UNPLUGGED: Impacts of 2018 Tuna Commission measures on Pacific island fisheries

Categories @WCPFC14, FFA Media Fellows Past EventsPosted on

“When you look at the measure [Tropical Tuna Bridging Measure], there’s a series of very strong concessions that FFA members as a group gave to achieve consensus.” Ms Jenny Baldwin, Chair, Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC).

Each year millions of tonnes of tuna are caught in the oceans of Pacific Island nations.

As Pacific Islanders we know tuna is important for our economies, our culture and our future, but with so much of that mind-boggling quantity of fish caught over the horizon by foreign fishing vessels, do we realise the scale of what is at stake and how easy it would be for the Pacific to lose its hard-won tuna gains?

With tuna over-exploited elsewhere in the world, the major fishing nations – China, Japan, South Korea, The United States, Europe and more – are increasingly wanting to fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), popularly known simply as the ‘Tuna Commission’, is the body set up to make sure the fishing rules are fair, by bringing those powerful distant-water fishing nations (DWFN) together with Pacific countries in a consensual decision-making process.

The 14th session of the Tuna Commission (WCPFC14), held in December 2017, adopted important measures governing tuna fishing activities for 2018 in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. It is the world’s largest fishery, producing nearly 60 per cent of the globe’s entire tuna harvest – with a catch value estimated at US$4.7 billion in 2015.

A few hours after its conclusion, Commission Chair Ms Rhea Moss-Christian told Pacific journalists covering the event as part of the #Tunanomics initiative, “WCPFC14 has been a particularly successful meeting in terms of agreeing a range of measures and initiatives that will ensure ongoing environmental and commercial sustainability of tuna management in the Western and Central Pacific Fishery.”

Tuna Commission Chair, Ms Rhea Moss-Christian facing up to #Tunanomics Pacific media after the successful conclusion of WCPFC14 negotiations.

It could so easily not have been so, as negotiators battled until 2:45am beyond the last day of the meeting to reach agreement.

The most important decision endorsed by the Commission’s 28 member countries was agreement on a ‘Bridging Measure’ for Tropical Tunas [bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin], the largest commercial harvesting activity in the WCPO fishery.

“Negotiating a new measure such as this is an extremely complex process, so it has been gratifying to see commission members cooperating so well to produce a measure that will ensure responsible tropical tuna fishing management into 2018 and beyond,” said Ms Moss-Christian.

“What we have achieved is a balanced measure that aims to protect the national and commercial interests of all members, from Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to large fishing nations, while also being sustainable.”

The tropical tuna and other measures endorsed by the Commission become legally binding this month (February 2018; 60 days after adoption on 8 December 2017), and took on extra significance earlier this year when a study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) revealed that depletion of global fish stocks has reached a tipping point: that approximately 60 per cent of the world’s assessed fish stocks are fully exploited and 31 per cent are over-fished.

For the Commission’s largest bloc, the 21 Pacific Island countries and territories, a sustainable WCPO fishery is not only important for jobs and economy, it is their bulk source of nutrition, protector and provider of climate change resilience, and the ocean that defines their cultural heritage and identity.

The commercial importance of the Pacific bloc to the Commission, together with each individual Pacific country’s high reliance on its marine resources, are underscored by two broad facts.

Firstly, the majority of the WCPO’s tuna harvest (1.4 million of 2.6 million tonnes) takes place in their collective waters, so it directly impacts their economies (government revenue, employment and exports), development (education, health, transport, policing and security, human rights, etc.) and the potential to further develop their fisheries industry.

In 2015, fisheries contributed: US$453 million to the region’s GDP, generated US$571 million benefit to the balance of payments in the form of net exports, paid US$46 million to 23,000 national employees, contributed US$54 million to government revenue in the form of license revenue and other payments, and spent US$120 million on the purchase of locally produced goods and services.

As individual countries, Tokelau’s fisheries contributed more than 60 per cent of total government revenues in 2016. In Kiribati and Tuvalu, it is even higher at 80 and 90 per cent.

Secondly is the fact that their environment, traditional ways of living, and food security is wholly dependent on marine and fishery resources. If the fish go, or the waters get polluted or suffer a shipping disaster, or reefs plundered, they would be in serious trouble as there are few other alternatives at their disposal. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the increased frequency and more destructive natural disasters now resulting from the impacts of human-induced climate change.

That is why the nine key outcomes agreed by the Commission on 8 December 2017 are important to fight the current rate of illegal and unregulated activities threatening the sustainability of the fishery; and, by extension, safeguard the very existence of these small Pacific nations.


So what are the deeper impacts of the Commission’s measures for Pacific islands countries and territories? What did they give up in the negotiations? What were the concessions made by Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN)? In the allocation of rights to fishing on the High Seas, was the Pacific bloc finally recognized? And what do these mean from the lens of the ordinary Pacific weaver, planter and fisher?

Just hours after WCPFC14 concluded, then deputy Director General for the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Mr Wez Norris gave a briefing to Pacific media covering the congress.

He highlighted:

  • All Pacific nations made concessions.
  • Japan’s role in the negotiations was critical. With help from a few Pacific countries, especially Tokelau, Japan was able “to broker deals, make arrangements” in the margins of the negotiations that led to the successful outcomes at WCPFC14, especially the hotly contested Tropical Tuna Bridging Measure (TTM).
  • For the first time, a concrete move was made by Commission members on the issue of High Seas fishing rights and allocation for the Pacific islands bloc.
  • The failure in the Albacore tuna negotiations that came with a silver lining.
  • Lifting the 12-month ban on FAD fishing in the High Seas unraveled all the gains by the Pacific bloc implemented in 2017.
  • The relaxation of catch limits could come with significant opportunity costs for many FFA members in the future.
Mr Wez Norris at the post-WCPFC14 media briefing

“I think every single Pacific country gave up something or gave up measures that come at cost but also provide potential for future benefit,” said Mr Norris.

But at the end of the day the reality of “the Tropical Tuna Measure (TTM) that was agreed was a relaxation.”

This means more tuna will be caught. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), which have a higher accidental catch of vulnerable bigeye – were a particular talking point, especially the FAD closure rules which ban FAD fishing during certain months of the year.

“Everybody that was subject to a limit under the old measure will benefit from this current measure,” Mr Norris said.

“Everybody who had some sort of restriction has less of a restriction now. The High Seas FAD closure was relaxed, the EEZ FAD closure was relaxed, the long line catch limit was relaxed. And that applies to FFA members as well. They will all enjoy the benefits of increased economic efficiency of the fishing fleets that they license or flag.”

