Discussions to cut down on the fishing of Bigeye and yellowfin tuna will figure prominently in this month’s meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fishing Commission (WCPFC) in Bussan, South Korea. 

Among draft proposals on the agenda is one from the WCPFC chair outlining reasons why it has become imperative that this Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) be supported by its members, as the two species are considered overfished. 

The WCPFC—or the Tuna Commission as it is more commonly referred to—is the regional decision-making body for the management of tuna fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

Its members include Pacific islands countries who are members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs) who are non Pacific islands countries that mostly fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

“The aim (of the WCPFC chair’s draft proposal) is to achieve a 30 percent reduction among both purse seine, particularly in respect of FAD (Fish Aggregation Devices) sets which account for a relatively large catch of juvenile tuna—and longline—it is proposed that the longline component will be phased-in across three years,” said WCPFC’s executive director Andrew Wright.

“This is to be applied across all fleets with some special consideration given to the developing fisheries of Pacific islands states.”

The WCPFC chair’s proposal comes at a time when there is a region-wide effort to try and conserve fish stock.

A meeting in Palau of PNA members in May this year saw them signing a PNA 3rd Implementing Arrangement, a set of CMMs to rein in the overfishing of their tuna stock.

Also an expected highlight at the Korea meeting is the testing of WCPFC’s role in illegal fishing in the region.

“It’s a ‘test case’ for the WCPFC about what it does when countries disagree about illegal fishing,” said Anouk Ride, media liaison for the Honiara-based FFA. 

“Tonga made a case for adding Taiwanese fishing vessel F/V Chu Huai No.683 to the WCPFC’s Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Vessel List—essentially a list of banned vessels in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

“Whether or not the fishing vessel reported by Tonga fished illegally in its waters is not in question. But the debate between Tonga and Chinese Taipei is about whether Chinese Taipei’s actions taken against the vessel are adequate.”

Ride explained the Taiwanese fishing vessel was detected to be fishing in Tongan waters by a New Zealand P3 Orion aircraft in January this year and reports indicated it had been fishing without a license for a period of 13 days.

“Chinese Taipei suspended its fishing license for three months, the fishing license of the captain for six months and required him to return to Chinese Taipei for training. However, Tonga does not consider this adequate severity for this violation of sovereign rights,” Ride added.

The conflict in this case arises because Tonga is strongly pushing for its right to mete out its punishment, according to its national laws, as stipulated under Article 73 of UN Law of the Sea Convention.

According to Wright, the challenge for the Commission—and in fact a majority of fisheries commissions like WCPFC—is that the flag state, in this case Taiwan, is responsible for the investigation of the alleged offence and, if found guilty, it is also responsible for the imposition of a penalty. 

“Even if found guilty, a flag state may not always impose a penalty that satisfies the country where the alleged offence occurred (in this case Tonga). It is extremely difficult to reach a consensus to impose sanctions or penalties when the flag state responsible for the vessel accused of the infringement is able to participate in the decision whether or not to take action against its own vessel,” Wright added.   

While that would obviously make it a tough call for the WCPFC to get the Taiwanese vessel ontop its IUU list, FFA members and a number of DWFNs are said to be strongly backing Tonga’s position on it. There are also expected to be ruffled feathers as DWFNs face an impending shift—a growing interest by Pacific islands countries to develop their own local fishing industry and to get more value out of their resources than what they currently do.

A well-known fact is that out of the US$3-US$4 billion value put on Pacific fish stock, only five percent actually stay back to benefit the region.

There is a surging interest now to reverse that. In the Palau meeting of PNA countries, members collectively endorsed a proposal by Kiribati to explore the setting up of a sub-regional tuna corporation to belong to PNA members. 

“It will be an area that will assist us in the development of this industry, to start off from the smaller groups like the PNA and hopefully expand that to the individual countries to assist in the development of their national scale tuna industry.

“But it is important that we collect our assets together into one sub-regional entity,” said Ribanataake Awira, Kiribati’s secretary for the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resource Development, in an interview with Islands Business.

“If we pool our resources, then the value and full benefit of the tuna resources that we are saying is worth between a range of US$3 billion to US$4 billion probably can achieve maximum benefit for us. It is well known that Pacific islands only get five percent out of that.”

The proposal, which will see the tuna corporation handle the catching, processing and marketing of PNA fisheries resources, has been taken up to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the umbrella organisation of the PNA.

With most fishing in the Pacific done in PNA waters, they are a strong force in the region’s fishing matters.

Just how their idea will go down with DWFNs may be gauged at the WCPFC’s Korea meeting, as there are expectations that it would be a sensitive matter in tuna politics.

“There is a feeling in most FFA member countries that they want to develop their own fisheries, to keep jobs and revenues in their own countries. 

“The question is, how do you do that? Because you also have these DWFNs, Japan and Taiwan in particular, who are big donors in the Pacific and who help out in the development of the local fishing industries.

“So the FFA is trying to come up with solutions to see how best the interests of both sides can be balanced,” said Ride.

At this stage, no one is quite sure how this shift will position DWFNs, although one island nation, Kiribati, is sure of what it wants out of DWFNs.

“In the end, when this proposal (of a sub-regional tuna corporation) is up and running, (PNA) member countries will have the freedom to choose who will fish in our waters from among the DWFNs,” said Awira.

“Since we will be fishing, processing and selling our own resources, we will no longer need the DWFNs and we will slowly phase them out of our waters. Only those who have contributed a lot to our development and accommodating our joint venture arrangements will be given the right to fish. That will be Kiribati’s view on this.”

This idea about reinforcing locals’ interest in their fishing industry will also be presented at the Korea meeting as a draft from the Marshalls on “Aspirations of Small Islands Developing States (SIDS)”.

This proposal seeks cooperation from the more developed nation members of WCPFC—typically non-Pacific members—in terms of adopting fair conservation and management measures as well as in assisting in the efforts of SIDS–typically Pacific country members—to develop their own fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks.

Marshall Islands, itself embroiled in a long drawn-out affair regarding the purchase of two purse seine vessels from Taiwan in 2006, has been active in efforts to develop its domestic fishing industry through partnerships with Asian countries, notably Taiwan.

Its case regarding the release of these vessels will also be discussed at the Korea meeting.