EU and US to decide on Korea's illegal fishing status in February

The European Union has said it will delay its final decision on Korea's illegal fishing status to the end of February. This will allow Vice Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and Acting Minister Kim Young-suk to fly to Brussels in a last-ditch effort to explain the government's progress.

Flag state responsibility antonym (photo by EJF)

Kim will visit EU headquarters between Jan. 21 and 24 to inform of the progress Korea has made and drum up support to lift the imposition of the temporary illegal fishing status.

Kim will meet MARE's Director-General Lowri Evans and Karmenu Vella, commissioner for the environment, maritime affairs and fisheries, Thursday, and International Maritime Organization officials, Friday. 

The EU in November 2013 designated Korea as a preliminary illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) nation, along with Ghana and Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles

Korean fishing companies have been accused of repetitively engaging in illegal fishing in West African waters, while the fisheries ministry has been too lenient on the owners of those vessels.

In June last year, a group of EU officials came to Korea for an inspection before the economic block finalized its designation of Korea as an "illegal fishing nation," a decision that was expected to be handed down this month.

Once officially designated as an IUU country, the nation will face substantial disadvantages in trade. All fishery exports to EU nations, which amount to about $100 million a year, will be banned and Korean vessels' access to EU ports limited.

An EU delegation is slated to visit Korea between Feb. 24 and 25, prior to its final decision.

Meanwhile, the ministry is facing the final verdict about sanctions from the United States in February as well. The U.S. put Korea on its preliminary list of illegal fishing states in January 2013 and was expected to reach a final decision this month. But that was postponed for a month to conduct additional reviews.

The ministry will hold a briefing on the revised Ocean Industry Development Act, while the U.S. side will provide information on a presidential task force on combating illegal fishing.

Source: here

FAO Guidelines for Catch Documentation Schemes and other summer activities

Busy January I have to admit...

As I reported before, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) endorsed the usefulness of catch documentation schemes in combating IUU fishing and welcomed initiatives to harmonize current schemes. And requested that FAO elaborate guidelines and other relevant criteria relating to catch documentation schemes (CDS), including possible formats, based on the following principles: a) be in conformity with the provisions of relevant international law; b) not create unnecessary barriers to trade; c) equivalence; d) risk-based; e) reliable, simple, clear and transparent; and f) electronic if possible, aiming for adoption at the thirty-second session of the Committee of Fisheries. The assessment of schemes and formats shall include cost-benefit considerations and take into account catch documentation schemes already existing in certain Member States, Member Organizations and in the context of RFMOs. 

People having fun at a FAO fisheries meetings

I been honoured by FAO with the request to lead on this task… which is quite massive.  

I’m more an action person that a diplomat and a writer, so I said yes as long as I could work with people that know their stuff and could complement my many holes. So I’m working with my colleague Alastair Macfarlane, who has been a trade and market access pillar in the NZ Seafood Industry council for many years and has the trust of many people in the world.

Furthermore, my friend Gilles Hosch, is working on draft guidelines best practices on Catch Documentation Schemes for the Tuna Fisheries under the Common Oceans Initiative, and as we are in the same tune in regards these issues, a complementarity with his excellent work was a key condition for me to get involved, as we can move in parallel fronts. 

These developments run on parallel to the work I been doing with WWF US and the work planned this year with DevFishII/FFA and PNG’s NFA of a Pacific Region CDS to propose to the WCPFC.

So this is quite timely... but a major undertaken, I hope I can live up to the hopes and expectations these people and institutions have placed on me… 

If this wasn't enough, at the same time FAO requested me to be involved in one of their major projects “Fisheries management and marine conservation within a changing ecosystem context”, lading a review of 10 national case studies on traceability practices (Argentina, Barbados, Morocco, Peru, Senegal, Sri-Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Vietnam) as to identify critical points in the seafood value chain, national/regional practices for combatting IUU fishing and insuring food safety, and ways to reduce vulnerability to threats and crises especially for small scale sector.

The objective is to provide concrete recommendations to national policymakers on improved national/regional policies and provide FAO with recommendations on ways to assist national governments to improve their traceability practices, especially to combat IUU fishing.

This is one is a particularly difficult task, as our 1st big challenge was to find a method to compare “pears with oranges”, as a way to find common factors among the very eclectic mix of countries 

Hence I contacted the author of paper I read a while ago “framework for regulatory requirements related to data recording and traceability designed to IUU fishing” (Melanie Borit form NOFIMA in Norway) and not only she was very helpful, but offered to participate in the study, which is great news as no one better to evaluate the framework that the author! 

To complement the team and in order to deal with this challenge in comprehensive way, I also involved my friend and fellow Waiheke islander Kim Thomson whom I worked with in the frame of NZ fisheries, and now she is taking the bulk of the complexity of this task.

