Supporting fishers (not fishing) does not require harmful subsidies

I have been going on and writing about subsidies for a while now… so I have a “natural” interest in reading about them particularly when people I know are involved. And this was the case on this paper where I know Megan Bailey [who was behind one of my favourite papers ever – (that must be the ultimate nerd statement)] and Anthony Rogers whom I met while he worked at PEW in DC, the other thing that attracted me to the paper was that they named a section with the title of this blog.

I read it, I liked it, so I decided to paste that section below… yet as I always say: read the original. 

hey government: either don’t subsidise or make sure they share them with us!

Subsidies are quite a topic, as the international community is in the final stages of negotiations to achieve a target of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 14.6),namely, ending harmful fisheries subsidies. The original deadline of June 2020 is currently delayed due to global responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, but an agreement is expected to be reached once normal activities resume. Plenty is written about subsidies as does touch many areas in fisheries and well-documented. Overcapacity (the existence of more fishing power than needed to take the maximum sustainable yield) is perhaps one of the most well-known, as it leads to overfishing where management is lacking and to economic waste in any case.

This lost potential value due to overcapacity is estimated at ~ US$83 billion per year, but also can create conflicts with legal fishers who see little benefit in abiding by the rules… and this latest issue is an “immense” area that I imagine must be hard to research, as evidence relies on almost “personal” stories… 

all of them 8 to 9th generation tuna fisherman

So here is part of my story touched by the subsidies of others: back in the late 1990s -early 2000s I was still mixing consulting with commercial fishing and we in NZ had at some stage 5 purse seiners fishing in the pacific Sanford had 2, Talley’s had 2 and Simunovich had one: the Ocean Breeze and she was the one I used to fish. (see me with the Madeira guys in the pic) 

We circulated the Pacific (as the others vessels) accessing the HS and the EEZ of coastal states via paying access through bilateral negotiations. The first times I was in many of the ports I work now (Majuro, Pohnpei, Tarawa, Funafuti, Rabaul) was transhipping there.

A lot of this on those days…

Part of my job (called then “navigator”) was to guess (with the captain) where the fish was, with the tools we had at the time: very expensive satellite imaging and identifying water mass fronts, primary productivity, and other oceanographic indicators I was familiar with, playing with the bird radars and beam sonars, but also i was quite keen in listening to the most experienced crew members (we had 3 guys from the same family in Madeira island, that were 8th generation tuna fisherman - walking tuna encyclopaedias)…. also spending a lot of time on the radio talking to other boats (all of the “western” captains knew each other then)… but mostly it was spending a LOT of time looking onto the horizon… (no wonder my eyes are failing and my back is dodgy!!) 

Btw… the navigator job barelly exist anymore since now everyone has FAD sonar buoys so fishing is kind of drawing by numbers… other than when is FAD closure and then you see vessels being out for 40 days and come 1/2 full, since a lot of that fishing knowledge is not on board anymore

Anyway… I also was at the time also working on my 2nd MSc (working on improving selectivity in snapper longlining via a purposely designed bait) here in NZ, so I will work for a couple of months and head back for exams… I wasn't sure if the consulting thing will take off, so fishing was still a good backup option that I enjoyed.

In any case, it was a good time, money was ok, fuel was cheap, tuna prices was ok, life on board was easy, good food, interesting people… I worked with mostly Croatians, Kiwis and Portuguese (from Madeira and the US), but also Peruvians, Ecuadrians and Philippinos. As we were in NZ flagged vessel, the non-kiwis on board had NZ work permits -getting them was also part of my job, as i knew the system- and got paid NZ salaries and the option to be part of the NZFIG (the NZ fisherman’s union). 

But times were changing from various fronts, the increasing push of the Asian fleets, the advent of substantial reflagging from the same Asian fleets to countries that did not have the requirements of having official visas and paying conditions as part of their flagging requirements (or changes in the national legislation to lower those need - like in the US vessels where no one has green cards). Then also fuel prices starting to climb, more vessels implied more fish available wich brought tuna prices down, and so on.

All this made staying competitive very hard since there was an unfair playing level, the rest of the fleet had various level of subsidies an NZ does not has any. And then when the Vessel Day Scheme came in (for all the right reasons), it just became increasingly impossible to make money without fully eroding the main costs onboard: crew wages and fuel. Not surprisingly, there is only one NZ PS fishing now, and quite marginally… mostly in the high seas and the northern fringes of the EEZ, and it belongs to NZ most ruthless operators in terms of fisherman’s earnings.

