My view on: Ecolabels

Lately, some of my opinions expressed on this blog have put me in hot water with people from various organisations, so I thought about explaining clearly my position in regards some topics, as I don't like to be misunderstood! 

With Fisheries Ecolabels, my view is the following: let me use a scenario to explain.

from a WWF - Accenture report

 In most countries of the world, to drive a car, you need to go trough a process of getting a driver's license run by an official institution in that country. Once you have that licence, you can legally get on the road and drive a car.  How good is that system, is depending on a varied number of reasons; like human resources, cultural values, rule of law, transparency, etc.

Obviously, there would be countries that are better than others at this. So let say that a country has a bad rate of accidents by licensed drivers, in comparison with other countries. So what you do? 

For me, the most logic, democratic and cost-effective solution is to set a program to strengthen the institution that is legally entitled to do that job in the country, standardise the licensing systems, exams and controls under auditable standards and reward conformance in some way.

What I would not do, is to create a privately owned parallel system on top of the already existing national system. Hence I, as a driver need to get trough the hurdles of the official systems, and then get in contact with this private companies ( working at least at cost recovery but most probably for profits) and go over a whole set of new exams and tests (at my cost) to prove people I don't know, that I know how to drive.

And that is what in my opinion Ecolabels do, create a parallel system. And is not that if I’m a good driver this extra private certificate will diminish my insurance cost or guarantee me a fare increase.

So that is my “problem” with Ecolabels. I would not mind their existence if they were based on a model pushed by consumers that want extra guarantees and are happy to pay for them… but is rather on a model for retailers offloading to a ”commercial brand” their decision-making capacity and expecting the producers to pay for the bill.

I do have the feeling (and I got this from data we collected working with Globefish) that we are being told that is a “consumer” requirements, when seems that is a retailer imposition to create a “firewall” around them by saying… we sell fish with ecolabels so it should be good!

Many governments have introduced at national, regional and international levels (with different degrees of success and capacity), and diverse policies and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. And I have seen that the better the performance of the organisation the easier the Eco-certification is… so it seems that the fisheries that are certified are the ones that needed it the less.

The idea of that a certified product may get a price premium is not a golden rule, furthermore the logic of that assumption is flawed, in NZ we have argued that the industry should not even expect a price premium for certification noting that: “No plausible case can be made for a premium for ‘sustainable seafood’. I anything, a well-managed fishery should also be a cheaper fishery to harvest as the fish should be more abundant and easier to catch!” as said by my friend Alastair MacFarlane

Furthermore, the “explosion” of fish-related labels and certification, has created what has been described as “eco-label noise”. Consumers may find the wealth of different messages confusing; they increasingly put their faith in trusted retailers to define the boundaries of their ethical purchasing decisions.

For example, The NZ Hoki fishery managed under an internationally peer review Quota Management System (QMS) has been certified by MSC since 2001, nevertheless, since 2010 Greenpeace added it to its seafood red list, as Greenpeace believes “the stocks of Hoki are now considered to be overfished”… so who you believe?

On top of that different certification schemes certify different things, have different standards, and use different assessment methodologies. There is significant variation between schemes in the scope of the assessments conducted. And after knowing some of the people behind them, I have seen people with very dubious moral standards taking moral high grounds on the goodness of their brand of Ecolabels in comparison to the others.

The Ecolabels session in most tuna conferences I have been, is always an embarrassing cat fight.

Personally, I think that if all the money behind those logos and labels that retailers in rich countries want (or say they want) was to be used to support and strengthen the organisations in the sourcing countries who’s job is to manage the sustainability of the fisheries, we would achieve much better results.

Otherwise, we seem to push towards a potential the scenario where the official organisations become irrelevant and we rely on the opinion of business and brands (which is what ecolabels are) to "run" fisheries management. 

Ecolabels have a space in the fisheries world, a space we gave them by not having a strong fisheries management systems and they took using consumers ethics as a reason… and like anyone else in the fishing business they want to make money.

Some people try to push them as a condition of market access (which is not!) in the best case scenario is a tool for market success, hence adhering to then should be approached as a business decision. 

Would you really get something from having label X or Z?. If the answer is yes, choose based on the market presence of the labels in the country you are targeting… and be ready to spend a lot of money.

Interestingly the one that I respect the most of those Ecolabels (MSC because they certify fisheries and no companies) has landed itself in problems with a russian based fishery as you see here

On Armenia, fisheries and acknowledging grievances

In 2004 I did one of the most strange missions of my career, I went to Armenia, a landlocked country in the crossroad of the Caucasus. 

It felt at the time like it was kind of the Atlantis (a place we all know about, but nobody knows really where it is). I really didn’t know anything about the country and besides finding in a map it exact location, learned about his geography and history.

I heard before about Armenia, as most people in the world, because its surviving diaspora of which a substantial part settled in Argentina and Uruguay after escaping Turkey in what was called the 1st genocide of the 20th century. (I’ll come back to that). 

Still, what doe s a fisheries guy does there? Over 5 % of the country’s surface is covered by Lake Sevan  and the lake host an active fishery of the very valuable narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus) that is  indigenous species of Armenia that initially inhabited freshwater habitats of Ararat Plain, but in the 1980s it was introduced into Lake Sevan, and fairly soon its population and distribution throughout the Lake started to grow. 

The northern European market had a strong affinity to this fresh water crayfish, as similar species used to abundant there in the past, but the local populations have decreased and a potential market was open, so my job was to create and strengthen the regulatory avenues for the country to be able to export their crays to the EU and in a completely unrelated fashion develop a (immediately doomed) fisheries management plan.

One part of the job really worked, the export volumes increased during the twelve-year period, 2000-2011 from 20 tons per year to 1120 tons per year. Not surprisingly, in comparison to 2004, when the industrial stock was estimated at 1800 tons, it decreased by 52% in 2011 to about 860 tons. At current, chances are that the population of crayfish may have declined to a level making self-reproduction nearly impossible. 

In any case, besides the challenges of work, the place itself was a revelation… not many places in the world have such a old, convoluted and complex history as Armenia. The wikipedia link above is illustrative enough.

The issue of the genocide still awkwardly diputed by Turkey (which at the time was the Ottoman empire). This weekend marked the 100th anniversary the initial actions that set up the events, on April 24th 1915, scores of Armenian intellectuals were rounded up in Istanbul and most were later murdered. But as the centenary approaches, what followed is still bitterly contested by the present Turkish government. To the point that in previous years Turkey has commemorated the allied landings at Gallipoli in 1915 on April 25th. This year it is shifting events to April 24th, some say to distract from the centenary of the Armenian massacres.