However, he sounded a warning about possible future repercussions for FFA members.

“Our big concern at the FFA Secretariat is that the concessions FFA members gave to developed fishing fleets may come back to bite us in the future, in terms of the need to take cuts in the future or in terms of increased difficulty to develop our own fishing fleets and our own fishing industries.”

Before unplugging more 2018 outcomes, it is worthwhile to familiarise readers new to the tuna negotiations with a few WCPO fishery basics and the Pacific islands context.


The WCPO share of the global catch of albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas increased from 50 per cent in 2006 to 58 per cent in 2014.

In 2015 the total WCPO catch of these species was 2.7 million tonnes with an approximate value of US$2.2 billion. It means that 57 per cent of the world’s total tuna harvest of 4.7 million tonnes is caught in the Pacific.

The WCPO fishery: FFA Members’ Exclusive Economic Zones (dark blue) with western High Seas pockets (light green)

Purse seine fishery

The catch by sleek, modern purse seine fishing vessels is the largest. The WCPO purse seine fishery catch is predominantly based in the waters of FFA member countries. In 2015 it was around 1.3 million tonnes, 72 per cent of the total WCPO purse seine catch, and valued at around US$1.7 billion.

Historically, between 2006 and 2015, the purse seine catch in the waters of FFA members has varied between 63 per cent and 85 per cent of the WCPO purse seine catch.

For Pacific nations, this matters: they reap rich benefits from fishing within their 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) but none from any fishing immediately outside those areas in the High Seas. The proportion of in-EEZ fishing increased dramatically from 2009 to 2010 (from 65 per cent to 82 per cent) as a result of the closure of the western High Seas pockets to fishing. However, catch in the High Seas in 2015 almost doubled in 2014, and more than trebled between 2010 and 2013 as some fleets increased their High Seas fishing – likely, at least in part, in response to the increasing fees charged by Pacific members of the PNA group for access to their EEZs.

The eight Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) plus Tokelau control the largest sustainable tuna purse seine fishery in the world, because they control most of the waters in which the tuna are found. For skipjack, the most commonly canned tuna, around 50 per cent of the global supply is harvested in the waters of PNA members.

Revenue accruing to PNA has risen from US$60 million annually in 2010 to close to US$500 million in 2016. Central to this success is its zone-based management and Vessel Day Scheme, which have been shown to be effective for both conservation and economic development. Fishing nations are not so happy with the sharp increase in fees.

Longline fishery

The WCPO longline fishery, which is made up of many smaller, fewer well-supervised boats, produced between 40 per cent and 48 per cent of the global longline catch of albacore, bigeye and yellowfin over the period 2006 to 2015.

The longline fishery accounted for around 11 per cent of the total WCPO catch 10 years ago. Although it has continued a steady decline to current levels of around 9 per cent, the level of catch remained flat, fluctuating between 240,000 and 280,000 tonnes.

A longline fishing vessel sailing into Samoa’s Apia harbour. Photo: F. Tauafiafi.

But this is not the case in the waters of FFA member countries where the proportion of the total longline catch has increased from under 30 per cent prior to 2010 to over 38 per cent since 2014.

In 2015, FFA members’ WCPO catch was around 77,000 tonnes, valued at US$436 million. It represents 31 per cent of the total WCPO longline catch.

The longline fishery is particularly important to countries with albacore tuna, such as Solomon Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and more.

These countries have got together to improve management of the fishery under an agreement, called the Tokelau Arrangement, but so far it has been hard to implement. At WCPFC14, the measures proposed by FFA members were not direct management measures. They were not going to immediately cut catch or effort, nor rebuild the economics of the fishery; rather, they were a first step in the process towards doing so.

But the negotiations to a ‘Target Reference Point’ for albacore broke down due to two key issues: the failure of Pacific island countries to agree on in-zone limits that would fit within the overall southern albacore catch limits recommended by scientists, and the unwillingness of fishing nations to cut their catch in the High Seas.

As FFA Director General Mr James Movick highlighted during a media briefing at WCPF14, the sticking point was China not wanting to cut its effort “by correctly pointing out that, in terms of the overall management of the southern albacore, there needs to be measures adopted both In-Zone [inside FFA members’ EEZs] as well as in the High Seas.”

Although there will be no immediate or significant impacts from the negotiations breakdown, the “Commission does need to step up and start that process [to an albacore measure], we are a couple of years behind where we would have ideally been,” Mr Norris confirmed at the post-Commission media briefing.


Success for the Pacific in tuna negotiations requires sticking together and overcoming often-trenchant opposition from fishing nations. Chair for the 17-member Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC), Australia’s Ms Jenny Baldwin, rated the Commission’s outcomes as a “mixed result” for Pacific countries.

Chair for FFC, Ms Jenny Baldwin at the post-WCPFC14 media briefing

There was a “relatively positive outcome … as we did end up with a tropical tuna measure that is going to improve the continued management of the tropical tuna species [bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin] within the WCPFC,” she stated.

“But as FFA members, we are quite disappointed we couldn’t agree to a Target Reference Point for South Pacific albacore this year.” But she noted that with the disappointment came a silver lining: “We have got some commitment from most [Tuna Commission] members to have that agreed at next year’s [2018] WCPFC.”

Mr Norris, who accompanied Ms Baldwin to the media briefing, added there were other positive outcomes that “we must not lose sight of”, such as the marine pollution measure, the Port State Measure, the silver lining in the failed albacore Target Reference Point negotiations and, for the first time, the Commission agreeing to discuss a specific process for SIDS’ participation in the High Seas fishery.

“The marine pollution measure is a very good first step towards addressing what Pacific Islands Forum Leaders have identified as a critical issue for the Pacific – the amount of plastic waste in the ocean. So that’s a starting point, and FFA members are looking forward to ways the Commission can build on that.”

The Port State Measure agreed was an important one, he stated.

“The world has been very focused on ports as a mechanism to fight illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities.

“This is the first concerted step by the WCPFC [Tuna Commission] to move towards regional action to address that issue.”

On a Target Reference Point for the South Pacific albacore fishery: “While we are all disappointed on the albacore outcomes, they do represent a far more solid commitment to action than the Commission has ever done before,” said Mr Norris.

“FFA members walked away dissatisfied that we didn’t achieve an albacore target reference point – that is, we didn’t address a specific measure for improving the management of the stock. The commitment we saw at the end of the day from key fishing states China and Chinese Taipei was far more concrete than we have ever seen before. So that is very encouraging.”


