Pages above:
Dawn breaking over deck of a Korean longliner, the 'Shin Yung 51'. Yellow Fin and Big Eye tuna stocks are destined to be critically overfished within three years if the fishing of the two fish species continues unabated.
Enlarge ImageThe situation in the Pacific is different to what we'd been expecting. The pirate fishing here is much more subtle than in West Africa. There are no rusting unlicensed vessels with demoralised crews fishing surreptitiously. Instead, each of the vessels we’ve inspected has been in good condition, the crew well fed and in good spirits. Nonetheless they are pirates, operating in a grey area between the legal loopholes and lax governance.
Effective fisheries management relies on up-to-date accurate estimates
of the size of the target fish population, knowledge of the fishes
biology, history of the fish stock and detailed knowledge of the
technology that has been used to find the fish. Only then can the
scientists model the fish population accurately and have a chance of
estimating how many target fish can be caught.
Effective management and enforcement is key
In 2004 the first step in effective Pacific tuna fisheries management was taken with the establishment of the Tuna Commission (WCPFC). Tuna fish are highly migratory, and obviously do not restrict themselves to the territorial waters of any one country. The Tuna Commission is a step forward because they manage the tuna as one fish stock even though it ranges over the territorial waters of multiple countries and the High Seas (the parts of the ocean that are not under the jurisdiction of any country).
A school girl stands in front of the Tuna Commission building in Pohnpei with tins of Skipjack - the only tuna we could find on the island.
Prior to the Tuna Commission most countries licensed their waters with no regard for the licensing arrangements of their neighbours. Many of the Pacific Island Countries were in fact competing to provide distant fishing nations with the cheapest possible licensing agreements. Good for the distant fishing nations, bad for sustainable fisheries management – and ultimately the Pacific Island Countries relying on the tuna fishery.
On a practical level it is impossible for the Tuna Commission to manage the fishery until it has accurate, timely data on the size and health of each tuna species' population. At the most basic level all licences should be based on tonnage of fish caught – not time spent at sea, as was the case with the vessels we boarded. Moreover, licences need to be strictly enforced. We came across vessels whose licences had lapsed - but these were renewed without penalty via a phone call.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the vessels’ activities are only partially regulated. The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) that is required by all vessels fishing in the territorial waters of Tuna Commission’s member countries proved to be unreliable. All vessels had the system installed but it did not work consistently due to a number of loopholes.
Bait and switch
A second problem in the regulation of fishing surrounds the transfer of fish to a larger factory vessel (reefer) – a process called transhipping. When done in port or in a country’s waters (EEZ) transhipping requires a licence for each transhipment and is monitored. This enables the Commission to record how much fish has been caught. To avoid the licence costs and the costs incurred in going to port many vessels tranship on the high seas. Currently, for Longliners, this is NOT illegal.
Fixing these governance and legal loopholes is not rocket science. All that’s needed is agreement from all members of the Tuna Commission and some money to set up and enforce the system.
The near empty hold of the Korean Longliner 'Dong Won 117'. The vessel has been at sea for thirteen months without making any port calls, calling into doubt the captains claims that the vessel has not made any trans-shipments since it left its home port of Busan, Republic of Korea.
Transhipment is further aided by lax regulations around refuelling and resupplying (bunkering) at sea. Most Pacific Island Countries allow vessels to bunker in their territorial waters and there is no regulation around bunkering on the high seas. If bunkering at sea is banned, vessels would need to go to port every month – making it easier for authorities to monitor their catches. This would also provide revenue for the host Pacific Island Country in terms of port fees and resupply contracts. Currently this revenue resides with the distant fishing nations that supply the bunker vessels.
The costs of piracy and underpayment
Money would not be an issue if distant fishing nations recognised that licence fees need to reflect both the market value of the fish and the cost of protecting the fishery. When this is the case Pacific Island Countries, most of which rely heavily on fishing licenses for revenue, can collectively demand fair license fees. At the moment the licence fees reflect neither the value of the fish nor the cost of protecting the fishery. In the Pacific up to US$400 million worth of fish is stolen by pirate fishing each year, more than 4 times what the region earns in licences. This is much more a reflection on the low cost of licences that the extent of pirate fishing in the region.
With these loopholes closed the reporting of all catch figures (including all transhipments) and estimates of the size of the tuna populations will be greatly improved. This would allow the Tuna Commission to set realistic catch quotas for the tuna stocks. The quotas are likely to be substantially lower than the free-for-all allowed by the current time based licensing system. However, if the Pacific tuna are to be saved from imminent commercial extinction then this step must be taken.