Scars of the event run so deep in the country that the genocide is integral part of the Armenian’s identity.

Turkey’s position is increasingly unattainable… recognising what happened is not going to debilitate its international “reputation” if anything it will enhance it. They are not alone in that club… any imperial power and colonizing country is guilty (i.e. is estimated that 90% of the original inhabitants of Central and South America died in the first 100 years of Spanish and Portuguese colonization, the atrocities of the UK extended over 5 continents – and I’m not including slavery)…. So no moral high ground there.

For most Armenians I know, just a formal recognition of their grievances would do, and allow them to move on into the next steps of their history. They have never used their tragedy as tool for subjugation of other races or as a turn around tool to claim those who criticise them are xenophobic. Even their conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh run among other lines (most of the time at least)

People sitting together and recognising each other grievances has amazing effects, is not about changing the past, of trying to convince you otherwise. Even at very simple level of conflict around work. The sitting of people with grievances about each other’s actions or writings can have amazing soothing consequences (I had such an event last Friday for example)

Surely no Turkish leader read this blog (however I was amazed how many people in the Brussels Seafood Show told me they do!)… but is time to just sit and acknowledge each other grievances with Armenia, is really the only way forward.

Until then my Armenian friends will keep holding to this event as the key unresolved issue in their existence as people, as country and a culture, which believe me is much richer that that. 

More expected yellows and unexpected greens by the EU

The European Commission has today put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures in the international fight against illegal fishing (IUU). As a result of  series of discussions with Thai authorities since 2011, the Commission has denounced the country's shortcomings in its fisheries monitoring, control and sanctioning systems and concludes that Thailand is not doing enough.

Personally, I have to say that this was long time due. Good on the EU for taking finally that step, it was obvious to many of us in this game, that there was no way that there was enough tuna coming with catch certs from the WCP (Western Central Pacific) to supply the EU market, furthermore the practices on their ports have been dubious at best. From a very reliable source I know that one of the main companies there is cupboard with many of the supplying countries official stamps  to be used to forge EU CCs (since they are not electronic - even if that was contemplated in the EU IUU regulation and after 5 years has not happen yet)

So, Thailand was not a surprise [Taiwan and China next please :-)]. What really did surprised me was that Philippines and Korea were "green carded".

Philipines case was intricately related to the PNG one, most of the problems relate to the lack of controls on their massive fleet operating in PNG waters (and I'm a witness of that). I have been heavily involved with PNG in this particular issue for the last year, and PNG system is very thorough at this stage and i hoped it will be good enough to be out of the yellow.

When I was in Philippines last December, I did not see anything as developed as in PNG. And while I'm not discrediting any efforts that Philippines may or may have not done, I really expected both countries to be green lighted at once at least or PNG first and then Philippine later, but not the oposite. But then i'm just a guy on the ground helping people and I have not many insights (nor I want to have!) in the politics behind these decisions.

And in regards Korea... well... if finally having requested their vessels to have a VMS was the start, i imagined that the depth of changes was much deeper, again my knowledge is only based on my evaluation of the importance that compliance has on the Korean vessels I see in the ports of the Pacific.

Solomons has a system as good as the best i have seen worldwide, and domestic fleet of 7 vessels only. We actually print the certificates, because the EU has not yet a portal for us to send the data electronically. So I was also disappointed to not see them "green carded".

In any case, I'm always been of the idea that "the perfect should not be on the way of the good". And the fact that I may not understand the reasons or politics behind the decisions, does not demerit the fact that the IUU issue is being advanced at forefront of public awareness. 

Back at the Brussels Seafood Expo Global

I'm back at the Seafood Expo Global/Seafood Processing Global (formerly the European Seafood Exposition/Seafood Processing Europe) is the world’s largest seafood trade event. More than 25,800 buyers, suppliers, media, and other seafood professionals from 150 countries visit the exposition. It is the global place where the seafood industry marketing big players mingle... as you imagine, is not an environment where I strive.

I struggle with some of these people with their suits, ties and expensive watches that believe they are the ultimate genius in the fishing industry, but they would not last 5 minutes in a fishing boat. They are so far removed from the reality on the vessels and fishers and the struggles that both face, yet based their fake smiles and 2nd hand car salesman attitude you may think that the fishing world is flourishing and perfect. (As in every aspect of life, they are great exemptions to my cliche views)

I'm here since part of my work portfolio is with a Swiss Government organisation (SIPPO) whose innovative approach to assistance, is to by-pass governments and offer assistance directly to small and medium size producers in some development and transitional countries that pass some stringent criteria in regards sustainability, compliance and social responsibility.

The package that SIPPO offers this companies includes a stand at fair, extensive matchmaking services, a communication package, support during the preparation and follow-up phase, a preparation workshop in Brussels and hotel accommodation during the trade fair.

My work is to advice the organisation during the selection process and during the trade show offer them technical support around market access issues, eco-labelling and private certifications.

Furthermore with my friend Raul from - Freshfish - (Branding -Strategy - Design) we are contracted do the exhibitor brochure for the Expo, and in this occasion they are presenting a technical guide that I wrote and they published.

If you happen to be in Brussels come and say hello: SIPPO Pavilion - hall 7 | stand 7-1953, as you imagine (being from Switzerland) they are very organised and the free chocolates are excellent :-) 

Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels

The US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing regulatory changes to improve the administration of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act program and the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas.

The deep blue is no ones ocean

The proposed rule changes includes, all U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, adjustments to permitting and reporting procedures. It also includes requirements for the installation and operation of enhanced mobile transceiver units for vessel monitoring, carrying observers on vessels, reporting of transshipments taking place on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

All this requirements are standards for the vessels when fishing in RFMO waters, but the ABNJ (Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction) are just that! so is up to the Flag State to put the rules. In fact the lack of some of these controls out Fiji into a "yellow" card situation with the EU. So is interesting that that the US is now looking for comments before amending their act. (no pun intended)

Interestingly, they have included the South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishery

For the official page click here

EU Market Access a Fishery and Aquaculture Products (2nd edition)

The Swiss Import Promotion Agency (SIPPO) recently published the 2nd edition of my (hopefully) easy reading "manual" dealing with EU Market Access Conditions for Fish and Aquaculture Products.

This guide tackles the key issues from the Sanitary and Catch Certification perspectives. The present edition also expands on the common dificulties around the Catch Certification and includes a brief section of Certification of Origin. 