A surprising and significant highlight for Pacific countries came as a byproduct of the Tropical Tuna Measure [TTM] negotiations – agreement to discuss the development of a ‘process’ to securing High Seas participation rights for Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

At the moment, allocation of High Seas fishing rights is based on records of which country has fished there in the past but Pacific countries argue that as tuna-owners they should have rights too.

“I think the outcomes in the TTM, in terms of allocation processes, are really positive for FFA members and all SIDS,” said Mr Norris.

“For the first time, the Commission actually acknowledged the need to go into a specific ‘process’ to look at who has what opportunities, who has rights in the high seas.

“In the past, all of our discussions, and this is consistent with all other regional fisheries management organisations (RFMO) [international organisations formed by countries with fishing interests in an area], have simply been about catch history. Those developed fleets that have been fishing in the region for 50 years get a limit based on what they’ve been doing for the last 50 years.”

Pacific countries have not fully developed their industries and as a result have no ‘High Seas footprint’, and therefore no catch history on which to base catch limits for their participation.

“However, the TTM negotiations was the first acknowledgement that ‘no, we’re going to go through a process where we will sit down and have a look at High Seas participation’.”

Special Requirements of Developing States on the Agenda

Mr Norris emphasised that the language in the TTM specifically refers to Article 30 of the Tuna Commission’s establishing convention, which insists the special requirements of Small Island Developing States be taken into account. Article 30 can be used as the legal basis to force the Commission to live up to its obligations under the UN Fish Stock Agreement to facilitate increased High Seas participation for SIDS.

“The agreement to High Seas allocation is a really large step forward in terms of other Commission members recognising the needs of SIDS,” continued Mr Norris.

“We have been through this debate many, many times in the WCPFC about Article 30. This is a real, tangible way that the Commission can implement it. It is not about development funding or assistance for meeting participation – it is about actually structuring management measures that will benefit SIDS in the region.”

Mr Norris claimed such an achievement would be of global and historical significance.

“When we go through that process and secure specific rights for developing states on the High Seas that will be a real big achievement in the world of international fisheries.”

But as the prolonged and complex TTM negotiations highlighted, together with the breakdown in the albacore target reference talks, securing High Seas rights and participation will not be easy.

One of the difficult challenges is the opposing position taken by DWFNs and the majority of the Pacific bloc in regards to what management system to adopt for the High Seas.


The majority of Pacific countries subscribe to ‘Zone-Based’ management while DWFNs are in favour of ‘Flag State’.

There are two fundamental issues at the centre of the debate for Pacific nations: sovereignty, and future potential to fully develop and exploit their fisheries.


Who owns the fish? DWFNs promote the belief that because of the highly migratory nature of tuna, it is therefore a commodity of the commons.

Who owns the fish? Mr Ludwig Kumoru answered, “When it [the fish] comes into your waters, it is your fish. But once it crosses your boundary and goes into someone else’s water, then it is not your fish.”
Pacific countries’ definition differ slightly and in a very significant way.

“When it [the fish] comes into your waters, it is your fish. But once it crosses your boundary and goes into someone else’s water, then it is not your fish,” said Mr Ludwig Kumoru, CEO for PNA. “For the time the fish is within your waters, your rule applies to that fish. How you catch it, how you harvest it. What happens in your zone is up to you.”

That is the basis for PNA’s Zone-Based management approach. It views tuna as a long-term economic platform, therefore sustainability underpins their approach to assessing fishing access and participation in their sovereign waters – aspirations that will not be possible under ‘Flag State’ management, which is based around the national flag of boats already in the fishery and tends to be much more short-term in its thinking.

Potential to develop Pacific fisheries and industry

The other significant factor for Zone-Based management is the fact 85 per cent of the WCPO purse seine fishery is harvested in the waters of FFA members. So their emphasis on the longer-term conflicts directly with ‘Flag State’ approach, focused on the short-term to maximise catches and revenue.

“That is why zone-based is more effective in this region than in other global regions, because we approach management from the viewpoint of the countries who have been impacted, rather than the countries whose citizens and boats are engaged and have to regulate themselves,” explained Mr Kumoru.

The key ingredient in the zone-based approach is “the countries in whose waters the fishing is occuring are actually taking the lead to ensure the resource within their EEZs are managed.

“No other ocean on this planet today have all three stocks of tuna: bigeye, yellowfin, skipjack all in the green [not overfished]. Even the albacore is not in the ‘overfished’ state.”

Mr Kumoru said the reason why the other oceans are not faring well is because they are managed “by their fishing fleets. So I think it is very important in managing the stock that it’s the coastal states taking responsibility.”

The vision behind the PNA’s zone-based system is to greatly expand Pacific islands participation in a fishery where many of them have been bystanders for decades.

Mr Ludwig Kumoru (R) and FFA Director General Mr James Movick (L) briefing Pacific media during WCPFC14 negotiations

“Right now, we license Distant Water Fishing Nations, giving them opportunity to fish in our waters, because coastal states haven’t yet built the capacity to fish. There will come a time when the islands have the capacity to expand fishing in their own zones, and others must be prepared to give way.”

Which is why the agreement at WCPFC14 to relax the longline catch limit for the DWFN fleets will potentially come at significant opportunity cost for many FFA members.

“Allowing existing fleets to increase their level of catch and effort does make a big impact on how difficult it is to develop our own domestic fleets in the future. So I think there were large compromises made all round,” said Mr Norris.

In hindsight, the WCPFC14 negotiations were the first time in history that talks went so far beyond the set finishing time.

It prompted the following comment from Mr Norris: “It has never come down to the wire in terms of timing as much as it did this morning [8 December 2017], but certainly the types of negotiations that we went through over the last week are not new to anyone in the Commission; we’ve had those difficult discussions before.

“At the end of the day, we are talking about national interest, we are talking about very significant commercial interest in the private sector, so it’s not surprising that it comes down to those fairly pointy discussions.”

Taking all of the above into account, it was the summation by FFC Chair Ms Baldwin that stood out.

“When you look at the measure [Tropical Tuna Bridging Measure] there’s a series of very strong concessions that FFA members as a group gave to achieve consensus.”

Her statement spotlights the source of Pacific countries’ frustrations at these annual meetings. Although they are the tuna owners, they are the ones that have to make the most concessions, as well as carry a disproportionately heavier burden for the conservation component of the measures agreed to at these annual Tuna Commission meetings.

“They [DWFNs] are here to make profit. It is not their waters so they would rather make money and go develop their own place. They are not coming here to develop the Pacific islands,” emphasised Mr Kumoru.