So the easy January spearfishing, surfing, sailing and doing beach life is off the window big time… but then I’m happy to stretch my brain and hopefully come up with some useful tools at the end. 

The joy of being in the ocean

I grow up in the swamps and farms near the Argentina-Paraguay border, so the ocean was a late but vital addition into my life. 

I owe to the ocean and its fisheries everything I have, and most importantly, it defined who I am.

I don't know if my kids would be in fisheries, but I would love for them to have the opportunity to do so if they are keen... However I'm painfully aware that it would be for them much harder, than it was for me, to make a living out of it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that motivate my work, I don't want fisheries to collapse and thus, do not allow them (and others like me) to build their lives in a positive way.

In any case, I'm pleased that my kids love the ocean, are not afraid of it, while are always respectful of its dangers and wonders.

This picture taken last week in Okopu Bay - Aotea/Great Barrier Island (100 kilometres / 62 mi north-east of Auckland) really pleases me as it resumes that feeling of bewildering and joy my kids seems to share with me in regards the ocean... (plus the laughs when I explained the playfulness around the dolphin's belly to belly "frisky" behaviour!)

No matter what they will become, I know that the ocean will be a part of their lives, and that makes me proud and happy.

The Basics of complexity

When I started university, marine biology and fisheries where for me the logical options, and while I did Biology in High School, it was not too deep.

I remember vividly how biochemistry and cytology at Uni just blew my mind, and I could see how the challenges of complexity and incredible pathways that already exist at molecular level would extrapolate and amplify... so managing populations and ecosystems is from that angle a mammoth task.

Here is to biochemistry and cytology! 

End of the "fishing" year

Dear friends/readers/colleagues 

Just wanted to reiterate that I don't take your readership, the work opportunities you provided me and advice given over the year, as granted.

The place I call home at this time of the year with my family, Awana in Great Barrier Island (Aotea) in NZ

I'm always aware of the fact that surely you have better options than a partly dyslexic, grammatically challenged, barely understandable, weird humoured, half cast type mongrel Austrian/Argentinean fisherman pretending for already 17 years to be a consultant...

But by some obscure reason you still give me work, read my blog and call me a friend! 
 
So thank you again for your support over 2014 and hope the best in 2015. 
 
Hope you all had a good xmas and have a great new year.

Last job of the year

Last Saturday I had my planning meeting for 2015 with my colleagues (and friends at this stage!) form the EU funded DevFish II  project based in FFA, in the Solomon Islands.  

I mentioned this project before, as a lot of the work I do in the Pacific is under its auspices, and have I been involved in its operations for the last 3 years… I really love working with them.

The aim of the project is already clear in the logo “A fairer slice for Pacific People”, and that is what delivers… Pacific Island countries catch just $200 million worth of tuna from its fisheries while foreign nations fishing in the same waters catch over $2 billion. Meanwhile, estimates of lost potential earnings from illegal fishing range from the millions to over a billion. By focusing its efforts on increasing control of illegal fishing and maximising local opportunities for business and employment, DEVFISH is making a significant impact on Pacific Island economies.

The scope of the work I’m involved with them, includes 

• Transparency and stakeholder Involvement. We are working to find newer ways to strengthen industry associations and artisanal fishers' representation in decision making, and provide training and advice on fishing access agreements and licenses to national government staff.
• Strengthening the competency of the authorities. To export fish to the EU, countries need an EU-approved 'Competent Authority' to certify fish exports meet EU export standards. Support is been provided for meeting requirements associated with sanitary inspection and EU catch certification (which contain requirements to certify fish is not caught illegally).       
• Industry Strengthening. Training and expertise to expand exports within sustainable limits will be provided - such as training fishing companies to improve vessels and fish handling practices. The emphasis is on small and medium enterprises, where we provide training and technical assistance with a focus on strengthening management and filling skill shortages constraining growth and profitability, within sustainable limits.
• Standardisation of capacity building and training. Under Devfish, training for rhe Authorities officers has been standardized under the same curriculums for the personel of all FFA countries in terms of Seafood inspectors, Fisheries inspectors, Vessels inspectors IUU certification staff, as well as training on Leadership and conflict management
• New Technologies. Projects include from of cleaner technologies, replacement of 2-stroke with 4-stroke engines for artisanal fisheries to the development of fisheries management and control Software.

I reported before on examples of the most visible work I have done with them: here, here, here and here, among otheres

And while I can be quite critical of some aspects of the EU in terms of the disproportioned burden they put on pacific island countries, I always recognised that they do put a lot of money in terms of assistance… and in the case of DevFish II they do that in a flexible format, that allows for FFA (in response to the Pacific Islands needs) to organise the contracts and assistance independently, without being micromanaged from Brussels.