The booklets (60 pages) are written in English and Spanish with plenty of graphs, pictures, tables and references in order to make the reading more "digestible". 

The English version is available online here, and the Spanish one here

As low key official presentation will take place on Tuesday 21, 4 pm at the SIPPO stand (Hall B7 – Booth 1849) in the Brussels Seafood Expo (you most welcome if in the expo at that time) 

The standardisation of transhipments controls in ports

For the last year or so I have been working a lot under my contract with the DevFISHII program with transshipments in port areas, which are a complex reality in our region. While there are valid logistical and economic reasons for their existence, we are working on standardising transshipment compliance monitoring.

Transhipment (the unloading of all or any fishery products on board a vessel to another vessel) of tuna in the Pacific context consist of three main players:

• Purse seine fleets of Japan, China, Taiwan, USA, Vanuatu, Korea, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, PNG and others;
• International fish brokerage firms based in Japan, Taiwan, and the USA with regional offices in Asia and elsewhere, and the carriers they operate or charter;
• Shipping agents and service providers in the major transshipment ports of Pacific island countries.

Transhipments are very regulated, under WCPFC and national regulations, and there are way over 1000 transshipments from DWFN seiners in the five major transshipment ports of Pohnpei, Majuro, Honiara, Rabaul and Tarawa.

Multiple factors contribute to choices of transshipment port by DWFN seiners, the most important being proximity to fishing grounds, but a port’s advantageous geographic location near fishing grounds does not necessarily guarantee that fishing is within its country’s EEZ. 

Fisheries officers play a role in clearing inward fishing vessels and collecting information on transshipment operations. Monitoring may consist of remaining onboard during transshipment for various purposes, including prevention of dumping of fish and varied levels of verification of quantities transshipped take place. The monitoring function more commonly includes collection of the relevant documentation relating to volumes transhipped. However, this is sometimes limited in the ways the evaluation of the legality and volumes of the fish on board is undertaken.

A limited implementation of the principles of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSM), is a good way to tackle part of the problem, by turning around the table on the fishers. Instead of the Port State Authorities proving them wrong, they have to prove themselves right. Ergo, it is in their camp to prove that the fish on board was legally caught, otherwise port access and services can be denied.

It is worth noting that in global Monitoring, Compliance and Surveillance (MCS) methodology, PSM have only recently been the subject of particular focus, precisely because of the weaknesses in Flag State Responsibilities and in the difficulties of applying Coastal State Measures in some countries. Indeed as surveillance at sea is made difficult where there are extensive EEZs (often the case for small islands countries) and it is very expensive, Port State Measures can be cost-effective.

The implementation of PSM is a major challenge for developing countries, as human resources can be a problem particularly in ports where the landing and transhipment activities are intense, and it is often very difficult for the fisheries inspectors to monitor the entire landing or transshipment operations, and inspections can be cursory.

The basic principles of Port State Measures are:

• Prior notification. The master of the vessel has to present a prior notification to the competent authorities requesting approval to transship.
• Confirmation from the flag State may be needed, where flag the State confirms the legal status of the catch.
• Authorisation to land or transship. Such authorization is given by the Port State, if the flag State and/or Coastal States have confirmed the legal status of the catch.
• No authorisations shall be given if this is not the case. By derogation an exception can be made, but the vessel can not be released before the required confirmation is given.
• Volumes on board should be communicated to the next port of call.

But for PSM to work, you need to have the responsibilities allocated along the key authorities involved. Normally it should work this way:

The Port Authority (PA) is responsible for clearance of all vessels in and out of port and anchorage, however if the vessels has fish on it (FVs or Carriers), the PA communicates the request to Fisheries Authority (FA) and waits for their advice prior to authorise entry (unless emergencies) and prior to authorise any unloading or loading of fish, as fisheries need to cross check the compliance status of the vessel. Finally the enforcement authority (police, coastguard or navy depending the country) enforces the decisions. Furthermore, the departure of the vessels needs also to be cleared by Fisheries, prior Ports gives the clearance in terms of assuring the volumes on board. 

So we are working on the strengthening of the  administrative paths and information flows with the other ports, as the vessel arrival notification and the vessel departure authorization need to take account of the amounts o fish left on board… so we make sure nothing get lost (or found ☺) on the way.

As well as having the authorisations sorted, there are logistic complications with partial catch transshipment (only some especies get transferred). From a regulator perspective, the limitation of these practices are not to be “annoying or difficult”, but is that every partial transshipments makes the required traceability almost unmanageable, as it does complicate immensely the “landed volumes per trip” analysis and “the catch dates” from a MCS and Catch Certification perspective.

Standardizing all these issues among all ports is the challenge, so we all singing the same song and vessels don’t cherry pick. The support of my colleagues in the Fisheries Authorities in the Pacific as as always is fantastic!

If you are interested in a deep analysis of what is happening in the region in terms of transhipments, you should read FFA's 2012 report (A Survey of Tuna Transshipment in Pacific Island Countries by Mike A. McCoy), Mike is a person that knows the Pacific as no other does and is a great guy.

Talking fishy stuff at TED X Waiheke

For many years now, I been listening some of the TED talks. Very inspiring people passing their views and questions to a crowd of other interesting people happy to receive it.

Never expected to be invited to be part of one... but somehow it happened :-) 

15 minutes to tackle some of the challenges of fisheries while making sure they keep an interest in a topic that is quite obscure to those that are not part of it. Very much looking forwards

More information here

"No longer will we have to try to combat illegal fishing on a boat by boat basis"

Countries facing pressure on their fisheries by foreign vessels have been thrown a lifeline, with an international tribunal ruling that "countries can be held liable for not taking necessary measures to prevent illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing operations by their vessels in the waters of other countries"... This is quite massive actually!

The ruling is included in an Advisory Opinion issued today by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the application of the West African Sub Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) – comprised of Cape Verde, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone.
 
“This is a very welcome ruling that could be a real game changer,” said WWF International Marine Programme Director John Tanzer.   “No longer will we have to try to combat illegal fishing and the ransacking of coastal fisheries globally on a boat by boat basis.” 

The Advisory Opinion stated that countries have a duty of due diligence to ensure that their fishing vessels do not engage in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the waters of other countries and can be held liable for breach of this duty.
 
The Advisory also holds that the European Union can have the same due diligence duty as a flag State, when they are the party to fisheries access agreements with other states.
 
 West African waters are believed to have the highest levels of IUU fishing in the world, representing up to 37% of the region’s catch. 