Hence the present fleet fishing the pacific is mostly operated by countries that are massive subidesiers of their fleets and their vessel owners that flagged away, either directly or indirectly, through massive fuel subsidies and operate 99 % with crew not related to the flag, that does not have the same labour and earning rights that the citizens of the flag state and so on… 

So is not I big stretch to link subsidies to unfair level playing field, and a straight line to the present levels of labour abuses in some cases, and human exploitation pretty much in all cases (a Indoesian deckhand makes 350US a month, a westerner may be around 1500 plus catch shares for the same job). 

Obviously, being very lucky to have accessed education (and being part westerner) I took further the consultant path, and I didn’t come back to fishing commercially since then… the subsidies of others changed my life… and this leads perfectly to the chapter on my colleages paper:

Supporting fishers (not fishing) does not require harmful subsidies 
Nations must be able to support fishers and fishing sectors when necessary, and there are many alternatives to harmful subsidy programs. Based on past examples from fisheries and other sectors, strategies with best results reorient subsidies away from capacity-enhancement and towards co-management, and/or condition them on clearly enforced, sustainable actions.

Decoupling subsidies from fishing (e.g., cash transfers) can be very useful but requires careful design and implementation. Buybacks to reduce fishing capacity tend to fail due to seepage back into harmful practices or capture by unintended actors.

Fundamental principles for any beneficial subsidy program include clear short- and long-term goals, co-design with fishers and other stakeholders, transparent design and implementation, and political will that recognizes long-term community needs and honors national and international commitments.

The specific mechanisms of new fisheries support programs will depend on local contexts, but it is essential that subsidies aim to support fishers, not just fishing per se. Receiving cheaper fuel or better gear requires fishers to fish more, when they could instead choose to use financial support towards livelihood improvements such as households, nutrition, education, etc., that enhance well-being in the long-run. Such programs can be more cost-effective than common harmful subsidies such as fuel, which can increase fisher income by less than 10 cents for every dollar spent .

Reforms can take a portfolio approach with a diversity of programs. For example, conditional cash transfer programs could be used in the short-term to incentivize participants (e.g., vessel owners, license holders, and fish workers) to undertake actions aligned with broader societal goals. This can include payments for monitoring or restoration initiatives that help enhance coastal resilience or rebuild fish stocks (SDG 13.1 and 14.2).

At longer time scales, subsidies could support desired transitions across seafood-related industries (e.g., improved management systems, reduction of post-harvest loss, value-added processing) or into new activities.

Countries subsidizing distant-water fleets could shift to supporting fisheries management in other nations to enable their participation in markets, with the same outcome of sourcing seafood while increasing incomes of local fishers, provided exports do not reduce local accessibility of seafood and associated micronutrients for coastal populations. Such ‘onshoring’ _of foreign fishing could also reduce transshipping and contribute to enhanced monitoring, transparency, and management. Many fisheries subsidy programs are a legacy of top-down development approaches, and reforms must be co-designed with communities and key stakeholders so that their needs and values are appropriately represented.

An effective agreement to end harmful fisheries subsidies is an added opportunity to address important challenges in supporting fishing economies. For example, downstream fish workers have historically not received subsidies directly but must be included in sectoral reforms. Governance of high seas fisheries is also a controversial issue including large differences in monitoring and management effectiveness across species and regions , which have led to calls to close the high seas to fishing .

Subsidies that result in overcapacity can undermine the conservation mandate of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) within their convention areas. Thus, while subsidies may be seen as a domestic issue for nations, they are not a trivial contributor to non-cooperation, and improved efforts towards transparency and accountability must be extended towards subsidies as well.

Flags for sale: An empirical assessment of flag of convenience desirability

I been working with IUU fishing for quite a while now, but most of my work is mostly with the "operational side" of IUU fishing (what happens on boats, wharves and factories), but I don't operate in the "corporate side" of it (what happens with the influences, corruption, money laundering, etc) tthat takes place way above me and I personally think is the worst part of it. 

Only Cumbia dancing and the the best Panamanian rum on board this vessel. (Disclaimer: picture for illustrative purpose only, no association to IUU fishing implied)

And as usual involves people with money and influences on one side and poorer people that want the same than the other… as well a lack of morality on both parts. There are plenty of examples of so-called “transparent countries” getting into this shit (see Iceland in Namibia, recently or one that almost costed my job back in 2011 from a Dutch company operation in Peru).

But definitively Flag of Convenience FoC (open registers) and tax heavens does play a role on this, and I wrote about them, hence I do have an interest in the topic so when I see papers (not that I have lot of time to read them) that deal with these issues I give them a go, and I quite liked this one from a group of researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York

Is not an easy topic to tackle, and I like that they make a point that I have seen made before, and is that a subset of FoC is States which were considered to exhibit consistent patterns of failure in compliance with international obligations, defined as ‘flags of non-compliance’, were more common within the group of IUU vessels.