This approach allows for fast response to immediate problems, this flexibility was crucial in terms of assisting countries with the IUU “yellow cards”

Furthermore, from the "human side" is great too. I’m working with friends, meetings are smooth, egos contained… the Team Leader is “Uncle” Hugh Walton (NZ), a former Fisherman/guerrilla gardner/educator, etc... (and a real south Seas vagabond) that is well know and respected all trough the Pacific, and among my colleagues I love having two friends; Jope Tamani (from Fiji) and Timothy Numilengi (PNG) whom I met first time many years ago as their trainer. Beside being top professionals, they are just really nice people to work with, and with many values more aligned to my ones than my European colleages.

Working with your friends... awesome.

In fact, I wish all international assistance programmes were like Devfish.

Infographic on the new EU labelling and traceability requirements

As of 13 December 2014, the new EU food labelling rules, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2011,  aim to ensure that consumers receive clearer, more comprehensive and accurate information on food content, and help them make informed choices about what they eat.

An explanation guide of the rules aimed to Pacific Islands Tuna producers we did with FFA in August, can be downloaded from here. 

The Illustrated "Pocket Guide" for fisheries products, published by the EU itself can be downloaded from here.

The EU issues Solomon Islands and Tuvalu "yellow cards"

Last february a delegation of the EU's DG MARE (like the EU ministry of fisheries) visited the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu in a "dialogue" mission, to assess how the countries comply with their vision of of how these countries implement their IUU regulation.

Just to put things in perspective, Tuvalu has less than 10000 inhabitants, does not process fish or trade fish with the EU. Has 5 fishing vessels under it flag, and the vessels don't land in the country because there is no where to land....

Tuvalu's fishing hub

I written intensively about the Solomons, and you all know I'm very fond of the place, so not going to abound too much on it.

Accessing the EU market comes at significant costs for the Solomons, as the EU request the highest level of compliance (rightly so, to protect their consumers) worldwide. These obligations for market access in terms of fisheries (and seafood safety) controls are quite complex for a country like the Solomon, as the need to prove they have systems in place that are equivalent to those of the EU member countries.

Implementing these systems to the required level would them around € 1.2 million. This is more than the budget that the government assigns for dengue or malaria, so allocating that kind of money for EU market access arises legitimate ethical questions. On the other side, these are the exports that  produce the income for the country that all other priorities may need. This rational, while valid, is hard to find even in established countries, more so in very young ones.

So... yes, things are not perfect... the EU singled out the lack of traceability and catch certification failures. I completely reject the 1st issue, as while fisheries may have not a traceability system in place, the authorities for health certification to the EU and the company have an excellent one, and in terms of catch certification (which is in itself a defective tool), mistakes were made on the paper work, mostly because no one ever trained them, we fixed that a in April (even the EU ambassador came to the training).

Catch Certification Training in Noro

The DG Mare delegation spent 3 days there, talking mostly to officials, not even went to Noro to see by themselves how things work there and now, 10 months later they drop this bomb, without even coming back to assess the advances... 

I'm the 1st one to recognise that they have problems and sometimes they are slow to fix them... but they are not negating them either...  So, is the best strategy for the EU to shame Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as with "yellow cards" as non-cooperative third countries in terms of IUU fishing?

Particularly when we all know the absolute mess that fisheries controls are in China (see here and here) and Taiwan for example, with huge fleets actively involved in IUU fishing in the Pacific

I acknowledge that the EU funds directly or indirectly a lot of my work... but surely there are better ways to achieve results than being perceived as a bully.

UNDP PRODUCED VIDEO "SAVING OUR TUNA"

I'm always kind of double sided on documentaries about commercial fishing... While I agree in principle with the message, they tend to go for an over-dramatization of issues, emotional low punches, western type paternalistic overtones "we know better what is better for you" and many times very weak technical background...

These issues, in my opinion, do more harm than good, because they dilute the credibility of the people making them and more important; the otherwise good message of better management. 

Fisheries "crisis" is just not a biological issue, but a complex mix of politics (both from the "receiving" countries and the Distant Water Fishing Nations), fuelled by subsidies, lack transparency, budgeting for fisheries controls, and yes: "pure greed", among other many things... Is not just plain "bad" people taking advantage of 'good" people

In any case, this is a segment of a much longer doco (that unfortunately is not fully up loaded in youtube), but that I like for its straitness and the people they talk too.... some of them my friends after being working with them for many years.

The "Landing Authorization Code" concept

One of the recommendations provided to the US Presidential Task Force on IUU fishing by the WWF conveyed "Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Wild Fish Products" (I blogged about it here) included the  adoption of my "Landing Authorization Code" concept, which is quite flattering.

The concept originates from work I have done for the DevFISH II programme (a EU funded initiative embedded in the Pacific Islands Fisheries Forum Agency - FFA).  And it is based in the simple fact that “Fish does not become IUU during processing, but is either caught or landed illegally”.

The concepts “mixes” two basic elements; the requirements (in one way or another) of Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA)  and a Key Data Element needed to follow a landing through the value chain.