The due diligence obligation means that flag States will have to take enforcement actions to ensure their vessels comply with the laws of SRFC member states and take measures necessary to ensure that their vessels comply with protection and preservation measures adopted by the SRFC member States.

The Tribunal also strengthened the obligations of neighbouring coastal states to each other, stating that  ‘The conservation and development of shared stocks in the exclusive economic zone of an SRFC Member State require from that State effective measures aimed at preventing over-exploitation of such stocks that could undermine their sustainable exploitation and the interests of neighbouring Member States.’
 
WWF will hold a workshop  in Dakar, Senegal  in June to explore what the rulings can offer to coastal states in protecting fisheries and livelihoods. 

Source here and the press release of the outcome International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is here

China in the Pacific.. big fish in a big pond

Recently, I came across an interesting study by the Lowy Institute, a foreign affairs think-tank based in the in Sydney that analysed the role of Chinese Aid in the Pacific.

While working in fisheries around the pacific, you well aware of the Chinese presence in the mammothian number of vessels they have operating directly or indirectly (under local flags), the dominance of Chinese migrants in retail at most pacific islands, and the crappy leaking buildings they normally build as part of the foreign policy efforts and donate to the local governments. 

Interestingly, I've never heard of any Chinese funded fisheries project, at any level with most countries I worked in the pacific, albeit the massive presence they have in the Pacific fisheries.

Hence it was interesting to see The Economist pick up the story, so I transcribe some of their views.

" China has forked out nearly $1.5 billion in bilateral aid to the Pacific region since 2006—more than France or the European Union, and closing in on aid levels from the long-time Pacific partners of Japan and New Zealand.

Historical ties still count for much. Across the region, Australia remains easily the Pacific Islands’ biggest donor, contributing $6.8 billion in aid from 2006 to 2013. But the government of Tony Abbott, which took office in 2013, has since slashed its generous programme. Much of what is being distributed now pays the price of keeping local politicians amenable to troubled detention centres on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea, and on the microstate of Nauru, where Australia sends its unwanted asylum-seekers.

America is still the region’s second-biggest giver of aid, contributing $1.7 billion between 2006 and 2013. But more than half of that went to the country’s satellite states in Micronesia, and their territories Guam and the Northern Marianas. When Hillary Clinton, then America’s secretary of state, attended the Pacific Islands Forum in the Cook Islands in 2012, she promised the region more attention.  Yet aid, expected to rise, has remained stagnant.

By contrast the expansion of Chinese help has been striking. At a summit in 2013 in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou, China pledged tariff reductions on imports from islands in the South Pacific and $1 billion in preferential loans to them. China’s president, Xi Jinping, visited Fiji in November 2014, promising yet more development loans. 

Some observers have fretted that Chinese moves, in particular a meaty aid package signed in 2006, shortly before a coup, have undermined democracy in Fiji. Others point out that China also contributed $780,000 to the cost of running elections in September.

Chinese assistance to these small island states certainly comes at a price. Some now have hefty levels of debt; when difficulties in meeting repayments arise, debts are more likely to be rescheduled than forgiven. In the kingdom of Tonga, two-thirds of its external debt is owed to Eximbank, China’s foreign-aid bank, alone. Loan funds end up with Chinese firms bidding for government contracts. Raw materials and labour are mostly imported from China too ( And I can attest to that)

The result for Pacific islanders is a shiny stadium or gleaming new hospital without the benefits of either extra jobs or more money circulating in the local economy. Chinese investment in the Pacific Islands has been largely resource-driven. The $1.6-billion Ramu nickel mine in Papua New Guinea is easily the largest of China’s Pacific operations. A Chinese firm, Zhongrun International, is now the majority owner of Fiji’s Vatukoula gold mine. Another, Xinfa Aurum, is mining bauxite on Fiji’s second-largest island, Vanua Levu.

For most Pacific Islanders, however, the most obvious sign of China’s increased presence is inward migration. This swelling diaspora, made up mostly of small-scale traders, has happened independently of China’s aid push. Indeed it is burgeoning in some of the Pacific countries that recognise Taiwan (and thus have no diplomatic links with China). Riots in 2006 in the Solomon Islands and Tonga, and again in 2009 in Papua New Guinea, targeted such Chinese, and in some cases China evacuated its citizens. In the Pacific, China’s attention may before long be taken up with having to protect its overseas workers more."

Webinar with the Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products

A couple of weeks ago I presented the final report on the recommendations provided by a Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products, on which I serve as a member.

On the 30 of March my co-authors would be hosting a webinar for those interested on participating. At the time  I'll be jumping in between transhipping boats in the Marshall Islands working with them on a SOP for that activity, so unfortunately i'll not be participating... but the real experts will!

You can join the webinar by clicking here: eplat.eventbrite.com

So if you have questions about Expert Panel on Recommendations for a Global Framework to Ensure the Legality and Traceability of Wild-Caught Fish Product?

An international panel of experts from leading seafood businesses, environmental NGOs,and scientific societies has issued eight recommendations for securing seafood supply chains against the products of illegal fishing. The panelists will present their findings and answer questions during this international webinar.

Beside me (the only non-institutionalised :-), the seven following experts participated with the support of their respective institutions. 
•  Tejas Bhatt, Institute of Food Technologists
•  Mariah Boyle, FishWise
•  Bill DiMento, High Liner Foods
•  Michele Kuruc, WWF
•  Hans-Jürgen Matern, Metro Group
•  Petter Olsen, Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and  Aquaculture Research (Nofima)
•  Steve Trent, Environmental Justice Foundation

Subsidies, Spying and short term gains in the Tuna Negotiations

Shane Jones (a sort of NZ Ambassador) and James Movick (the head of FFA - Fisheries Forum Agency - one of my main contractors) were in a interview with 3 News, and they talked of various things that are close to my soul: subsidies, Sanford (the company that gave me my 1st contract in NZ and a client in areas of my work) and spying (a hot topic in NZ politics, where it looks like out present government has been the hears of the US in this issues)

A while ago the sides change of Shane Jones, from a MP high on the Labour Party and potentially been seen as a Leader (the 1st one with Maori lineage), to accept a job with the opposition (the National present party in charge), as "New Zealand’s Pacific Economic Ambassador", was seen as master-movement by National to get rid of a potential leader of the opposition.  

The news at the time talked of a "fisheries ambassador" based on the fact that Jones knows the industry as he had a role with Sealord (a big NZ company). Many of us who work in this field do wonder at the time (and sometimes now too), what his role is.