But also they go into some detail into the cases of fishing vessel operator that register under a foreign flag to gain access to fishing areas and resources as it increasingly happened in the Pacific. This strategy is perfectly legal and both socially and economically justifiable, though sometimes doesn't really work as everyone hoped.

The flagging is normally achieved via joint-ventures, where a foreign company partners with a local company or a flag-State government to jointly carry out fishing operations, the vessels that are owned by joint-ventures can apply locally for cheaper licenses, and these arrangements may also qualify them to register under a local flag despite being partially or fully owned by foreign entities. In principle, the participation in joint-ventures has been defensible as it can be a means for coastal countries that lack capital, infrastructure, markets, and other capabilities, to develop their own industrial fishing industries under the principle of domestication of the fleet. 

Now in practice, a lot of issues have emerged, when the more experienced foreign partners have used financial manipulations to evade a fair sharing of profits or losses or directly left huge debt on the vessel for the country to take care or promises of national involvement in terms of crewing never happens. I have lost count on the amount of time I boarded “domestic vessels” where only 3-4 people on board are nationals of the flag state (to be honest the worst case scenario are the USA flagged PS fleet in the Pacific, where only 1 US citizen is required – the paper captain), but also if I want to talk to the “responsible” for that domestic vessel in the country where I’m working… I have to send an email to Asia.

And this leads me into a little-discussed in academia, but huge (in my opinion) issue of “conflict of interest”. When the joint venture involves the coastal state government (usually the fisheries authority!) who at the same time have the enforcement power… So the incentive for compliance gets diffused when in principle, they have to apply fines or prosecute a vessel they are part owners. 

Anyway I paste below the parts I like the most from the intro, the discussion and the conclusion, but as I always advice, read the original! If you don't have access to the journals (like in my case!) I have not yet meet an author that would not send you a copy if you ask nicely, or a via a friend in universities or regional organizations that would flick you a copy… also (and depending your morals) there are grey ways to bypass the paying for articles.

Intro
In an attempt to examine the factors associated with the desirability of FoCs, we collected data from a variety of sources on a total of 38 factors (henceforth, variables). The data were collected for two different years, 2013 and 2018, separately, and the analyses were conducted accordingly. The 2018 data were the latest available data at the time of the writing of this research, and the 2013 were retrospectively collected and analyzed in order to assess whether any changes in the factors associated with the desirability of FoCs took place over a five-year period. 

Summary of results 
The emergence of new technologies along with improved vessel and gear design over recent decades have made it possible for fishing operations to be carried out nearly anywhere. Fishing vessels operate within coastal waters of foreign countries, as well as far out at sea in internationally shared high seas areas where fisheries monitoring, control, and surveillance activities face greater challenges. Along with the expansion of fishing efforts is the expansion of human populations across the globe and an accompanying demand for food from the sea. 

Overfishing and the resulting scarcity of local seafood resources have meant that an increasing number of vessels are fishing in distant waters. While our abilities and tendencies to fish farther from shore have increased, our international systems of governance have been playing catch-up to ensure shared resources are exploited sustainably and safely. 

Currently, weaknesses in these systems still exist, providing opportunities for rogue operators to gain an economic advantage. 

The ability of fishing vessels to register under FoCs is one of these opportunities that, when abused, facilitates IUU fishing—an issue that may not have been anticipated decades ago when relevant international policies were first drafted. FoCs are common throughout the entire maritime sector, and their use is thought to be primarily driven by economic pressures. 

Within the global fishing sector there appear to be two different, main reasons for their use: to gain access to fishing areas and resources; and to avoid rules, oversight and costs. These reasons are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and our analysis suggests that they significantly influence flag preference. Desirable flags were found to be of those countries that are largely non-compliant with fisheries-related regulations, regardless of their ratification of major international agreements. The more popularly flown flags are more easily accessible and afford vessels that register under them greater access to more countries’ waters and areas managed by RFMOs. Many of these flags were found to belong to countries that score low on the Human Development Index and some that have undermined international conventions related to transnational organized crime and drug trafficking by not ratifying them. 

Some of these same countries have also failed to ratify the major international convention that guides the procedures related to the arrest of ships (which is only possible if both states are party to it) at foreign jurisdictions’ ports. 

If a fishing vessel operator has chosen to register under a foreign flag to gain access to fishing areas and resources, this strategy may be perfectly legal and both socially and economically justifiable in theory, though sometimes controversial in practice. 

An operator may gain this access by registering their vessel under the flag of the coastal State that has full jurisdiction over the fishing area, often under a ‘joint-venture’ arrangement (discussed below). Alternatively, they may register their vessel under the flag of a country that has a bilateral fisheries access agreement or is party to a regional access agreement negotiated under the auspices of an RFMO. 