“In their own EEZs, how much of their [fishery] allocation have they given to other people?” he asked.

“None of them.

“Because they use all of their allocation in their EEZs. None of their waters are allocated to someone else. And here, they want to use our waters!” shouted Mr Kumoru.

“This is why we are pushed to the corner, this is how people come here, fish here and we have no control. There are opportunities under so many international laws that we cannot fight our way out – this is the message our people back home [weavers, planters and fishers] need to know, to understand what we are up against.”

Ms Jemima Garrett and Ms Lisa Williams-Lahari contributed to this report.

Lealaiauloto Aigaletaule’ale’a F Tauafiafi’s participation and coverage at the WCPFC14 was made possible by the Forum Fisheries Agency, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS), Pew Charitable Trusts, WWF, Australia, Japan and GEF OFMP2 project. 


  1. Tropical Tunas Bridging Measure

Key features of the new bridging measure for managing tropical tunas include:

  • A three-year agreement, with some 12-month provisions that reflect the need to wait for further scientific stock assessments in 2018. The one-year provisions relate to FAD management in the purse seine fishery, high seas purse seine effort control and bigeye catch limits in the longline fishery.
  • Measures designed to ensure stocks are maintained at recent average levels and capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).
  • Recognition for Small Island Developing States of disproportionate burden risks. This recognizes the extra burden or cost placed on resource owning states (usually) as a result of conservation measures eg closing a fishery or FAD fishing has a bigger impact on Pacific nations than on fishing nations, as most fishing nations have many other industries to rely on, and they have the option of fishing elsewhere.


  1. Rebuilding plan and revised Conservation Measure on Pacific Bluefin

The Commission adopted the Conservation and Management Measure developed by the Northern Committee to implement the Harvest Strategy for Pacific Bluefin Tuna Fisheries. It was agreed that CCMs take measures to ensure:

  • Total fishing effort by CCM (Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories) vessels fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna north of 20° N shall stay below 2002–2004 annual average levels.
  • All catches of Pacific bluefin tuna less than 30 kg shall be reduced to 50% of the 2002–2004 annual average levels.
  • All catches of Pacific Bluefin tuna 30kg or larger shall not be increased from the 2002-2004 annual average levels.


  1. Updated Harvest Strategy Workplan

The Commission adopted a revised Harvest Strategy work plan that will re-prioritise as needed the annual agenda of the Commission and Scientific Committee to allow sufficient additional time for consideration of harvest strategy issues.


  1. Standards for e-reporting of observer data

Reporting standards for electronic reporting of observer data were adopted. The standards relate to data fields, summaries, activity logs, vessel and gear data, crew and trip-level data and also pollution reports. The standards will enable more effective monitoring and management by enhancing the work of observers in enabling the entry of near real-time observer data directly into the database systems of monitoring and scientific agencies.


  1. Port State Measure to reduce illegal fishing

The Commission adopted a Port State Measure that will strengthen overall port controls to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and support development opportunities for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) by reducing the impact of IUU fishing on stocks. The busiest ports in the WCPO fishery area are located in SIDS, imposing the most significant reporting requirements on SIDS. The Measure provides implementation flexibility in that Members will choose which designated ports they notify to WCPFC to come under the provisions of the Measure.


  1. Bycatch mitigation initiatives

Sharks: WCPFC14 agreed to devote significant intersessional resources to resolve longstanding and contentious issues surrounding the conservation and management of sharks. For the first time there will be an Intersessional Working Group – Sharks – which will aim to unify the existing five management measures and build on them to develop a comprehensive management framework.

The IWG-Sharks will be led by Japan but is open to all members (and observer delegations). A list of issues prepared by the Scientific and Compliance committees has been adopted by the Commission, as part of a terms of reference for the IWG-Sharks.

Sea Turtles: WCPFC14 adopted two recommendations for the SC to undertake work that will inform the potential revision of the WCPFC sea turtle CMM. Under the first recommendation, the Scientific Committee (SC) will consider the technical details of a proposal to expand mitigation from shallow set longliners fishing for swordfish to all longliners. Key issues will be whether there are impacts on other bycatch or target species from the proposed expansion. The second adopted recommendation requires the SC to consider whether the WCPFC observer data standards should be modified to collect better data on sea turtle interactions.

Sea Birds: WCPFC14 adopted a new CMM for seabirds that involves minor amendments to the existing seabird CMM. The changes relate to (a) new requirements for tori (bird-scaring) lines to be used on small vessels fishing south of 30 degrees South and (b) to the formats CCMs use to report seabird interactions in annual reports to the Commission.


  1. Conservation and Management Measure on Marine Pollution

This measure involves collective action to reduce the detrimental impact of marine pollution on ocean and coastal environments, wildlife, economies and ecosystems. Under the measure, CCMs will prohibit their fishing vessels operating in the WCPFC Convention Area from discharging any plastics (excluding fishing gear). CCMs will also be encouraged to prohibit their fishing vessels from discharging oil or fuel products, garbage, food waste, domestic waste, incinerator ashes, cooking oil or sewage.


  1. Target Reference Point (TRP) for South Pacific Albacore

The Commission agreed to prioritise the development and adoption of a Target Reference Point for south Pacific albacore through the following actions:

  • CCMs will review available scientific and economic information to decide appropriate goals for the fishery and corresponding candidate target reference points.
  • Regardless of the results of the 2018 stock assessment and the management advice from SC14 to WCPFC15, SC14 will dedicate sufficient time in the Management Issues Theme to develop robust advice to WCPFC15 on candidate target reference points.
  • CCMs will develop TRP proposals and WCPFC 15 will adopt a Target Reference Point for south Pacific albacore, using whatever decision-making means are necessary.


  1. Amendment to the Record of Fishing Vessels (RFV) CMM – Samoa

CMM 2013-10 RFV was amended to support the continued operation of Samoa’s domestic longline fleet that fishes exclusively in Samoa’s EEZ. The amendment will allow this fleet to directly offload to American Samoa instead of landing and containerising fish in Samoa, and then shipping to American Samoa. The current practice is costly, impacting on the economic hardship experienced by Samoa in this fishery as a result of prolonged reductions in catch rates in the albacore fishery.


Location for next WCPFC annual meeting

The next annual meeting of the Commission – WCPFC15 – will be hosted by Federated States of Micronesia and held in Pohnpei from 3-7 December 2018.