Both made the news yesterday with James Movick, the head of FFA (Fisheries Forum Agency), as both are in Auckland at the present since the US treaty tuna negations are in place.

Here is transcript of what they had to say:

This morning I’m joined by New Zealand’s Pacific Economic Ambassador, Shane Jones, and Director General of the Pacific Islands Forum Fishing Agency, James Movick. Good morning to you both.

James Movick: Good morning.

If I could start with you, Mr Movick, you’ve been leading the negotiations to bring this treaty back to life. Have you got a deal this week?

Movick: No, no, we actually did not come here with the expectation of reaching a final deal here, but rather this meeting will focus on setting the new structure of the treaty to go into the future to serve the new needs of the Pacific Islander community in particular.

So a ways to go there. Mr Ambassador, in layman’s terms—

Shane Jones: Good morning.

Good morning. Can you explain to us what’s the problem? Is it overfishing, too many boats? Spell it out for us.

Jones: Well, in a nutshell, the Pacific Island leaders want to generate income from this precious resource. They’ve got pressures on their national budgets. They’ve mandated James, who leads the peak body in the Pacific, to find a way that they can sustain earnings. The industry is saying the value of tuna has crashed in the international commodity markets. They can’t match the price that’s demanded, so common ground has to be found. And if it’s not found, the fear that exists is that a lot of these key species will become biologically non-viable.

So they’ve selling days – the amount of days that you can fish – to the highest bidder, so have you got too many boats out there in the water in the Pacific?

Jones: Well, as James would possibly correct me, to the best of my knowledge, there’s about 300 boats – purse seiners. These are monstrous vessels. And we could probably catch the current amount of fish with fewer boats, but these are boats that are licensed and fishing in Pacific sovereign waters. They’re very rarely in New Zealand waters, so the sovereign leaders of those Pacific Island nation states need to strike a balance between the zest for revenue and providing an example that if you fish too much, if you have too much capacity, there’ll be no fish left.

Mr Movick, who’s doing the overfishing? There’s a lot of concern about the Asian nations, and, actually, you’ve raised that yourself, haven’t you?

Movick: I think everybody’s engaging in overfishing to some extent, that they’re participating in the fishery, but I think we need to understand the scale of the problem perhaps a bit better. It’s clear that the overfishing that is occurring is occurring on the big-eye tuna stocks, which is a very small component of the overall tuna catches in the region. And it’s the concern over that which is causing all the other current concern. But the problem there is that the bigeye tuna is taken both by large super-frozen long-line vessels, which are primarily foreign – Asian-owned – which operate primarily on the high seas, and they’re also taken by purse seine vessels, which tend to fish within the exclusive economic zones of the Pacific Island countries. In seeking to adopt the appropriate management measures, both of these fleets have to concede something – have to reduce their level of fishing. And the question then is – in what way and to what extent does each do this? But we need to recognise that any reduction in the effort that is taken by purse seiners in the exclusive economic zones of the Pacific Island countries does have economic consequences to them. And so what we are saying is that while we are prepared to make reductions in that catch, the distant water, foreign-owned fleets need to make reductions in that alternative sector and any disproportionate burden of conservation that is borne by the small island states needs to be compensated.

All right. Mr Ambassador, you’re particularly worried about the Chinese, aren’t you, the Chinese fleet?

Jones: You know, the current treaty negotiations relate to the Americans. Some of the American vessels, as James would agree with, are actually Taiwanese vessels, but they fly an American flag. And I’m the sort of person that I’m really not into stigmatisation, and the real challenge is that when you have subsidies, and New Zealand’s had a proud record over the years of challenging subsidies – we’re one of the last fishing nations that doesn’t have subsidies – subsidisation leads to distortionary outcomes.

So who’s subsidising their boats and to what extent?

Jones: Well, there’s a subsidy inside the American Tuna Treaty worth $21 million. There’s subsidies association, I think, with the Taiwanese, the Koreans and the Chinese as well.

Movick: The European Union.

Jones: The European Union. And little old New Zealand, our biggest fishing company is just a part of the Pacific Sanford’s. They had a proud record there. We don’t have subsidies, but unless you challenge subsidisation, I fear that people will continue fishing after it’s actually economically not viable to do so. But if you have a subsidy and your fuel costs are underwritten, you don’t need to face the full costs of your activity.

So is that pushing New Zealand tuna boats out of the game?

Jones: The reality is that Sanford’s have already announced that their four boats are gone. One of them’s been sold to the final remaining totara tree of the fishing industry in New Zealand in the Pacific, and it’s Peter Talley. He’s the only one still up there.

And the reality is the growth where the new boats are coming from, that’s China, isn’t it?

Jones: I don’t have the exact numbers, but let’s face it – throughout the Pacific, where Pacific nations and even me in my current role, we’ve learnt to accept that the mix of the economy has changed. China does have an interest in the Pacific. New Zealand is actually working in a JV project in Rarotonga at this very moment with the Chinese, trying to upgrade sanitation and water supply. And my role really is to find a common way to work with these fishing nations without alienating our neighbours, because they are a permanent reality of the modern Pacific.

So who is going to tell China and some of these Asian nations that they’re being irresponsible in their approach?

Movick: We have been, and we’ve raised our concern with China about the introduction of the hundred or so vessels into the Southern albacore long-line fishery over the last two years. And we’ve encouraged them work with the Pacific Island countries so that those fleets can work with the island countries and bring some of the benefits to the island countries by shore-side offloading, processing as well as working with Pacific Island fishing operators, so that some of the subsidy benefit that they do enjoy perhaps might also be enjoyed by those other participants, the Pacific Islanders.

Because the point is, isn’t it, the resource belongs to these pacific nations, so they are well within their rights, aren’t they, to sell it to the highest bidder? That’s their prerogative.

Movick: Of course. Of course.

Do you agree with that, Mr Jones?

Jones: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, these are sovereign island nations. And the only cautionary note I always strike, having come and seen the ups and lows of our own fishing industry, is that never let the pursuit of revenue eclipse the importance of sustainability. Don’t ever let that happen. We’ve had that problem in New Zealand.

But doesn’t it just come down to bad luck for American and New Zealand? It’s their right to sell it – they’re selling it to the highest bidder. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Oh, look, yeah, I mean, you see Sanfords, a well-known Kiwi company, has said, “Look, I can’t match the price. I can’t make money. I’ve out of Dodge.” 

Okay. Mr Movick, you’ve spent the last week negotiating with the US and other countries over this, and it’s a short time after we found out that New Zealand is spying on countries in the Pacific. Was there much concern about that during these discussions? Was it raised?

