates, and not catch certificates.

While the EU broke ground with this legal instrument, its applicability and efficiency does not lives up to their original goals, hence an updated and better model is needed.

 Disclaimer 

The EU made a game changer with IUU Catch Certificate and the IUU regulation, with all it intrinsic failures it requires countries to upgrade their fisheries control systems and that is a good thing! We just need to make the system better and more fair.

Furthermore, while the EU put the rules (beyond how good they are) they also put the assistance to the countries. A lot of my work in this area has been under EU funded programmes.

Paper adapted to reality... surely this was not the original plan.

Condition of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific worsening, skipjack and yellowfin healthy

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) this week released new assessments on the status of key regional tuna stocks – skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna – which show that skipjack and yellowfin remain in a reasonably healthy state, but bigeye, the mainstay of the tropical longline fishery, has now been reduced to less than 20% of its unfished stock size. The assessments, along with over 40 scientific papers produced by SPC, are due to be presented at the 10th meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee, being held in Majuro, Marshall Islands, in early August.

Dr John Hampton, the head of SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme, which conducted the assessments, commented: ‘The reduction of bigeye now to below 20% of unfished levels is significant, because this is the limit that the WCPFC has decided represents an unacceptable risk to the stock. The WCPFC should now take firm action to reduce catches of bigeye and allow the stock to rebuild. While bigeye tuna is only 6% of the total regional tuna catch, it represents about 12% of the value of the catch, which was about USD 6.2 billion overall in 2013. It is an important species for several Pacific Island countries that have longline fisheries in their waters.’

Dr Shelton Harley, who coordinated the scientific team undertaking the assessments, noted: ‘These assessments were a huge analytical challenge incorporating over 60 years of fisheries and biological data for an area spanning from Japan to Hawaii in the north and Tasmania to French Polynesia in the south. We had 40 computers running night and day for three months to complete the work.’

For the other species, skipjack and yellowfin tuna, the assessments were considerably brighter. Skipjack, which accounted for 68% of the total tuna catch of 2.6 million tonnes in 2013, is estimated to remain at around 50% of unexploited levels, which is a desirable situation for the stock and the purse-seine fishery and reflects the management targets that have been discussed by WCPFC. Yellowfin, which made up 21% of the tuna catch in 2013, has been reduced to about 38% of unexploited levels, still a reasonably comfortable situation for the stock.

Dr Harley further noted: ‘While skipjack and yellowfin populations are currently okay, catches are likely at their full potential. There are more and more large fishing boats coming into the fishery, and if that continues we’ll see even these fairly healthy stocks fall to levels that may impact their biological health and the profitability of the fishery. Some urgent decisions are required on limits and their allocation.’

Sources: WCPFC meeting papers and SPC

No End to Overfishing of Tuna and Sharks in Eastern Pacific

Nations that fish for tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean made no progress on ending overfishing during this week’s meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in Lima, Peru. They did not embrace scientific recommendations to stem the near collapse of the Pacific bluefin tuna population and could not reach consensus on a measure to protect silky sharks from overfishing. The commission did agree, however, on measures to help fight illegal fishing in the region.

“In general, IATTC members pressed the pause button on implementing science-based measures to tackle a host of challenges from overfishing in this region,” said Elizabeth Wilson, director of international ocean policy for The Pew Charitable Trusts.   “Unfortunately, as a result, another year will go by without the steps needed to stop the dramatic decline of some tuna and shark populations”  

Action stalled on several critical conservation issues, including how best to stem overfishing of the severely depleted Pacific bluefin. The scientific advice provided to member countries by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean called for a yearly catch limit for all fishing of not more than 2,750 metric tons in the eastern tropical Pacific, the region managed by the IATTC. Ultimately, nations could not agree on a measure and put off a decision until October.

Scientists say the Pacific bluefin population has declined by 96 percent from original levels, meaning that just 4 percent are left in the water. Without stronger measures, the long-term viability of this species is threatened.

“Once again, fishing nations have ignored the scientific evidence before them and will allow this decimated population to continue to be overfished, despite dire warnings that it is on the edge of collapse,” said Amanda Nickson, director of Pew’s global tuna conservation work. “Pacific bluefin tuna needs an oceanwide recovery plan.  This lack of action shows that a suspension of the Pacific bluefin tuna fishery may be the only way to save this species.”

The lack of action by the IATTC increases the pressure to act on the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which is responsible for management of bluefin in the western and central Pacific. The WCPFC meets in December to discuss possible   management actions for the species.

No new protections for sharks

IATTC members also failed to take management action to protect sharks that are in severe decline because of overfishing in the region. Pew had highlighted clear scientific evidence that the stock of the silky shark has dropped significantly, and argued that management measures are urgently needed. All sharks should be treated as the highly vulnerable marine species they are. They should be released whenever caught, until precautionary management measures are in place to guarantee that all shark catch is sustainable.

“Action is needed at the earliest possibility through the IATTC and other bodies that manage sharks in the Eastern Pacific and worldwide,” said Wilson. “Sharks are of irreplaceable value to the ecosystems and economies of coastal states. Governments cannot continue to ignore their responsibilities to manage silky, hammerhead and other sharks that play key roles in the marine ecosystem.”

IMO number for vessels of more than 100 tons

On a more positive note, they agree on new vessel requirements as members approved a requirement that all fishing vessels weighing over 100 gross tons obtain International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers. This unique identifier remains with a vessel until it is scrapped or permanently taken out of service. Other fishing identifiers, including a vessel’s name, radio call sign, and flag of registration, can be changed easily, making it hard for authorities to prove that a vessel was used in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

This move by the IATTC will help authorities and fisheries managers quickly and positively identify vessels fishing in commission waters and, in turn, help reduce illegal fishing by holding vessel owners accountable. Every IMO number must be published in the IATTC Register of Vessels and all affected vessels must have the numbers by Jan.1, 2016. IATTC is the sixth regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) to mandate these numbers for some or all vessels.

Source here