Our analyses suggest that this is a significant influencing factor in flag choice as the most desirable flags were found to belong to countries that are party to more of these agreements. In order for operations under these arrangements to be sustainable and ethical however, relevant flag States must be capable of, and exercise effective monitoring and control over all vessels flying their flag. In addition, the agreements they are party to must be environmentally sustainable and fair. If a fishing vessel operator has chosen to register under a foreign flag to avoid rules, oversight, and costs, this strategy also may facilitate illegal activity, unregulated activity, or at best unethical, unsustainable, and/or irresponsible activities. 

Those that are driven by these incentives are taking advantage of a weak system to the detriment of the likely provide services as FoCs due to continued demand from vessel operators and the fact that registration for these flags produces income.

Further, countries do have differing values and priorities, and not all countries are promoting sustainable fishing to the same degree. Issues of corruption and minimal social consequences may continue to perpetuate their use.

As mentioned, joint-ventures, or other types of private fishing authorizations also represent arrangements where registrations under foreign flags are used to gain access to fishing areas and resources. In joint-ventures, a foreign company partners with a local company or a flag-State government to jointly carry out operations relating to fishing (i.e., research, exploratory fishing, catching, scouting, processing, and marketing). Vessels owned by joint-ventures may be permitted to apply locally for licenses in some countries, and these arrangements may also qualify them to register under a local flag despite being partially or fully owned by foreign entities. In theory, participation in joint-ventures has been defensible as it can be a means for coastal countries that lack capital, infrastructure, markets, and other capabilities, to develop their own industrial fishing industries. However, in practice, major economic issues have emerged, manifesting at its worst when long-term objectives for sustainable exploitation and development are neglected, or when more experienced foreign partners have used financial manipulations to evade a fair sharing of profits or losses. Within the dataset examined, the existence of joint-ventures or other private fishing agreements may explain the popularity of flags that are not known for their ease of accessibility in the maritime domain, and/or are not party to many bilateral or regional fisheries access agreements.

Conclusion
IUU fishing is environmentally destructive, and it also lowers the resilience of marine ecosystems in the face of other major threats to ocean health, such as overfishing, climate change, and ocean acidification. The path towards tackling IUU fishing, however, is relatively uncomplicated compared to the challenge of addressing these other marine conservation issues. Arguably, the ability to reduce IUU fishing to insignificant levels is well within our grasp, and eliminating or restricting the use of FoCs by fishing vessels could accelerate progress towards achieving this.

Significantly reducing IUU fishing will also require a combination of internationally-aligned trade measures, at-sea, port, and market controls. However, initiatives taking this approach need to be thoughtfully implemented with well-enforced measures; otherwise, a new set of loopholes and weaknesses will emerge, and IUU fishing will continue.

Promising economic strategies designed to increase costs or financial risk of involvement in IUU fishing have also emerged within recent years. These efforts have restricted the access that IUU vessels have to services and have mobilized businesses within the seafood supply chain and the global financial sector including, notably, insurance companies.

To suggest banning the use of FoCs across the entire maritime sector as a strategy for combatting IUU fishing is perhaps both unnecessary and unrealistic. The use of FoCs is common amongst shipping vessels, and issues with safety throughout the marine transport industry have been dramatically improved by the establishment of the Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding and other similar agreements worldwide Within the global fishing sector, however, flag State responsibility—or the lack thereof—appears to be an unaddressed issue leading to the emergence of an FoC market where some of the most desirable flags also facilitate IUU fishing. 

Given the known association of FoCs to IUU fishing and the existence of few environmentally, socially or economically defensible reasons to justify their use by the global fishing sector, countries that operate open registers could consider closing these to fishing vessels. In addition, both coastal States and RFMOs could ban the use of FoCs by all fishing vessels authorized to fish within their EEZs and management areas. 

All forms of access agreements and lists of authorized vessels should be made publicly available by flag States, coastal States and RFMOs; and countries should maintain a public register of their entire fishing fleet, including foreign-flagged vessels (those registered under FoCs) owned by their nationals. These lists should include information (both current and historical) on vessel flags and beneficial ownership. 

All vessels—including those registered under FoCs—should also be monitored by relevant coastal States (if fishing within an EEZ), flag States, and beneficial owner States through vessel tracking (VMS and AIS), wherever in the world they operate. 

Governments could also make efforts to stop their nationals from registering the vessels they own and/or operate under FoCs. At a minimum, all countries should have legislation in place preventing their nationals from engaging in, supporting, or otherwise benefiting from the activities of vessels that have been placed on the official IUU vessel list of any RFMO or coastal State. 

All of these management measures would facilitate greater accountability through improved transparency; a general strategy that, if broadly applied on a global scale, could significantly improve ocean governance and reduce IUU fishing, making it harder for unscrupulous operators to hide under the cloak of foreign flags.