Under PSMA, vessels have to seek advance approval to enter a port, sufficient to allow adequate time for the port state to examine the information provided. Hence the information required needs to be provided and assessed to facilitate a decision as to whether or not to deny or grant entry. If an “authorization” is given, either the master or the vessel’s representative can present the authorization to the authorities when the vessel arrives in port. 

This “authorization” will need to be “coded” (on some form or another) as to be recorded in one way or another as to be able to review and accounted and potentially crosschecked if it is deemed necessary. So why not simply use this Landing Authorization Code (LAC) as the tool for the initial Key Data Element required for any Catch Documentation Scheme or traceability analysis along the value chain from landing to consumer (or wherever it is needed or most cost effective). 

Furthermore, most fishing vessels operators (company own or independent) do maintain a trip or voyage coding systems in order to monitor logistics, fuel consumption, crewing rosters, general costs and more importantly “final payments”(which are in the form of a % of the catch volumes, species composition and values) are to the traced back to that landing, minus the fix costs. 

Therefore the concept already exists in the sector, so this “LAC” becomes a better and standardised use of an existing tool. The "Process" associated to the use design and use of the LAC is as follow:

Arrival notification

The “authorization” to land is assessed by the fisheries authorities in the port in a compliance response to a series of requirements that are decided by the authorities of the Port State in relationship to its own legislation and requirements or those of an RFMO, international agreements, etc. The scope of the requirements can be arranged in accordance to a pre determined risk index based on the characteristics of the vessels requiring port access. 

As an example: domestic flagged vessels fishing in the Port State EEZ with local VMS and observers may be at the lowest risk tier (i.e green). Foreign vessels with local licenses, foreign charter vessels, domestic vessels fishing in other EZZ or the High Seas, Fish Carriers, vessels with patchy observer coverage, indirect VMS access, etc. are in middle risk tier (yellow). Finally, foreign flagged vessels with no direct VMS access by the coastal or port state, or no observer coverage or vessels identified as a Vessels of Interest (VoI) by any country or RFMO are singled as high risk vessels (red).

As noted, the risk profile of the vessel defines the required time for arrival notification (12, 24, 48 hrs), plus the amount and depth of the information to be provided by the vessel intending to land. In considering the assessment an LAC can be provided and the vessel is allowed to dock with intention to unload. In instances where it is not provided the vessel may be allowed to dock for humanitarian or force majeure reasons but not to land. 

The structure and nature of the “LAC” is up to the Port State or RFMO to decide, but it is important that it is inclusive in the information it holds, and in principle is to be an integral part of relational database such as a Fisheries Information Management System (FIMS). 

The LAC “design” should include for elements such as:  country identification, trip and port traceability, fishing effort measurements, observer reporting, etc. and it should have inter-operability with the vessels operators trip/voyaging coding systems, and if needed with the maritime authorities.

Interestingly, this inter-operability of the vessels operators and authorities LAC can be beneficial to crews and captains in case of payment disputes or safety at sea issues arising from the maritime authorities.

Inspections

The risk profile and compliance level during the previous step defines the need for inspection of the landing and the expected % of yearly inspections decided by the port state, i.e. 25% of landings for green tier vessels, 50% for yellow and 100% for red.

The decision of whether an inspection should take place needs to be based on the risk profile of the vessel (if red) and the % of inspections that have already taken  place (yellow, green) or issues arising from the documentation presented.

If an inspection is performed, then the LAC is recorded in the inspection forms in order to provide for future verification if required and for compliance performance monitoring. Ideally the Inspection forms are digitalized on a tablet type device and the data enters the FIM is real time under the specific LAC of that operation.

If the results of the inspection shows inconsistencies or non compliances (and based on the extent of these) the landing may be authorized under bond or denied. Then the LAC associated to that landing is “flagged” into the FIMS in order to interrupt any further movements or transactions associated to that landing until the issues are resolved.

Unloading 

If it is decided that an inspection is necessary then the results, if compliant, will provide the permission to unload (or transship). This landing could be conditional, as explained before (under bond). If an inspection does not take place the LAC then becomes the “de facto” authorization for unloading.

In the case of transshipments, the LAC is attached to the catch estimates (from logsheets) or real (if hanging scales are used) and reflect the captains/mates receipt or any the document the volumes being transshipped. The LAC will then accompany the transshipping documentation (printed) and if the receiving country has an MoU with the port state or is part of the same RFMO, then they can potentially log-in on to a common FIMS to cross check the legality and estimated volumes of the landing and to add their own information.  If landing or transshipments are partial (and this practice should be discouraged by principle) then the LAC would need to be “partitioned” into lots associated to the original LAC with this retained as the main reference and the lots can be incorporated into FIMS. Any volumes not landed should be considered as a “lot” in the same manner as the landed ones.