Movick: No, it was certainly not raised openly, although yes, a few people would make comments on the side and seek clarification.

What sort of comments, Mr Movick?

Well, ‘Is this true, and does this make any difference?’ Quite frankly, we’ve always taken the view, many of us on the secretariat side, that a lot of the information that is being discussed internally does get shared. It’s done by everybody in the course in the course of normal diplomatic contact.

Shared or spied on?

I would say to some extent, you share information, if you’re trying to reach an agreement with anybody, particularly where you have a common interest. And this is not just with New Zealand, but quite a number of the Pacific Island countries as well.

But do you think your organisation is being spied on? Because we’ve heard that spying is not just for security reasons; it’s for economic reasons. And here you’ve got a big country, the US, wanting to do a deal. Do you think you’re being spied on?

Movick: We take active precautions. We presume that others, particularly the distant-water fishing nations, will try to get access to the data that we have at the agency and what we are doing, so we have very strict information security rules in order to try to ensure that we protect against electronic surveillance of our systems. But on the other hand, a lot of the scientific data that we deal with is open and very transparent, and we want to encourage that and keep it that way.

So Mr Movick assumes he’s being spied on, Ambassador. Does that concern you?

Jones: Without wanting to become the Willy Moon of your show today, you need to take that question to someone like Minister Finlayson. The ambassador could speak on a topic too foreign. Look, when I go to fishing plants, people are talking to me about fillets and loins. They never talk to me about spying.

But does it make your job more difficult?

Jones: I haven’t encountered any static in that regard, but I would say that I’m dealing at a very sort of gut level in the fishing industry in the Pacific.

The devastation by Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu

I work there many times over the years.... and while we could discuss their commitment to good vessels and fisheries management, they are good people and Pam hit them REALLY hard as you can see form the assessment below.

If you have an opportunity to help in any way, please do so.

Kunlun detained with 180 Tonnes of illegally harvested toothfish

Further to my last post related to this topic, the Kunlun arrived in Phuket last Monday and attempted to offload what it claimed was groper. Previously registered to Equatorial Guinea, it was falsely reflagged as an Indonesian vessel and renamed Taichan. Bangkok-based New Zealand officials, police and customs officers arrived on the island soon after and have been working with Thai counterparts to hold the boat and its illegal haul.

Its understood one of the heads of the notorious Spanish syndicate Vidal Armadores also travelled to Phuket after it became clear the boat was to be detained.

The NZ government worked quietly behind the scenes after the navy was slammed for failing to board two of a fleet of three vessels spotted poaching in Antarctic waters in January. After tracking the Kunlun to Thailand, they alerted officials and passed on evidence collected by the HMNZS Wellington patrol.

Meanwhile, recent raids in Spain on Vidal Armadores-linked companies came after pressure from Wellington. Operation Sparrow - an investigation into alleged links with illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities marked the first time Spain enforced a new fisheries law.

The rust-eaten Yongding and Songhua are still operating in the Southern Ocean.

The shell companies behind this vessels is Stanley Management Incorporated, a Panama company and Sucre Arias Reyes, law firm, that he said provides a front for boats fishing illegally fishing. 

The vessels had no fishing gear on board, so it could have been dumped as a way to hide the "gun" for the work. While the vessels is designed and geared as a longlines, it has been operation as bottom gilleneter as well,  (See below for the differences)

Thailand on their side is not due to pass domestic fishing laws until June, which left authorities with few legal options. But they'd declared the catch as groper, not toothfish and It is an offence to declare your fished something different to what it is. Misreporting is a component of Unreported, one of the "U" in IUU.

Separately, the boat had gone in there identifying itself as the Tiachan, flying the Indonesian flag, and it was easy to establish with the Indonesians that they didn't own it. So, it is technically stateless, giving the Thai authorities a facet to keep the vessel held, so the next step is to confiscate the catch, so they don't get any benefit from their misdeeds.In the meantime Vidal Amadores have had their people on the ground trying to get their boat sprung.

All 36 people on board the vessel – the Peruvian captain, four Spaniards and 31 Indonesians – have yet to face any charges, but are under watch onboard the ship. One Spaniard was removed from the ship before it was seized due to self-inflicted wounds over alleged family issues.

So the plot thickens. 

Finally, Spain seems to take action against rogue fishing companies

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) is inspecting the headquarters of several companies for alleged link with vessels included in the list of illegal fishing in the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Orgullo de la flota

Operation Sparrow (in cooperation with Interpol)  is developing in companies located in the province of A Coruña, after several months of investigation. These companies seem to the the beneficial owners of the Songhua, Kunlun and Yongding that were spotted by the NZ in January this year.

The fish inspection services are dealing with the examination of numerous physical and electronic documentation.

The operation could lead to the opening of different sanctioning procedures on maritime fishing.

For their part, the fish inspection services are responsible for developing complex investigations in collaboration with partner nations in the fight against illegal fishing, such as New Zealand.

The implementation of the Council Regulation 1005/2008 the European Union (EU) to prevent and deter illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, prohibits national community members to have links with vessels listed for illegal fishing.

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

In November of 2014, I wrote about the recommendations provided by a Expert Panel on Legal and Traceable Fish Products, on which I serve as a member.

I'm happy to announce that the final report is available to be downloaded at solutions-network.org/seafood (a 30mb version) or from here (same report but on 5mb version for those on Island based internet)

The Expert Panel was formed by WWF to help envision pragmatic solutions to the challenges of seafood traceability, and to promote action to prevent illegal fish products from entering supply chains.  With illegal fishing still driving overfishing in too many fisheries, there is a continuing need for better coordinated business systems and government policies to put affordable and effective solutions within reach.

This report is unusual for two reasons.  First, it represents the thinking of an international and interdisciplinary panel representing leading seafood businesses, environmental NGOs, food science institutes, and independent experts.  Second, it recommends pragmatic cutting edge solutions that combine regulatory and private sector approaches at both national and global scales.  

But the intention of this report is not to "provide all of the answers."  Rather, the report is meant to serve as a reference point, and to promote expanded engagement and dialogue among industry actors, civil society stakeholders, and policymakers.  

The challenges addressed in this report are real and urgent.  I encourage you to take a solid look at its recommendations, and to join the growing international conversation about how to make seafood 100% traceable to legal fishing activities. 

Those in the Pacific Islands would recognise what was my modest contribution o the report :-)

Back in PNG working with the catch certification system

I have been coming to work in Papua New Guinea since 1999, and even if I have seen incredible changes in Port Moresby and parts of the country… as soon as you get out of the main town, it still strikes me how beautiful and “raw” the place still is.