A lukewarm assessment of the implementation of the US SIMP

I have read with interest in the past reports from the Stimson Centre, so I was interested to read their Assessment of the US SIMP in 4 countries. Yet this particular report was quite disappointing to read… not my opinion matter to them in any case.  But if you gonna tackle a topic of importance like TREMs do it with impact.

Yeah.. is all legal! I entered the data my self in the website!

I’ve written a lot in the past about the US SIMP, and basically my main issue is that it relays completely on importers in the US to follow due diligence to provide that the compliance and traceability data entered by the seller is right and truthful. It does not involve AT ALL any flag, coastal, port or processing state authorities to verify the data been supplied… and this is total mistake… I actually co wrote a book for FAO in the roles of each for legality and compliance.

So here we have two parties that have a specific incentive in “not rocking the boat” and making the process flawless.  So who is going to voluntarily report their fish is IUU?

They recognise that “Stimson researchers conducted research and interviews primarily focused on understanding the ability of NOAA, foreign governments, and seafood exporters to comply with and implement SIMP and to identify challenges that seafood exporters may be facing due to the new SIMP requirements”

Forget foreign governments from start, the US chose to ignore them all along, so they literally have no responsibility or legal obligation to be involved… as for NOAA… even if they were to come and do audits (none published yet)… under which authority would be doing that?

The ultimate test to see if import control measures for IUU fishing are working is to see if there is a reduction in the volumes of imports… anything else is just words. Interestingly not even the EU CCS passed that test. 

Of the recommendations, the only useful I found are: 

Paper documentation continues to be utilized across these countries, which can lead to significant falsification challenges. As such, the US Government should more broadly support the creation of electronic and digital traceability systems. Paper import records should be phased out with a mandate for an electronic and digital traced system for all SIMP seafood imports. 

The US Government should increase the number of SIMP audits and auditors available to conduct reviews. NOAA should develop a dedicated a group to conduct the SIMP audits for both verification and training purposes. The importer of record is responsible for tracking seafood along the supply chain for SIMP. Despite the private sector’s responsibility for SIMP, foreign governments play a key role in verifying some of the documentation required by SIMP auditors. These documents play a critical role in ensuring that fisheries are managed effectively and IUU caught fish does not enter the US market. Therefore, it is critical that the US Government have enough auditors to verify compliance and work with partner governments to ensure document validity. 

The US Government and its auditors should increase the number of technical workshops in target countries, which could focus on sharing trends for non-compliance, specific areas to improve traceability within the target country, and provide regular guidance to low-capacity governments. Furthermore, these technical workshops should include SIMP auditors so that they can better understand what true and accurate documents from each country should look like. 

NOAA should share public information on the status of compliance with SIMP as this will assist in capacity building efforts from the NGO and foundation community.  

Yet this one is the one that puzzles me: Stimson’s research revealed that SIMP assumes a level of capacity and oversight by governments in verifying documents that are passed along in the supply chain. Well… SIMP does not really include the government organizations on the picture, not of the need of certification as to be able to crosscheck the legality of those documents they are sending to the importer… so what you expect?

Yet I totally agree with these ones: 

As the US Government considers expanding SIMP to all species, there needs to be a full and critical assessment of the existing system …a serious assessment of the SIMP program is needed to ensure it is effective. 

For me, SIMP is just another missed opportunity and an example of a country doing something based on the perceived need to do something, but not on making a real gamechanger.

The tuna world in these uncertain times

While I started to write this blog NZ’s Prime Minister just announced we go to level 4 response for COVID19 which pretty much means quarantine at home with minimal to no social interactions.

can you all be at 1 .5 mt from each other?

And while the fact that I cannot travel has already impacted my livelihood, it has a massive impact on the tuna organizations I work with (FFA, SPC, WCPFC, NZ MFAT) etc

An interesting question to explore is what happens with the Tuna industry itself? Reality is that no one really knows, as this is new territory… we have not had anything at this level ever before..

So I’m going to elucubrate based on my understanding of the industry. Lets start with the easy scenario:

Sashimi from longlining 

The tropical longline fishery typically consists of large-scale distant water vessels fishing between 20ºN-20ºS, which target bigeye and yellowfin for sashimi markets, with smaller volumes of incidentally-caught albacore. Vessels operating in the southern longline fishery are typically smaller (<100GT) and target albacore for canning markets in sub-tropical waters below 10ºS and have small volumes of incidental bigeye and yellowfin by-catch.

The freezer longliners can also be sub-divided between those that have ultra-low temperature freezing (ULT) capability at -60°C and those that have -35 to -40°C freezing capacity, with the former commanding a price premium. Fresh small-scale longliners principally supply the Japan sashimi market.