Transport

If transport is required for the landing to coolstores or processing facilities then the documentation to be carried will reference the LAC in relation to the real (if fish is weighed prior) or estimated landing taken out of the documentation provided for the vessels arrival, or e-logsheets. 

Reception or weight in

At the coosltore or processing facility reception or anywhere where the official sorting and weight in of the fish is done the LAC “marks” the volumes in the FIMS and into the receiving operator’s inventory system. 

If the whole fish is loaded into containers for direct export then the weight in is to be recorded under the LAC on the FIMS and the volumes containerized discounted of the total volumes recorded that that landing. That exported lot would still be associated to the LAC as in the case of partial landings or transshipments.

The private operators receiving the fish could either load all the data on a FIMS portal or maintain their own inventory and traceability systems that could either be “absorbed” by FIMS or audited by fisheries authorities. In any case final volumes by species would be incorporated into FIMS for the LAC.

Companies normally use lot systems based on the species, size and vessel of origin. All these parameters can be linked to the LAC under FIMS or their own inventory and traceability management system.

Processing establishments and cool stores 

Most responsible MCS systems include Mass Balance evaluation (fish landed = fish in storage + fish processed or sold) on the establishments, by the fisheries authorities.   

These evaluations starts with the LAC of all fish received for a period of time and what is presently in the inventory. The officers for example may chose a minimum of 5 different pallets/boxes/bins to do a full traceability exercise and check that each of those pallets/boxes/bins (raw material as well as processed fish) are registered on company documentation and that can be traced to the LAC.

Volumes withdraw from storage for processing are “discounted” from the original landed volumes in relation to the LAC, hence each withdrawal would leave a smaller volume left from the original until the landing is exhausted. Obviously same principle applies to whole fish withdrawals.  Processed product volumes will be inventoried under the same LAC taking in to consideration the processing ratios (conversion factors) associated to that type of products.

Final product Sales and Exports - Catch Certificates

Prior to the product leaving the premises Catch Certificates (domestic or market specific) are prepared based on all the operations relating to the original LAC (or LACs in the case of mixed products).

The referencing and traceability to the specific LAC plus the fish volumes accountancy through the value chain becomes the basis and condition “sine qua non” for a catch certificate, either paper or electronic.

the LAC in action

The whole system is based on my view of what is practical from "reality" perspective and the technology tools we have available today. Many countries have already FIMS, or these can be easily adapted from banking software, as the principles are similar (Landing are deposits, and processing/sales are withdrawals).

I have no idea if the concept would be adopted in some way or another by countries or international organisations, but i'm quietly proud of it :-)

Training on the EU IUU Catch Certification Scheme in the Philippines

Philippines received a yellow card notification from the European Commission in June 2014 notifying it that it was failing to discharge its duties as a flag, port, and coastal state to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. 

Unloading in GenSan

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

The decision does not, at this stage, entail any measures affecting trade. Countries that are being given a 'yellow card' warning and a reasonable time to respond and take measures to rectify the situation. Should the situation not  improve, the EU could take further steps, which could entail trade sanctions on fisheries imports, as was done recently with Guinea, Belize and Cambodia (IP/14/304).

Philippines and PNG were notified at the same time (I wrote about it before) and they share some of the problems being identified, hence it make sense that the training being provided is standardised, so the understanding of the technical issues is the same on both sides.

However, the Catch Certificate is only the top of the iceberg, what we see from much deeper issues... and those are the hard ones to tackle, particularly in countries that have a lot of areas that requires a high level of attention and support at least equal to fisheries compliance.

Competition & Conflict Between Ecolabels In Tuna Fisheries

Further on my post on governance innovation networks in Tuna, I found interesting that the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, went deeper into the conflict between the Dolphin Safe and the Marine Stewardship Council certification schemes in the West and Central Pacific.

In this video, they outline how key practices like scientific rigour, inclusiveness, transparency, impartiality/independence and impact contribute to label credibility and explains the importance of authority in understanding how certification schemes maintain influence within global production networks.

They conclude that understanding the more nuanced role of authority, both with and without credibility, offers new insights into the wider dynamics that shape environmental regulation in global production networks.

I wrote about Ecolabels (or Eco-certifications) and their role for seafood trade in a publication that the SIPPO Programme commission a few years ago (download from here or here)

In the Tuna conferences, normally the last session is in between Ecolabels... and  it tends to be an embarrassing cat fight, that at this stage is not even funny anymore, so I always walk out... feels like a ego contest (my one is better than yours) more than a anything else.