Next steps
In December Greenpeace will be taking the findings of this expedition to the Tuna Commission’s annual meeting. We will be recommending measures that ensure all catch figures are reported, that loop holes in the VMS are closed and that all transhipments and bunkering at sea be outlawed.
Listen to 'Pirates of the Pacific' documentary - part 1 (5mins) >>
Listen to 'Pirates of the Pacific' documentary - part 2 (5mins) >>
Read the blog >>
Effective management and enforcement is key
In 2004 the first step in effective Pacific tuna fisheries management was taken with the establishment of the Tuna Commission (WCPFC). Tuna fish are highly migratory, and obviously do not restrict themselves to the territorial waters of any one country. The Tuna Commission is a step forward because they manage the tuna as one fish stock even though it ranges over the territorial waters of multiple countries and the High Seas (the parts of the ocean that are not under the jurisdiction of any country).
A school girl stands in front of the Tuna Commission building in Pohnpei with tins of Skipjack - the only tuna we could find on the island.
Prior to the Tuna Commission most countries licensed their waters with no regard for the licensing arrangements of their neighbours. Many of the Pacific Island Countries were in fact competing to provide distant fishing nations with the cheapest possible licensing agreements. Good for the distant fishing nations, bad for sustainable fisheries management – and ultimately the Pacific Island Countries relying on the tuna fishery.
On a practical level it is impossible for the Tuna Commission to manage the fishery until it has accurate, timely data on the size and health of each tuna species' population. At the most basic level all licences should be based on tonnage of fish caught – not time spent at sea, as was the case with the vessels we boarded. Moreover, licences need to be strictly enforced. We came across vessels whose licences had lapsed - but these were renewed without penalty via a phone call.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the vessels’ activities are only partially regulated. The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) that is required by all vessels fishing in the territorial waters of Tuna Commission’s member countries proved to be unreliable. All vessels had the system installed but it did not work consistently due to a number of loopholes.
Bait and switch
A second problem in the regulation of fishing surrounds the transfer of fish to a larger factory vessel (reefer) – a process called transhipping. When done in port or in a country’s waters (EEZ) transhipping requires a licence for each transhipment and is monitored. This enables the Commission to record how much fish has been caught. To avoid the licence costs and the costs incurred in going to port many vessels tranship on the high seas. Currently, for Longliners, this is NOT illegal.
Fixing these governance and legal loopholes is not rocket science. All that’s needed is agreement from all members of the Tuna Commission and some money to set up and enforce the system.
The near empty hold of the Korean Longliner 'Dong Won 117'. The vessel has been at sea for thirteen months without making any port calls, calling into doubt the captains claims that the vessel has not made any trans-shipments since it left its home port of Busan, Republic of Korea.
Transhipment is further aided by lax regulations around refuelling and resupplying (bunkering) at sea. Most Pacific Island Countries allow vessels to bunker in their territorial waters and there is no regulation around bunkering on the high seas. If bunkering at sea is banned, vessels would need to go to port every month – making it easier for authorities to monitor their catches. This would also provide revenue for the host Pacific Island Country in terms of port fees and resupply contracts. Currently this revenue resides with the distant fishing nations that supply the bunker vessels.
The costs of piracy and underpayment
Money would not be an issue if distant fishing nations recognised that licence fees need to reflect both the market value of the fish and the cost of protecting the fishery. When this is the case Pacific Island Countries, most of which rely heavily on fishing licenses for revenue, can collectively demand fair license fees. At the moment the licence fees reflect neither the value of the fish nor the cost of protecting the fishery. In the Pacific up to US$400 million worth of fish is stolen by pirate fishing each year, more than 4 times what the region earns in licences. This is much more a reflection on the low cost of licences that the extent of pirate fishing in the region.
With these loopholes closed the reporting of all catch figures (including all transhipments) and estimates of the size of the tuna populations will be greatly improved. This would allow the Tuna Commission to set realistic catch quotas for the tuna stocks. The quotas are likely to be substantially lower than the free-for-all allowed by the current time based licensing system. However, if the Pacific tuna are to be saved from imminent commercial extinction then this step must be taken.
Next steps
In December Greenpeace will be taking the findings of this expedition to the Tuna Commission’s annual meeting. We will be recommending measures that ensure all catch figures are reported, that loop holes in the VMS are closed and that all transhipments and bunkering at sea be outlawed.
Listen to 'Pirates of the Pacific' documentary - part 1 (5mins) >>
Listen to 'Pirates of the Pacific' documentary - part 2 (5mins) >>
Read the blog >>