Paper instruction of how to work on computers... thanks due diligence!

Nowhere else that I have been are “yesterday and tomorrow” so close.

Let me explain: I’m in an office working on operating procedures aimed to produce the results of information being live fed into databases directly from fishing vessels via on board connectivity or tethering devices where fisheries observers do all their data gathering via apps in tablets, which can then be followed up during unloading by port monitors that confirm in their own tablets the catch composition and volumes, initiating that way a complete catch traceability to the point of export. The companies are required to log in inventory movements, so all catch is included.

None of the EU countries I have ever worked in has anything like this.

I’m doing this work with my local colleagues whose parents may not had the chance to have an education and traditional believes (snubbedly called sorcery) still remain a huge element of daily life. For the observers and catch documentation crew I’m working with, the tablets and internet are a basic tool, for some of their parents, this is not even a concept.

One of the guys I work, has to do 6 to 8hs by open boat to get back to his village to visit their family, as there are no roads or airports in the region... no other person I know and work a equal level with me has a story like that.

I see a crew at the side of the road digging to put in fibre optic cables, while a group of highland ladies that may not have electricity or roads at home walk by… I see a local with feet that have never been on a shoe, walking among reddish beetle nut spit besides the latest 100000 dollars worth Toyota Landcruiser.

What other society made up of more than 780 cultures could come to the tenuous concept of nationhood (with independence in 1975) and face challenges like this?

None that I know, and I will never know… as there is no other place like PNG, simple as that.

The Lae Catch Certification team earning a session of PNG's best pizza as thank you for trusting me with their work... (They are the responsible, I just advice! ). Coolest crew around.

People tell me: “I heard is really dangerous”… but so are Australia, China or the US, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time… at least here you could find reasons behind based on the impact that such an accelerated rate of cultural transition has had in some sectors of society… which cannot be said about those other countries.

I go for a 7 km run around 6am, and yes there are potholes, rubbish and general lack of maintenance… same as in other "new countries" but then I cross with 30-40 random people, and everyone says  hello and smiles… my running shoes may be worth a week of their wages… and I have never felt threatened.

Yes, independent tourism is difficult, because infrastructure is scarce, moving along can be expensive … but if you really want to see a place like no other on earth and that will stay in your brain forever. Aim here, is beyond unique.

Polynesia "embraces" satellite tracking of illegal fishing

Much has been made on the media of the “embracement” by some pacific countries (The Polynesian Leadership Group) of the Eyes on the Sea utility.

And as my colleague Tim Adams from FFA in Honiara commented in a specialist forum:

Is nice to see "Eyes on the Sea" finally acknowledge that FFA member countries already (which include all the countries in the group except French Polynesia) have this capability in place. And we have yet to see what additional functionality this new initiative will provide. If it does add something useful then it will be extremely welcome, but everything that has been described so far - AIS, linked vessel information databases, flagging of vessels-of-interest, etc. - is already part of the existing system stretching across the Pacific Islands region. As well as assisting national fisheries authorities it also informs multi-country collaborative surveillance operations. 

Unlike the Pew Charitable Trusts, FFA not normally advertise our activities in the global press. We're trying to catch offenders, not just deter them. However, if there is a danger of wheels being unnecessarily reinvented then a higher level of awareness may be necessary. Don't get me wrong - sometimes more wheels are necessary to help spread a heavy load. But they work best if they are all pointing in the same direction.

 French Polynesia and New Caledonia have domestic regulations that require all fishing vessels - including unlicenced vessels transiting the EEZ - to provide EEZ entry and exit reports, including details of weight and type of fish on board. This reporting requirement does not interfere with the right of passage across the EEZ. However the information improves boarding and inspection efficiency, since they are able to zero in on the vessels which appear on the surveillance picture, but haven't reported, and deprioritise those who have. 

All WCPFC members (implicitly including all fishing vessels in the western and central Pacific) are aware of these regulations, which were notified to the Commission several years ago. It has apparently been accepted that foreign vessels that are entering the EEZ for the legitimate purpose of transit have nothing to hide, and that the provision of this border-crossing information actually helps protect them from hassle. Anyone who doesn't report immediately becomes a vessel of interest. 

France, with the support of FFA member countries, attempted to persuade the WCPFC membership to enact compatible domestic regulations in 2010, but this was not agreed by the entire membership. FFA members subsequently included this requirement (for all foreign fishing vessels entering the EEZ) in their harmonised "Minimum Terms and Conditions for Access" (as MTC 12), and this is progressively being included in national legislative updates. 

One thing WCPFC did agree to was enhanced "EEZ boundary crossing reporting" requirements for vessels accessing the "Eastern High Seas Pocket" enclosed by the French Polynesia, Cook Islands and the Kiribati Line Islands EEZ boundaries (WCPFC CMM 2010-02).

Reports by LICENCED fishing vessels have always been part of the system - time and place of entry or exit, fish on board, observer_ID etc as well as daily catch/effort (logsheet) recording and VMS (track) reporting. It is the application of this catch-on-board reporting requirement to UNLICENCED vessels transiting the EEZ that is relatively new (although automatic VMS transponder reporting, for all fishing vessels on the FFA register and WCPFC list that are present in the EEZ, has been in place for some time).

A good story of people working in the fishing industry in the Pacific

By chance I came across this article by Matthew Dornan (Research Fellow at the Development Policy Centre). As I always struggle to find good stories on the potential positive impact fisheries can have, i will transcribe it here. Furthermore, two other issue I like: 1) Is about fisheries observers, one of the hardest jobs in the industry and a bedrock of fisheries management that gets very little recognition, and 2) is that infers what small disadvantaged countries can do when they go beyond relaying on foreign assistance.

Labour and fish: making the most of the Pacific’s tuna resource

I met Ali on the flight from Suva to Funafuti. He was on his way home to Tuvalu from Korea, having completed four months as a fisheries observer on a Korean tuna fishing vessel. Sitting across from Ali was another observer on his way home. He had been away for longer (five months), on a Spanish vessel staffed by Ecuadorian crew, and was flying back from Kirimati island, Kiribati.

Ali is one of 50 Tuvaluan fisheries observers whose job it is to monitor the activities of vessels from distant water fishing nations. These vessels pay for the privilege of fishing in Tuvalu’s waters. As one of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) – along with Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Palau – Tuvalu’s license fees are set as part of the vessel day scheme. Vessels pay for the days in which they are allowed to fish, with (tradable) days allocated to PNA member countries according to an agreed formula. Fees were US$6,000 per day in 2013 (triple the charge in 2009), and are expected to average US$8,000 in 2015.