All what is fresh for airfreight went downhill fast, as it uses in most cases excess capacity on commercial flights, and these are diminishing left right and centre. So unless you have charter flights picking up your fish or designated cargo planes… that segment of the industry will be the hardest hit. This segment is small in volumes, but big in value!

So far all operators are outing their efforts on the frozen markets as carriers and containers will keep operating. Yet -60°C and -35 to -40°C containers are expensive and require good logistics.

Furthemore, around 80% of the sashimi market in Japan is frozen tuna and 20% fresh, with imports comprising 60% of total supply. While the majority of sashimi supply comes from longline vessels, catches from pole-and-line and purse seine vessels with ULT freezer capability are also utilized. The bulk of frozen catch (70-80%) is sold outside the auction system to trading companies and processors. Japan typically relies on about 10-15,000 mt per month of imported, mostly frozen, tuna. China and South Korea have considerable sashimi-grade processing capability, with much of their frozen processed product also exported to Japan.

So the key here is how the COVID 19 crisis affects japan? And we don't really know that.

Loined / Canned / Pouched from Purseiners

One assumes that being all frozen, there are little impact on fisheries operations, vessels come to port only to unload and tranship and there are many measures to limit human interaction. Most of the resupply is done with carriers and bunkers with little human interaction.

But there are issues at this level (and I’ll come back to them), yet the main issues are at the other end, at the demand side. People panic buy shelf stable food, and tuna is a tested and trusted choice, not that I’ve seen it in NZ but I hear that tuna cans and pouches shelfs in the developed world are been emptied fast, this of course means that brands put more orders and that rise demand (and prices which in principle is good for fishers) 

Now the fragile point in the value chain for me is processing… tuna is really labour intensive, you need lots of people to process tuna…  that is the reason why the canning countries are mostly countries with cheap labour – Thailand, Ecuador, Vietnam etc… Even in the most developed countries that have the most automatized production lines (i.e. Italy, Spain, France) you still need quite a few well-trained people to run those fancy machines and retorts.

Processing is then pushed for products, yet on the other side factories are really wet environment, and while as much as personnel hygiene has improved in the last decades the I see two problems arising that will impact production: 

1. the requirements of “personal distancing” in between people in the workplace 1 or 2 meters in between people? Processing lines are normally elbow to elbow… so if you have less people that means less production.

2. people working in processing will get sick, and put in quarantine or self-isolation, and by tracing the people that work with them, so absenteeism will be increased… and if you have less people that means less production. 

And as the tuna value chain is not really tuned… you’ll have more fish caught and waiting to be processed that the quantities been able to be processed, so coolstores will be full, carriers can’t unload and liberate space, vessels will be full and waiting at transhipment ports like last year in May… therefore prices will go down and fishers will get paid less…

But then there is also a more complex issue… purseiners in the WCPFC cannot fish without an observer on board. Yet unless you have license for the country where you fish and come to tranship after departing the same port, you may need to pick up or leave an observer from a country that is not from the port state… so that observer has to fly to or from there… key transhipment countries such as RMI, Kiribati and Tuvalu have literally closed their borders and no flights are serving them… so how the observer will get there or come back from there?

On the other side even if we assume we can use port state observers… as a captain I will have certain fears to get a guy that is have no assurances of health on board for a 2 to 4 week trip, while at the same time saying: “Hey I have a license, vessels days and the contracts for fish… is not my problem that you cannot guarantee me and observer”

In term of PSM I can also imagine reticence to get inspectors on board, or for inspectors to go on board…

So what are the options to suspend fishing, while market demand is soaring? Leave thousands of people without work (and potentially without food?), or risk the advances we have made in compliance via observers and PSM in the region…

I’m not going to go on the geopolitical implications of all this, since that is a blog on itself… but just think that the DWFN are all countries with high populations  - think how many people live in between China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Spain, France, etc. – they all have experiences famine at some stage in the last 100 years… for them food is stability… take food out and serious social crisis will loom… how much are they willing to do as to assure that tuna (that is mostly owned by very small and undeveloped countries) don't get on their way? Having grown up in South America, and seen the carnage that colonial powers and then the US did with the Global Monroe Doctrine and the Clark Memorandum for the resources of the countries there… This is the kind of shit that really scares me  

Anyway… even if we keep it at fisheries operational levels only … reality is that I don't really know how things are going to pan out… definitely uncertain times for the industry

As for me? I’m sure I cannot travel till end of May or June, and while I have a certain number of tasks I can do from home and via remote conferencing… the bulk of my work is operational… so my livelihood will be compromised with time (so if you have something you think I can do from home -strategy, research, policy, etc.) – let me know!

Swimming in uncertain times

As I wrote a few weeks ago, I been training since December for a 20 km swim event to Auckland. One that many of you supported with donations…

And as we all know, the last few weeks have been quite incredible with the issues around COVID 19 virus. 