Thriller in Manila: Popping the Pacific’s US$22 billion ‘tuna bubble’

Categories @WCPFC14, FFA Media Fellows Past EventsPosted on

The two principal priorities for Pacific small island states are climate change and fisheries. One seeks finance and redress from rich developed countries for whose industries and lifestyles are the root causes of human-induced climate change. The other aims to manage, preserve and fight for equitable benefits from its vast fisheries and ocean’s wealth currently exploited and robbed by rich developed and developing countries on the seas and in the boardrooms.

By Lealaiauloto Aigaletaule’ale’a F. Tauafiafi

A typical day in the Tokelau village of Nukunonu. Charley Pasilio and Tiso Fiaola go fishing, November 2017. Photo F. Tauafiafi

The high drama in Manila at the December 2017 Pacific tuna negotiations resulted in decisions with far-reaching implications for the ordinary weavers, planters and fishers across the Pacific.

As we start down the road of 2018, it is now just under a month since the Pacific Tuna Commission’s 33 member nations and affiliates negotiated what was termed in ‘bubble-speak’ a ‘mixed bag’ of ‘conservation and management measures’.

‘Measures’ are sets of complex rules to achieve the goal of sustainably managing fishing activities. In this case, members were negotiating access and rights for the world’s largest and most abundant tuna fisheries, those in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).

Held in the Filipino capital of Manila, this was the 14th meeting of an annual series that started in 2004, when the WCPF Convention establishing the Commission entered into force. The 2017 meeting achieved a dubious historical first: the first negotiations to go past midnight on the very last day.


The contentious issue was an all-important ‘bridging measure’ for Tropical Tuna (TTM) – skipjack, bigeye and yellowfin – worth around US$2.1 billion to Pacific nations in 2015 alone. With the current rules for tropical tuna set to expire at the end of December 2017, the ‘bridging measure’ was needed to establish how much fish can be caught, whether fishing is sustainable, and how benefits are allocated. Failure to agree would have meant no conservation rules, no fishing rules and the potential for a free-for-all by industrial fishing nations.

Delegates at the plenary session of the Tuna Commission held at the Philippines International Convention Center, December 2017. Photo F. Tauafiafi

And there it was, despite an expected sign-off of 4pm on Thursday, 7 December, delegates were still fighting over new issues into the early hours of Friday morning.

There were a number of times when the whole process was going south with many delegations admitting defeat as they saw no way out. But through the determined leadership of Commission chair Ms Rhea Moss-Christian and efforts, in particular, from the Tokelau and Japan delegations, the deadlock was finally broken and the deal signed at 2:42am Friday morning.

Tokelau may be the smallest member but Feleti Tulafono and Stan Crothers were huge in pushing the negotiations to a successful outcome. Photo F Tauafiafi

And something else that had never happened before, happened. A chorus of applause, high-fives and back-slapping by tired delegates, Tuna Commission staff and die-hard support officials from the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and various other agencies who never gave up.

And that was because the stakes were never higher for Pacific countries and territories. This was evident in the fact that the ‘bridging measure’ had been nearly two years in the making and was needed to govern the vast bulk of the Pacific tuna catch.

The Chair herself had taken it on as a special mission over the past 18 months with the aim of ensuring members endorse the ‘bridging measure’ in December 2017. Now that it’s approved, the new rules take over for up to three years to give breathing space for negotiations of a more comprehensive long-term measure for tropical tuna.


Two other details are worthy of note from this Commission meeting. First, that the 11th-hour resolution was largely made possible by the strong leadership and unconventional approach employed by Chair, Ms Christian-Moss, which gained the respect and confidence of members.

Tuna Commission Chair, Ms Rhea Moss-Christian, and Executive Director, Mr Feleti Te’o, driving the negotiations.

And secondly, the importance of the fisheries to Japan and Pacific small islands countries who stood united in negotiating for strong ‘conservation’ measures.

To them, sustainability of the stock is critical.

For Japan it’s simple: they are the ‘end market state’ for many tropical tuna products so they need the raw material to be sustainable. On the flipside are Pacific countries, but more so the eight countries plus Tokelau that make up the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) bloc. Economically, they are largely dependent on their waters that produce most of the raw material and, secondly, come from cultures that place a high priority on being good custodians of the ocean environment.

They were up against the United States of America and China who were demanding increases in their fishing limits above recommended levels. Opposition also came from some Pacific countries that are not members of the PNA.

If the negotiations had broken down it would have been a sorry day for Pacific island countries, whose future food security and aspirations of economic independence rely heavily on the tuna caught in their sovereign waters – aspirations that include ambitions to develop their own domestic commercial fisheries to keep a greater share of the tuna resource – the majority of which is caught in their back yard.

And these have been the ‘pointy’ issues at these annual gatherings.


Of the estimated 2.5 million tonnes of tropical catch in the Western Central Pacific Ocean, more than half – 2.4 million tonnes – comes from the sovereign waters of Pacific island countries. However, the lion’s share of revenue is taken by overseas fishing nations. The Pew Charitable Trust estimates that once tuna caught in Pacific waters (WCPO and Eastern Pacific) is processed and gets to market, it is worth an estimated US$22.7 billion per year.

Which is why Pacific countries focus on three key issues at the annual Tuna Commission congress:

  • As major owners of the resource, they want a bigger portion of the US$22.7 billion ‘end value’ of tuna.
  • They get lumped with a higher burden to implement ‘conservation’ obligations for measures negotiated by members. They want an equitable share of the burden amongst members.
  • Their rights and allocation to fishing in the high seas (where there are no national jurisdictions) have been ignored from day one, when the issue has been brought up at the Commission year after year. They want the Commission to come up with a process that will address the special circumstances of small island states.

On top of all that, there is another double negative for Pacific countries.

The status of the WCPO fishery as the largest, most abundant and healthiest in the world makes it even more attractive in today’s climate where tuna stocks in other global fisheries continue to be depleted and overfished. It has led to increased pressure on the Commission with a constant stream of countries applying for participatory status every year.

This presents a number of potential challenges for the Commission, all of which have direct impacts on Pacific country members.

That if the Commission bows to the pressure, it will bring more fishing vessels to fish in Pacific island countries waters. And worse, the increased membership will bring more diverse interests into the Commission, making negotiations and agreement even more challenging than what went down in Manila last month.

Secondly, it needs to seriously consider its mode of operation for achieving its mandate. Now 14 years old, the Commission has used an ad-hoc process and consensus decision-making to address each conservation measure. The results so far show that this decision-making process is not suitable to handling the deeply political and economic arguments that take place within the Commission.