2014 UN General Assembly (Fisheries Resolution on CDS)

Catch Documentation Schemes

75bis. Notes with satisfaction in this regard that the Committee on Fisheries at its thirty-first session recognized that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations would undertake to elaborate guidelines and other relevant criteria relating to catch documentation schemes, including possible formats, based on the following principles: conformity with the provisions of international law, not creating unnecessary barriers to trade, equivalence, risk-based, reliable, simple, clear and transparent, and electronic if possible, with the aim of adoption at the thirty-second session of the Committee on Fisheries, and that the assessment of schemes and formats would include cost-benefit considerations and take into account catch documentation schemes already implemented by certain of its members, as well as regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements;

Just an example of the stuff we do now with the EU one

This is good news... a better system is possible and some very smart and "reality based" people are working on it!

Governance Innovation Networks for Sustainable Tuna

I have been reading with interest parts of Alice M.M. Miller's PhD thesis from October 2014, at University of Wageningen School of Social Sciences. I liked the fact that she tackles the issue from a Social Science perspective, which I find really refreshing.

There are two particular topics (so far) I have focused: 

1) The MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) vs the Dolphin Safe label conflict in the PNA fishery

She examine this case by asking what happens if two labels regulating the same fishery, with differing perceived levels of credibility, make conflicting sustainability claims? 

She looks at how key practices like scientific rigour, inclusiveness, transparency/openness, impartiality/independence and impact contribute to label credibility and explains the importance of authority in understanding how certification schemes maintain influence within global production networks. Her results demonstrate that despite substantially different levels of credibility within these networks, the application of an environmental standard is more connected to the authority of the standard setter than the credibility of the label. The paper concludes that understanding the more nuanced role of authority, both with and without credibility, offers new insights into the wider dynamics that shape environmental regulation in global production networks.

Loved her graphics

This is in line with my personal knowledge and appreciation of both schemes, where i see the MSC as "real" measure of sustainability (even if i have my reservations on other aspects of it), and the "Dolphin Safe" which may have started with some real values in the 80's but is now a money making scheme with little transparency.

2) The power asymmetry in the role that the EU's DG mare is taking in the Pacific fisheries

Like any other world power the EU is aiming to extend its regulatory reach beyond its territory.  Utilising its position as the world’s largest tuna market the EU has been able to exert regulatory authority by attaching compliance with their IUU Regulation to their trade agreements and conditions of market access.  ‘Market Power Europe’ is the main basis for the power asymmetry between the EU and Pacific Island countries in EU IUU Regulation uptake.

The result has been that where market access has been crucial for these external countries, they have sought to comply with the EU’s rules, albeit with varying degrees of success. In addition to market power the EU has also diffused the implementation of their IUU Regulation through normative power, for instance through interactions in the WCPFC.

Exerting normative power to promote their external regulatory agenda has been less successful for the EU and met with considerable, but differentiated, resistance by Pacific Island countries. The negative perception of the EU’s sustainable fisheries track record in the region and their self-interest based socialisation strategies has weakened the EU’s capacity to take a normative stance over sovereign resources of third countries.

The EU’s external regulatory strategy for fisheries has therefore ‘muddied the waters’ because the EU’s perceived behaviour undermines moral superiority it claims over the countries targeted by their IUU Regulation. In addition, in a region with strong sub-regional governance structures like the PNA, Pacific Island countries have been able to exploit their position in the WCPFC as a collective of resource owners, to openly criticise the EU’s normative stance and to ‘push back’ against EU demands. This has altered the power asymmetry in their favour. Pacific Island countries, which lack ‘traditional’ market power, have been able to promote their own regulatory agenda against traditionally more powerful bodies like the EU. 

These dynamic and differentiated power asymmetries generate in turn a differentiated geography of regulatory uptake. The power of the EU lies in its position as a market actor; one faced with minimal resistance in pushing its regulatory agenda. With a near global consensus on strong IUU fishing regulation, it appears any added value for the EU in investing in their normative power over the already resistant sovereign owners of fishery resources, is diminishing.

While the strategic importance of interacting in multilateral fora such as the WCPFC will continue to remain important for the EU, exercising normative power on IUU regulation appears better reserved for an increasingly sparse group of countries and regions not dependent on the EU export market; and when exercised, should focus on cooperation rather than ‘teaching’. 

Back from Noro, Solomon Islands

Back from my favourite fishing port in the Pacific: Noro, in the Solomon Islands.

The science and craft of net assemblage 

I write a lot about this place (see here and here) because I think the place represents "What fisheries in the Pacific should be". I treasure the place, there are not many good stories in fisheries in the Pacific (or worldwide!), but here is one. 

Local boys learning the ropes (literally)

If only the government was to support it in way to maintain the international obligations they assumed, it would be fantastic. 

The real networking!

Advances are slow, but forthcoming... the fisheries regulatory presence is strengthening, and a new guard of committed fisheries officers is rolling in.  

I'm very proud to have been involved with the place for the last 15 years in various roles... I have friends there now, and in many ways feels a bit like my 2nd home in the Pacific. (In fact the seeds for the "Noro Pizza & Espresso" are been planted :-)

Some of the crew I been working with

While there the elections took place (never an easy time there), but so far so good. The fact that the Present primer minister was ousted from his electorate by a teacher may mean lot. Here are some images:

the courthouse in Munda

Welcome to vote

Ink your finger please

Mhhh... you don't look like a voter my friend.