Two days ago the organisers decided to cancel it, since we have a sanitary emergency and first response assets need to be on standby for real emergencies… having to worry about 30 crazy people swimming to Auckland (trough shipping lines) is a problem they don't need.

Kaz, Avi, Felipe, Juan and my self

This of course was quite disappointing, as I have been training for 4 months… but in true fisherman spirit… I”ll said: fuc*k it.. I’ll do a swim in any case… So I planned a route along the coast of my island that would never keep be more than 1.5/2 km from shore, so I could do without external support. 

Why would I do that? Just a matter of principle… I gave my word to all that lovely people listed below that I’ll swim for a good cause, and while I could not do the one promised… I’ll do the next best thing.

I told the team I been training with what I would do…. And as they call me “captain” everyone went “yeah… we do it… we do the swim with you” (what an awesome crew!)

So yeah … today was the day… and it was quite miserable… southerlies, rain and so overcast the GPS in my sport watch lost signal quite a few times (as you can see  - I can assure you I did not  cross the peninsula on foot to keep swimming!) and we did almost 12 km. 

a waiheke swim

I don't know much about much… but at sea, you become quite tuned into evaluating people’s characters… and the crew I did this swim with, are just exceptional people. 

My book of rules in life has 2 lines in bold… Never be ungrateful and never be pretentious… so my full respect and total thankfulness to the crew I did the swim with, Avi and Felipe as swimmers and Kaz (my coolest wantok from Alotau in PNG) for kayaking with us.

More importantly my massive gratefulness to the following people named below that donated almost 1700 NZD to support me. You guys are legends 

Finally, we are swimming in uncertain times with COVID 19… things are scary.  A key thing I learned as a sea search and rescue swimmer, is that fear can be your friend… but panic is always you enemy.  And a former DJ specialised in Jamaican sounds, I learned that a good song  always help… and even when clouds make the sky dark, remember Danny Red wise words, and “Be Grateful” for who you are

Thank you all for who you are. 

YOLAINE BEYENS
TONY LONG
SUE WATSON
PIROSKA AND BALAZS
OWEN X
NOOROA TEHIRA ANGUNA
MICHAEL BATTY
MATTHEW HOOPER
MARK YOUNG
KIMBERLY VOSBURGH
KIM THOMPSON
KATHRIN BACHER
JEAN-FRANÇOIS BONNIN
FISH SAFETY FOUNDATION
EMILY LAWSON
ELSIE TANADJAJA
DREYDON SOBANJA
DANIEL SUDDABY
BRUNO DEPREZ
ANONYMOUS x 2
ALASTAIR MACFARLANE
MARGREET ENSHEDE
HUGH WALTON

Aotearoa- New Zealand / what fishing might look like in 2040 report

As I wrote a month ago, up to the late 90s I was quite involved in NZ fisheries as part of the industry, regulatory advisory bodies and also was a research provider working on pelagics and recreational assessments. Then I got involved in a series of quite complex regulatory issues where politics got mixed in, and I really hated all that, I felt out of my depth and as fish out of the water. So I moved my work focus back to technical issues in the Pacific, where I fished and lived prior to coming to NZ.

Yet I do keep a keen interest in NZ fisheries, in fact, I have used NZ experiences and models for my work overseas and have good friends deeply involved in NZ fisheries at every level 

Yet is a bit of a minefield, since immediately you get cornered to a sector or set of users… doesn't matter that you are a technical person... in NZ (as in any of the 56 countries I worked so far ) when fisheries and politics mix… the worst of both seem to emerge.

Yet for me, there are 2 things in NZ that are quite special if compared worldwide: 1st one is that we are a quite transparent society in term of corruption (remember I grew up in Latin America!), and most of the society is quite straight in terms of rule of law, 2nd one is that there is a system in place: the Quota Management System that caters for all sectors… yes it has problems, yes is over 30 years old and lots of things have changed, yes is not perfect, etc, etc… I heard it all before… don't worry. But is there, and it has proven its worth in more cases than it has failed, but fundamentally and with all its arguable flaws, it gives a platform to build upon.

So when I was approached to be a member of a reference panel for the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s “Aotearoa- New Zealand / what fishing might look like in 2040” consultation, I was totally stoked. You can read the draft ToRs of the working group here.

NZ fisheries are after all the country and sector that welcomed me and gave me a fair shot in life.