As the Manila 2017 congress showed, the framework ended up politicized as members proposed conservation measures that best protect their own interests, while easily ‘putting a spanner’ in the process by opposing conservation arguments that don’t. And that way of operating nearly wrecked the 2017 negotiations.


So, as I look back at the Tuna Commission week that was, two outcomes stood out: relief for Pacific countries and a silver lining for the Commission:

  1. relief that the bridging TTM was agreed to; and
  2. hope, via a silver lining that appeared in the form of two provisions: (i) target reference points to enable long-term harvest strategies for tropical tuna; and (ii) a high-seas allocation process to equitably distribute rights to the high-seas fisheries, that will eventually deliver some of the Pacific’s long-term goals.

The two provisions in 2) above could spark a shift, one that could evolve and modernize the Commission’s ad-hoc framework, empowering it to resolve ongoing conflicts and answer important equity questions that are fundamental to conservation negotiations in the Pacific.

From where Pacific countries have positioned themselves, such a framework will need to spell out the conservation burden each state shall carry, dependent on their development characteristics and political status.


Looking back at the Manila meeting but this time from a Pacific perspective, three key things stood out.

That the Tuna Commission and negotiations have real and significant impacts on the lives and futures of ordinary Pacific islanders – not so much the officials and jet-setting diplomats in the midst of the negotiations – but the weavers, planters and fishers. Direct impacts affecting their today, and their children’s tomorrow – right now!

The reality inside the negotiations process was aptly stated by deputy Director General for the FFA, Mr Wez Norris, “At the end of the day, we are talking about national interest; we are talking about very significant commercial interest in the private sector so it’s not surprising that it comes down to those fairly pointy discussions at the end of the day.”

Second, how critically important the Pacific’s fisheries officials and staff of the FFA are, in fighting and negotiating the rights of Pacific islanders as majority owners of the WCPO’s tuna and fisheries resource.

“Our big concern at the FFA secretariat is that the concessions that FFA members gave to developed fishing fleets may come back to bite us in the future in terms of the need to take cuts in the future, or in terms of increased difficulty to develop our own fishing fleets and our own fishing industries.”

Wez Norris at plenary, always on the alert, guarding the interests of Pacific members.

And the lack of context and understanding by Pacific weavers, planters and fishers of Mr Norris’ above comments lead us to the ‘third observation’: the dearth of easy-to-understand information available to Pacific communities at the national, grassroots and diaspora about the nature, history, importance of the negotiations and what exactly is at stake.

For the growing number of Pacific weavers, planters and fishers wanting to know more, there is no channel nor a customized Pacific medium for them to hear; and to voice their position on a topic that is critical to fund their livelihoods, food security, developments, and a better future for their children.

For some of them, the following statement explains their understanding, and lack thereof, which is due almost wholly to the lack of information:

“Our tuna is exported either here in Japan or the Philippines or Europe or in the US and then came back to us in a can, how was this processed?” cried Rev. Francois Pihaatae, Secretary General for the Pacific Conference of Churches attending his first Commission meeting all the way from Maohi Nui (Tahiti).

Rev. Francois Pihaatae, Secretary General for the Pacific Conference of Churches.

“The guy in the village, he didn’t know that the tin fish he is eating is his fish. First it was with him and then it went out to all those who have a processing plant and then came back to him in a tin. That’s the kind of mechanism/process that we need to explain to our own people, that this is how it happened: the fish that you are eating is your own fish, but came in another aspect, that’s in a tin.

“What is going on here at the international level and even in the [Pacific] region are all technical terms. These people are not talking in a language for the ordinary people. It’s like another world, so that’s one of the issues I raised because the whole preparation before we came here: how can we translate all these technical mechanisms and all these kind of things into the language of the people so they will be aware of what is going on?”


And this is the conundrum that exists in what I call the ‘Tuna Bubble’.

That what goes on inside the bubble is far removed from the reality outside. With the lack of information and knowledgeable commentary, the view from outside the bubble is riddled with confusion, misunderstanding, mistrust, sometimes anger but most times it’s ignorance and dis-interest.

As fellow journalist Mr Michael Field aptly describes it, “…it’s such a complicated issue because the management of fisheries is surrounded by jargon and dressed up science. It’s hard to make sense of.”

Even fisheries experts at the United Nations admit to it in their Fisheries Management Handbook, “There is a lot of terminology floating around in fisheries management that, unless clearly understood, can cause further confusion in an already confusing environment.”

But therein lies the ultimate danger for Pacific countries. That not only is the lack of information blinding ordinary Pacific weavers, planters and fishers to what is at stake, it is equally blinding officials, and delegations operating in the Bubble because they can easily forget that bubbles don’t just conceal reality, they distort it, and it is so very easy to imagine they aren’t there.

Officials inside the bubble forget that stakeholders outside need to know what is really going on because in order for the very measures and outcomes they are negotiating to be effective, it is the resource owners outside who are impacted directly.


The reality of the Tuna War being fought at the Commission is incredibly important to the peoples of the Pacific – they depend on fisheries for their food and incomes. They don’t have many other alternatives. If the fish go, they are in trouble.

But that is not all; there is so much more than just wealth at stake. Even non-Pacific islanders are fully aware of the ocean’s importance to the heritage, cultures and sacred traditions of Pacific islanders.

“The ocean defines the people of the Pacific,” claimed Mr Ian Campbell, WWF’s Manager for Global Shark and Ray Conservation.

“The tuna, shark, whale, dolphin, rays – they have shaped cultural heritage. It is not just about managing the resource for wealth; this is about protecting cultural heritage everywhere from aboriginal, Maori right through to French Polynesia. It has shaped the people of the Pacific and yet the people of the Pacific are being excluded from the process.”

Whether by purpose, stealth or plain officials’ ignorance, Pacific islanders must be made aware of the fact that theirs, and their countries’ rights, to the fisheries resources in their sovereign waters, and the high seas, are being negotiated right now, legally.

It almost didn’t go well this year. What if it doesn’t go well next year or any of the years after that? The reality inside and outside the bubble may well be that by the time future generations lose the blindfolds, it will be too late.

Their rights may have been legally taken, through their silence, ignorance, disinterest taken as agreement – a scenario where they could be powerless to redress or do anything about it in the future.

The case of Tokelau and its continuing claim to a fourth atoll, Olosega (Swains Island), is a reminder about vigilance and the importance of informing weavers, planters and fishers.


Banners line the streets announcing the 14th congress of the Pacific Tuna Commission in the Philippines.