The vessel day scheme is controversial in some circles. PNA have effectively closed fishing in the ‘high seas’ pockets of the international waters that lie between member states, by mandating that any vessel that fishes in PNA waters must abstain from fishing in the high seas. Given that about 60 per cent of tuna from the western and central Pacific ocean is caught in the exclusive economic zone of PNA members, the majority of vessels abide by PNA rules.

By flexing its collective muscle, the PNA ‘tuna cartel’ – which is the source of over 50 per cent of the world’s tuna cannery supply – has been able to generate significant benefits for members. Access fees or their equivalent (in benefits from domestic processing or aid) were an estimated US$218 million in 2013 and US$91 million in 2009, after the vessel day scheme was introduced, compared with US$60 million, US$67 million, and US$71 million in 1999, 2006, and 2007, before the scheme was introduced.

Such revenues are very significant in microstates like Tuvalu. Revenue from fisheries in Tuvalu reached an all-time high in 2013, measuring A$18.2 million, or 55 per cent of domestic revenue. This revenue, which admittedly is unusually high, was greater than the A$11.3 million received as grants from development partners – placing in question the appropriateness of labelling Tuvalu a MIRAB economy.

Observation of the efforts of tuna fisheries is also a source of employment for Tuvaluans. Fifty observers may not sound like many, but in a country with a formal sector of only 2,000 workers, observers make up 2.5 per cent of the formal workforce. That makes fisheries observation as significant as the mining industry [pdf] in Australia, in terms of its share of formal sector employment.

There is more that PNA members could do to maximise the benefits from tuna. Past efforts to develop domestic processing of tuna were without success, and despite ongoing efforts, should not be trialled again (with PNG being an exception given its ability to achieve economies of scale). But there is scope to use Pacific island labour on foreign fishing fleets.

A requirement that 10 per cent of the crew on purse seine vessels be from PNA member countries has already been agreed to in principle by PNA fisheries ministers as part of the Bikenibeu Declaration in 2009 (this figure would rise to 20 per cent over five years). However, implementation has been stalled in the past by opposition from some countries, which do not have maritime training institutes where nationals could be trained to work on tuna fishing vessels. Last November, PNA ministers reiterated their support for such a measure, which would begin in 2016, and would include the option of paying a waiver fee for vessels unable to find local crew. Details on how that scheme will function, including waiver fees, should emerge at the next PNA meeting, in two weeks’ time.

Skills development will clearly be important for maximising the benefit of any local crewing requirements. In the case of Tuvalu, the maritime training institute could offer training appropriate for tuna fisheries, rather than their current focus on freight vessels (employment on which is becoming harder to find, given competition from countries like the Philippines). It is not difficult to picture a tuna fishing industry with large numbers of Tuvaluans, or I-Kiribati, working on vessels in PNA waters, generating employment opportunities and remittances in their respective countries. The Director of Fisheries in Tuvalu recently estimated that a 10 per cent local crewing requirement could lead to employment for 900 Tuvaluans; a massive 45 per cent of the current domestic workforce in the formal sector (and 9 per cent of the entire population).

Tuna, the only significant economic resource in countries like Tuvalu, would therefore not only provide resource rents (in the form of license fees) for government, but significant employment and income earning opportunities for Tuvaluan workers.

Government-paid observers, like Ali, would continue to be important. Without them, the government would be unable to independently verify the fishing activities of foreign vessels. But employment in fisheries for Tuvaluans would not be limited to observers.

The most difficult part of Ali’s job? Communication. Four months on a boat where none of the crew, except the Captain, speak English (or Tuvaluan), is a long time. When we said our goodbyes, Ali was about to spend two weeks in Tuvalu with his family. After that, he was to board another foreign vessel, for another four months of watching people fish.

Catch Certification Schemes as a way to combat IUU fishing

Trade-based measures consist of actions directed toward the movements of products of IUU fishing and may include banning products from trade if found to be undermining fishery management regulations, or rejecting individual shipments which lack documentation required to establish their legal provenance. No proof of legality no trade… quite simple... in principle.

only part of the picture

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools such as lists of vessels authorised to fish, high seas boarding and inspection programmes, observer programmes, and vessel monitoring systems have recently been bolstered by the creation of a variety of vessel blacklists by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and individual countries, these tools are designed to prevent IUU fishing before or as it occurs.

Downstream measures, designed to penalize products of IUU fishing activities not caught at sea, have also been developed in the form of port State and trade-based measures such as Catch Certification Schemes (CCS). 

Port State measures consist of actions directed toward vessels in port. These may consist of refusing port access and services to vessels believed to have violated regulations or requiring prior notice and clearance of all landings from a given fishery as a matter of course. 

The legally-binding Port State Measures was agreed a few years ago by a group of 91 countries and now awaits ratification by 25 States before entering into force, however there are some serious concerns in terms of the disproportionate burden that many of those obligations impose in least developed countries. These initiative complements other ones like the potential development of a global record of fishing vessels and a permanent IMO# for fishing vessels. 

RFMOs have provided ground for both trade bans and the development of catch and trade documentation schemes for some key species as well as the EU IUU regulation, requiring documentation proving the legality of the capture, for imports of all wild-caught, non-ornamental marine fish, and you all know my reservations about it.

The Pacific has been talking about this for a few years now, but complexities on the understanding, the fear of even more disproportionate burden, and the interference of some DWFN, plus the cost associated to the development of a electronic system have made advances very slow.

This week, I’m back in PNG working with them on issues around the EU IUU Catch Certification, but as well taking a bigger and wider approach on this issue, as many initiatives (as I posted before) are coinciding and gelling into a workable system.

A Catch Certification Scheme (CCS) ties up fisheries information management systems with MCS and trade, hence it is an incredible powerful tool, that equally needs an incredible amount of work to be a good tool and not a headache.

Today we agreed with a few of the most influential people in the region that have a role into these complex fields in a set of principles that will be the basis of a pacific wide CCS. We advanced in the last couple of days more than some former efforts advances in a few years, which is awesome!

And is just to show how good is to have good people, regional champions (like PNG), fresh ideas, a common factor approach and committed driving principles. I’m really proud and happy of what we achieved today! 

If you want to understand more about Catch Documentation Schemes, this report by Shelley Clarke for the WCPFC is one of the best I know.