There are two things that really gut me from people: ingratitude and pretentiousness, so been selected to contribute to such a high-level discussion when I started my working life here on 90 footers trawlers off Onehunga’s port, then far north longliners, is really humbling. (the pics above are from those days)

I’m looking forwards to be part of this recognition that to reduce the gaps in data and knowledge in the fisheries sector is important to ensure that fishing is being undertaken sustainably and to meet Aotearoa New Zealand’s commitment to taking a more integrated approach to fisheries management, which includes consideration of the wider environment and its inhabitants… This for me sounds a lot like FAO’s Essential EAFM - Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (an area I worked on while there 10 years ago)

This project will convene an expert panel which seeks to identify innovative technologies and methods that can be applied to fisheries to achieve these goals. It will provide recommendations on how Aotearoa New Zealand can move towards a vision for a modernised, data-driven approach to efficient and effective fishing which preserves this resource for future generations. 

While the scope for the project will be finalised in conjunction with the expert panel. The report will include the evidence base to address the following: 

1. A vision for data-driven fishing in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2040. 

2. Is the current data collection robust? 

3. How do data and knowledge gaps reported impact our fisheries? 

4. How do these data and knowledge gaps impact management of our marine environment? 

5. How can mātauranga Māori better inform fishing practices? 

6. What new technologies are being developed and what innovative research is being undertaken in fisheries (locally and internationally)? 

7. What other research, methods and technologies exist in other sectors that could be applied to fisheries? 

8. How would an application and integration of new technologies, research or approaches reduce data and knowledge gaps in our fisheries management system and improve outcomes? 

The job of the expert panel and reference group is to guide the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor in preparing the report. And then the report will be delivered to the Prime Minister and later made public on the PMCSA website.

Is not really a job, since no one is getting paid here (and in fact, I think I’m the only self-employed person in the whole thing) but as said before… I despise ingratitude… and I owe a huge part of my life to NZ and its fisheries. 

I keep updating on this.

New SPC Manual on anchored fish aggregating devices (FADs)

I’ve written a lot about FADs in the Purse Seine tuna fishery and the impact is having at so many levels, these are mostly drifting FADs (dFADs) solar-powered, GPS enabled, Iridium data transmitting double sonar buoys… this little technology marvels besides having redefined Purse Seine fishing in my opinion, are making the makers quite rich. 

A anchored FAD’s scope.

But there is another type of FADs that are used by small scale fisheries and a few recreational fishers, these ones have a profound positive impact on coastal fisheries when well-constructed, deployed and maintained.

Yet there is an art and science to it, and one of the places in the world that the deepest understanding on them is SPC.

They just publish the latest manual on everything anchored FADs related, and I’m proud of personally know four of the five authors, they are top professionals and just awesome people. 

Manual on anchored fish aggregating devices (FADs): an update on FAD gear technology, designs and deployment methods for the Pacific Island region 

This is an awesome resource for anywhere in the world where this con help coastal fishers may benefit of their use.

The main thing is to understand that there is no one-size-fits-all FAD design. The physical environment in which a FAD will be deployed influences the design choice: 

• lagoons and bays: close to communities, characterised by shallow, calm waters with low current; 

• nearshore: usually <800 m deep, areas that are close to the coast accessible by paddle fishers;

• offshore: deep waters with high currents and waves; these locations are usually accessible only by motorised vessels. 

In addition to the environment in which FADs are deployed, the performance and choice of FAD designs are further influenced by several key parameters including:

• cost (low, moderate, high);

• seabed (flat/sandy bottom, rocky with slight slope, steep slope);

• sea condition (calm, moderate seas/current, rough seas/high current);

• degree of boat traffic (low, moderate, high);

• risk of vandalism (low, moderate, high); and

• the boat size available for deployments (small boat, small barge, large vessel).

The manual cater for each of these options for anchored FAD designs, beautifully illustrated, but also advice on deployment, maintenance, etc. And as usual all SPC resources, quality is guaranteed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entitlements and toxicity in the NZ fisheries “dialogue”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insert 3

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

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

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

Fishing in the Blue Pacific

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The passing of Dr SIdney Holt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rest In Peace

Life for those that stay home

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

nutters galore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My last day (out of 223) in Majuro

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

Beau is in control.

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

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

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

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

Who’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iokwe Majuro… see you next year

when friends and work colleagues are one

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

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

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

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

Fishing grounds and Licensing  

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

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

Specific needs arising from the fishing trip

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

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

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

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

Master of the vessel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vessel manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamentals of Purse Seine nets design and their repair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transshipment Again and Again on the WCPFC meeting agenda

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

have my income in the agenda too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES       

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

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

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

HISTORY OF TRANSHIPMENT               

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

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

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

we don’t mind you checking us out!

CURRENT TRANSHIPMENT DYNAMICS                

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

Carrier fleets  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purse seine transhipment

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

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

yea is a foggy world the longline one

Longline transhipment           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE            

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING  

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experimenting with dynamometers for monitoring weights of transhipped tuna

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

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

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

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

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

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

testing “el cheapo” a few months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

loving my job while testing “el cheapo” model