In Manila, around 700 delegates fought the Tuna War. Inside the Tuna Bubble, delegates found familiar surroundings, their positions relatively the same entrenched along well-worn battle lines over the past 13 years. The rules of engagement: tightly scripted, where the tiniest nuanced change was quickly captured, absorbed and digested ready for a quick-fire retort.

On the one side are the 14 developing Pacific small island states (SIDS) in whose sovereign waters 85 per cent of the tunas are caught.

On the other side, developed distant-water fishing nations (DWFN) come armed with the principal goal of fishing for as much as they possibly can while offloading as much of the conservation burden onto Pacific SIDS they can get away with – after all, these are not their waters.

On the margins but just outside the bubble are observers. Civil and non-government organizations (NGOs), industry, various interest and advocacy groups, and the media. These groups are not allowed to participate or intervene directly in the negotiations.

And when closed sessions are called, they are completely locked out. Kept at arms lengths where their best guestimates are many times thwarted by the fluidity of positions or key statements missing marks because of a sudden change of pace.

International NGOs like the Pew Charitable Trust justify their role and call for participation inside the bubble as they can help take the discussions onto common grounds.

“The things that the NGO group as a whole offer is the perspective of being able to sit back and look at the whole region because we are not involved in any one regional grouping or in any one government,” said Ms Amanda Nixon, Pew’s Director for International Fisheries.

“And because we are not constrained by a need to maintain loyalty to a set of national interests, it gives us the perspective to look and say where can we see some common ground and how can we try and encourage discussions towards that common ground.”

International NGOs, WWF and Pew Trust face up to Pacific media ahead of the 14th Tuna Commission opening.


But the bubble does have a small permissible hole for an NGO observer to enter and participate fully in the negotiations.

Mr Bubba Cook from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) used such an avenue at last year’s Tuna Commission congress in Nadi, Fiji.

“We don’t get to be parties to that conversation as NGOs,” Mr Cook explained during a media briefing in Manila. “But we are allowed, if we choose, to be part of a national delegation. And in this case last year [negotiating the Observer Safety measure], I joined the New Zealand delegation and sat in on the Compliance Monitoring and Review (CMR) process.”

Mr Bubba Cook (R) with Ms Amanda Nickson and Jamie Gibbon from the Pew Trust.

However, in order to become an official member of the New Zealand delegation Mr Cook had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) which meant he could not tell media about the details of what transpired in the bubble in Nadi. But, there was nothing in the NDA that prohibited him from “divulging” his impressions based on existing publicly available information and understanding of the process  from an outside perspective.

“My impressions are that the CMR process is woefully deficient. That it doesn’t create a penalty so you can have repeat offences or ongoing offences that go on and on and on with little or no consequence.

“The other impression I had was that I didn’t feel that anything they discussed inside those doors under the purview of confidentiality was truly confidential. With the exception of a number of minor issues, I felt that most of what they were discussing should have been public domain. And I know that there are other people that are part of that process who would agree with me on that count.

“So it really boils down to countries not wanting to air their dirty laundry.”

He explained some of the dirty laundry that could be revealed at the Compliance Monitoring and Review.

“They might not want the public to know, for instance, that they have been violating observer infringement, that they have been engaged in observer interference or they have been dumping trash at sea continuously for the last ten years or that they had the highest number of sea turtle captures.

“So it really requires that public push to get the Commission to open up that process and make it so that people get to know what is being done with their resource.

“At the end of the day, it is a public resource. It belongs to the people. They have a right to know what is being done with their resource.”


Moving further out from the bubble are found the ordinary weavers, planters and fishers – the real resource owners – and it’s clear they know very little about what is going on. No story, no base narrative on the history of the Tuna Wars for them to go on. Even less, apart from the #Tunanomics media work by FFA, there is no channel from which to listen or participate if interested.

As a Pacific journalist and a Media Fellow for the FFA, I was invited with a number of my Pacific colleagues to cover the Manila congress as part of the #Tunanomics – Pacific Editors Dialogue program funded by FFA, Australia through the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) plus various others like WWF and the Japanese government. This was my second time. The first was last year at the 13th Tuna Commission in Nadi, Fiji.

FFA Media Fellows discuss story angles (L-R): Pita Ligaiulu (Fiji), Bernadette Carreon (Palau), Leanne Jorari (PNG), Netani Rika (Fiji), Ronald Toitoona (Solomon Is), Emmanuel Samoglou, Jemima Garrett (Trainer) and Lisa Williams-Lahari (Coordinator).

In preparation for this year’s Tuna Commission, I recalled how lost I was at the 2016 event. Lost in the sense that I lacked the organic feel for the negotiations, its nuanced technical details, pace and various positions adopted by different members. But more importantly, the many gaps in the historical information to learn the language of the negotiations and the evolution of members’ positions both as blocs and as individual countries, each with their own unique set of needs and priorities.

Having that background knowledge is critical in order to provide information that would better ‘inform’ public debate at the level of the weavers, planters and fishers. Because in order to have that conversation, there is the need to disentangle the diverse positions that different nationalities take on tuna based on their cultural identities, their national and development needs; and how those needs and priorities relate to global obligations under various international frameworks such as the UN Agenda2030, for example, that drives the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

And the best way, I felt, to provide a basic tuna narrative was to approach it from the perspective of a bubble – the Tuna Bubble.

Those directly involved, the delegates, diplomats and their officials/advisors, are those inside the bubble. It is they who have created the unique and exclusive environment over the many years of negotiations. While on the outside, the rest are staggered outwards from the well informed, well resourced NGOs and advocacy groups at the bubble interface, to the uninformed weavers, planters, fishers with no access to funds for travel and participation way out in the hinterland.

From personal observations over the years covering social justice issues in the Pacific, I noticed a familiar perspective common to issues such as tuna; one also sees this in the climate change issue: what people ‘believe’ about the Tuna War doesn’t actually reflect what they know.

As in the case of Rev. Francois Pihaatae, what he ‘believes’ about the tuna and what goes on inside the bubble is an expression of who he is as a Polynesian male growing up in the traditional fishing communities of Maohi Nui. His beliefs are also influenced by the viewpoints of his congregation and those from the other 33 island members of the Pacific Conference of Churches.

It is for these reasons that I posed my ‘bubble’ approach to Media Fellow colleagues in Manila to write a post-Tuna Commission series.

And the funny thing that happened, as I started to write a basic explanation of the ‘tuna bubble’, that the topic, the ‘bubble’, virtually grew into its own article. Which is where we find ourselves, 3,890 words from the top. And the reason why the rest of this coverage will start to trickle through in the coming weeks.