Visualising fishing effort

Global Fishing Watch is the product of a technology partnership between SkyTruth, Oceana, and Google that is designed to show all of the trackable fishing activity in the ocean.

This interactive web tool – currently in prototype stage – is being built to enable anyone to visualise the global fishing fleet in space and time. Global Fishing Watch will reveal the intensity of fishing effort around the world, one of the stressors contributing to the precipitous decline of our fisheries.

The tool uses a global feed of vessel locations extracted from Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking data collected by satellite, revealing the movement of vessels over time. The system automatically classifies the observed patterns of movement as either “fishing” or “non-fishing” activity.

The prototype visualisation contains 300 million AIS data points covering over 25,000 unique vessels. For the initial fishing activity map, the data is limited to 35 million detections from 3,125 vessels that we were able to independently verify were fishing vessels. Global Fishing Watch then displays fishing effort in terms of the number of hours each vessel spent engaged in fishing behaviour, and puts it all on a map that anyone with a web browser will be able to explore.

However, it may seems that the scale of each vessel image projected on the maps significantly overstates the spatial presence of each vessel and is therefore misleading. For example round the NZ EEZ the EEZ appears to be lit up most of the time. The actual number of vessels fishing with AIS (or VMS) deployed would be fewer than 70 and that in the fourth largest EEZ in the world with a physical area larger than Australia.

The implied scale of each vessel position must be several tens of square kilometres and is visually misleading.  Australia appears to lack much fishing inside its EEZ simply because most Australian vessels are small and don't operate AIS (only vessels 24 mt plus are required to have it), hence the system may not provide information on the true scale of globall fishing as most of it is within EEZs and coastal waters and done by small vessels without any electronic monitoring.

Would be good to see the real size of the vessel position and the tracks, which i'm sure will be equally impacting, but technically more correct

See more at http://www.globalfishingwatch.org

Recommendations for a Global Framework to Ensure the Legality and Traceability of Wild-Caught Fish Products

In 2013, WWF set up a Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Wild Fish Products, a multi-disciplinary expert group (that by some obscure reason included me) conveyed to promote a global framework for ensuring the legality and traceability of all wild-caught fish products. 

The goal was to generate solutions to common challenges to establishing such a framework through complementary regulatory and private sector mechanisms.

In our view, a global framework for legal and traceable fish products would provide a powerful lever for encouraging sustainable fishing and combating IUU practices, thus generating substantial benefits to fishers, businesses, consumers, and governments.

We took note of increasing consumer demand for information about the origins of the seafood they eat, and of increasing movement among governments towards more robust regulations to strengthen traceability and to prevent trade in illegal seafood products.

These twin factors, along with other business concerns such as food safety and supply chain management, underlie a growing wave of activities that are expanding traceability within the seafood sector. Industry is moving in this direction voluntarily because traceability is increasingly recognized as good for business – reducing financial, regulatory, and reputational risk, increasing consumer confidence, allowing access to profitable markets, decreasing spoilage, and generally increasing operational efficiency

To help address these challenges, the Panel envisions a global framework (i.e., a combination of standardized commercial practices and adequately harmonised governmental regulations) that includes the following key elements:

1. A shared definition of key data elements about the “who, what, where, when, and how” of fishing that should be associated with wild seafood products;
2. Common nomenclatures and data standards so that this information can be easily shared and universally interpreted;
3. A shared approach to recognizing authoritative sources of information and mechanisms that generate this information reliably;
4. A shared approach to government mechanisms for proactively and authoritatively establishing the legality of fish products entering market chains, creating formal judgments on which market actors can rely;
5. Auditing and verification mechanisms at each critical step in the supply chain that ensure the integrity and strength of the information and infrastructure that support production and trade of legal seafood globally;
6. A vision for achieving fully electronic seafood traceability within five years;
7. A shared approach to a global IT architecture that enables the interoperability of data and traceability platforms, and that provides data access and information sharing in accordance with a standardised system of appropriate access rights;
8. Financial and technical support for those producers who will need help with this transition, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and commercial fishers in developing countries; and
9. A shared vision for the role of supportive and “adequately harmonised” government regulations, including for appropriate export and import controls.