Although not limited to the five titles listed below, they will be the first articles to come out of the pipeline.

It is my hope that the information in these post-Commission items, including those filed by my Media Fellow colleagues either on their own platforms or on the Forum Fisheries Agency’s news site TunaPacific Hub, that they will eventually ‘Pop’ the ‘Tuna Bubble’ and allow Pacific weavers, planters and fishers to be informed about the Ocean resources they own.

And if through this flow of information that they decide to engage, participate or tap into the $US22.7 billion revenue flowing inside their waters – then that testifies to the usefulness of the media and its duty to serve Pacific communities; and vindicates the hard labour and lobbying by Lisa Williams-Lahari and her colleagues when setting up the #Tunanomics Media Fellows program.

And fair play to FFA and developed countries Australia and Japan who provided financial support that allowed journalists like myself, trainers like Jemima Garrett and Lisa Williams-Lahari to get the media integrated into the Tuna Commission negotiations process.

Jemima Garrett and Lisa Williams-Lahari contributed to this report.


  • Unplugged: 2017 Tuna Commission Outcomes
  • View from outside the Tuna Bubble: The unlikely story of Samoa’s Minister for Fisheries
  • Some things start out Small: Tokelau’s take and aspirations
  • Solidarity: A Cook Islands perspective
  • Ghandi’s printing press prescribes slow media digest for tuna delights

Lealaiauloto Aigaletaule’ale’a F Tauafiafi’s participation and coverage at the WCPFC14 was made possible by the Forum Fisheries Agency, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS), Pew Charitable Trusts, WWF, Australia, Japan and GEF OFMP2 project. 

NGOs slam fishing nation delay tactics: stalemate on albacore tuna

Categories @WCPFC14, News, NewsPosted on

MANILA, Philippines, December 7 – Environment NGOs have delivered a damning indictment of a group of Pacific Tuna Commission members, saying they have deliberately blocked conservation measures for the South Pacific Albacore tuna fishery.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is in the final hours of its week-long deliberation focused on new tropical tuna measures – the rules governing the fishery.

In the past 3 years moves to improve WCPFC rules for albacore have gone at a glacial pace.

“For years we have listened to impassioned pleas from every Pacific Island state with respect to their declining catch rates of South Pacific Albacore,” said Alfred (Bubba) Cook, Western and Central Pacific Tuna Programme Manager on behalf of WWF, Greenpeace and the EDF (Environmental Defense Fund).

But few Distant Water Fishing Nation members have been willing to join Pacific nations to take action.

“It seems, despite these impassioned pleas, despite the voluminous scientific and economic evidence put before you, you…don’t…care.

“You don’t care about the domestic industry in the Pacific. You don’t care about the communities in the Pacific Islands that are almost wholly dependent on this resource.

Moreover, you don’t appear to care about the health of the resource.”

The NGOs said most parties around the table had “bent over backwards” to try and accommodate a few demands and these members still refused to budge.

“There does not seem to be even a spirit of compromise. What would you agree to, honestly? Because despite the enormous efforts of most of the parties around the table, you continue to postpone adoption of target reference points and now claim that we should just wait for the next stock assessment or the next meeting or the next something.

“This, to us, seems like a crass delay tactic designed to buy one more year until you can develop another strategy to delay further. And meanwhile the Pacific industry and the countries that depend on the resource wither and die,” said Bubba Cook for the NGOs.

“What additional proof is required to convince you to be a good global citizen and inspire you to recognize your responsibility to the other countries and cultures in this room?

“Lastly, this is a disaster of your own making for a few of you.”

The NGOs said despite repeated calls and measures to limit capacity, these members had put more vessels into the fishery.

“And now, stunningly, you are upset at even the suggestion that you might have to withdraw that capacity and effort in the future. If you are worried about the potential impact on your industry, well, it is by your own hand and the rest of the members in this room shouldn’t have to suffer for your poor judgment.”

The NGOs said agreeing to a non-binding workplan left little satisfaction as it only served as another delay. They called on them to start living up to their collective responsibility to conserve and manage the critically important resource.

Tuna commission adopts Pacific proposal to increase port inspections of suspect fishing boats

Categories @WCPFC14, FFA Media Fellows Past EventsPosted on

The Forum Fisheries Agency is delighted that the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted its proposal for a new Port State Measure to combat illegal fishing by boosting Pacific Island capacity to conduct port inspections.

Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) James Movick said the adoption of the port state measure is a victory against illegal fishing.

“WCPFC has just right now adopted the Port State management measure. It has taken four years for us to get it to this point and it has required quite a lot of dedication by the members and on the part of the FFA secretariat,” Movick told reporters this morning.

“What this does is … puts into place within the WCPFC area a port state management measure that allows for the inspection of boats in ports but on a basis that is affordable and achievable by the member countries,” Movick stated.

“I am very, very happy that we have been able to get this out of this Commission meeting,” Movick said

Pamela Maru the FFA official who led the project was pleased that the initiative was one of the first to take by the WCPFC to cater to the special needs of Pacific nations – a responsibility that is part of the organisation’s founding convention.

“It is the first time a measure that really looks at the implications and impacts on small island developing states, what those obligations might mean in terms of addressing their needs and their capacity-development requirements and developing, or having, some sort of agreement to develop mechanisms that will support their ability to improve their technical capacity,” Mr Maru said

“With this measure now in place members can start working towards designating ports where they have the capacity to undertake port inspections, develop risk-based analysis to target where their inspection and compliance efforts are focused, at the same time, identify where those gaps are,” she said.

The Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) oversees a more complex international agreement on Port-State measures.

While Palau, Tonga and Vanuatu have signed this agreement Pacific island nations believe it is beyond their current capacity to do so.

Angela Martini EU’s head of delegation for International Relations Officer, European Commission told Pacific reporters on Wednesday that while they consider the FFA proposal as “not as ambitious and strong,” as the FAO port state measure, it is still a step towards the fight against IUU,

“We are ready to support it because we can see it is a first step in the right direction to re-inforce controls in the region and so enhance the fight against IUU fishing,” Martini said.

FFA said there are already SIDS ports with has the capacity to undertake inspection. This measure will lead to more ports conducting inspections and more jobs for Pacific Islanders in fisheries compliance.

“It is definitely a great achievement for the FFA members but also for the partners that we have worked with,” Ms Maru said

“Japan came on board this year and worked collaboratively with and consulted with FFA members as we developed the proposal,” she added.