In order to achieve this vision for fully traceable and demonstrably legal fish products, we issued the following recommendations:

1. Minimum information standards for wild caught fish products should be adopted
2. Authoritative data sources, including a global record of fishing vessels, should be established or identified as soon as possible
3. A harmonised system of “landing authorizations” should be established to provide primary assurances of the legal origin of fish products (this is my "baby", as I'm developing that concept here in the Pacific)
4. Multiple points of verification should be added throughout seafood supply chains
5. A transition to fully electronic traceability systems should be accomplished for all commercial fish products within the next five years
6. Support and capacity building must be provided to those producers who will need help with the transition to electronic traceability systems, particularly SMEs and commercial fishers in developing countries
7. A global architecture for interoperable seafood traceability systems should be developed
8. Where applicable, non-discriminatory border measures setting minimum standards for seafood traceability and proof of legal origin should combat trade in IUU products while facilitating legitimate commerce through a “risk based, tiered, and targeted” approach

These recommendations were delivered to the recently appointed US Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (I wrote about it here)

This document will be followed by a supplemental and more technically detailed report, expected to be released in early 2015, in the meantime you can read about the panel and download the report here

And while is great to recommend, doing is the challenge ahead... hope this give us all some leverage.

Leakage of fish in ports

Not easy this days

The trade in discards of target species and non-target species between crew onboard unloading/transshipping vessels and segments of the local populace in ports has been occurring since purse seine transshipment began in PIC ports nearly 20 years ago. These activities are termed “leakage” and has been reported in the literature since at least 1995, but has generally not been contained nor have the issues it may generate been addressed

“Leakage” of frozen tuna from industrial operations into the domestic food system has always been significant at canneries and more recently, transshipment points. The emergence of medium-scale tuna longline operations in most Pacific Island countries has resulted in damaged tuna, under-sized tuna, and by-catch being sold on the domestic markets.

Business in port

In many cases the leakage is brought ashore for sale by people engaged in the trade as a full or part-time occupation. In limited situations some of the fish is said to be bartered for sexual or other services onboard.

In the ports where leakage does occur, usually women in small canoes exchange vegetables and other items for sacks of fish alongside the transshipping purse seiners. The fish enters commerce not just in the port surroundings but is also first smoked or cooked in traditional earth ovens and distributed to villages distant from the commercial center.

Direct community involvement in resource allocation?

The trade seem welcome in the port by those in the community directly involved as an income-generating opportunity from purse seine transshipping. But not always... local fishermen in particular are often concerned about the problems caused by large amounts of fish brought into local markets that can disrupt their own marketing efforts, particularly when that fish is sold at prices below that which they are asking for their own catch.

On balance leakage seems to be considered a benefit to PIC economies, albeit one that requires constant monitoring and sometimes control to minimize adverse impacts.

Since activities surrounding leakage take place in the informal sector, the amounts and value of leakage in some of the PIC ports can only be guessed. Quantifying the pros and cons of leakage is one of the many studies I would not mind doing!

Accessing the market with a great  smile

A good analysis of leakage in the key transhipment ports is in a FFA's 2012 report (A Survey of Tuna Transshipment in Pacific Island Countries) by Mike A. McCoy, that besides being a person that knows the pacific as no other, is a great guy!

5 illegal boats arrested in PNG waters

Five boats illegally fishing in PNG waters were captured by the PNG Defence force (PNGDF) and are awaiting prosecution.

A maritime surveillance involving Pacific island counties exercise known as Exercise Kurukuru nabbed the boats around the Dogleg area of the Western Province.

An officer with the PNGDF navy told PNG Loop the boats along with their crew were all from Thailand.

The officer said after they were caught, the fisherman tried to bribe the PNGDF navy officers to let them go.

He explained that all the boats did not have a vessel monitoring system (VMS) which meant any activity they carried out in PNG waters were illegal.

The boats and fisherman are now docked at Lanchron base in Port Moresby awaiting charges by the National Fisheries Authority (NFA) who has the power to prosecute them.

Source here

We may owe the people in the small boats better management of the people in the large boats.

Always a sad time when a fisheries observer is lost at sea.

Beyond the fact that they are the cornerstone of fisheries monitoring, science and sometimes compliance. Most of the accomplished people that I know in Fisheries today, have been at some stage in their careers, Fisheries Observers.

In the Pacific, many times they tend to be the pride of their families, the 1st to finish high school, the 1st one to be abroad, and so on... also they tend to be a principal earner in their households. Their passing brings massive grief to the family/whanau and community, the fact that there is not a body to bury, nor a particular place to bring closure to their pain, makes the loss even harder to accept.

Roger learned many of the realities of fishing as an observer for 4 years, and he applies that today as a Compliance Officer in PNG.

On top of that, there are complex legal difficulties arising when the disappearance occurs in coastal waters of one country, on a vessel flagged in a Distant Water Fishing Nation, and in most cases, the observer is a contractor to a fisheries body based in yet another different country. Worryingly, it always seems, that for some reason or another, their disappearances never come to any form of legal or emotional closure.

Today I was part of the group that had to communicate the disappearance to the direct relatives of an Observer, the anguish in the mother's eyes will be with me forever.  My condolences to the family and my respect to all fisheries observers.

Here is brief of what observers do in the Pacific Fisheries