How the WCPFC was formed

DR SANDRA TARTE






Today the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is the central decision making body for management of tuna fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean providing a forum for cooperation between the Pacific Islands and other large fishing nations including EU, US, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Conservation and management measures (CMMs) of the Commission are legally binding and apply to all WCPFC members and the Convention area.
However, looking back to the mid-1990s, it was not clear this cooperation would ever take place between the Pacific Islands and the large fishing nations or so-called Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs).
A decision was made by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) leaders to invite DWFNs to a second multilateral high level conference to be held in Majuro in June 1997 to begin a process of developing comprehensive management and conservation arrangements for the region’s tuna stocks.
This launched what is now known as the MHLC (Multilateral High Level Conference) process at which the WCPF Convention was negotiated.
At its conclusion, MHLC adopted a resolution establishing a Preparatory Conference (or PrepCon as it came to be called) which had the challenging task of providing a “smooth transition” to the new management and conservation regime. But the prospect of cooperating with DWFNs in the management and conservation of the tuna fisheries of the Pacific was one that many countries viewed with reluctance—if not trepidation.
Relations with Japan had also been fraught. Although Japan entered into bilateral access agreements with Pacific Islands States (thereby recognising the sovereign rights of coastal states), it exploited its dominance in the region as a fishing power and aid donor to negotiate agreements on terms highly favourable to its industry. Despite the cooperative efforts of FFA States and in particular the sub-regional Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), Japan refused to pay more than a nominal access fee. It also insisted on making aid conditional on access and incoporating aid as part of the access fee.
The fact that Pacific Islands found it difficult to translate new-found rights over its marine resources into real economic benefits was a source of frustration.
There was a palpable sense of vulnerability among Pacific Islands States with Satya Nandan stating to the MHLC in 2000: "In dealing with this region, account has to be taken of the feelings and vulnerability of some of the world’s smallest states when they enter into a cooperative arrangement…with some of the largest and most powerful countries. It would be insensitive to disregard or ignore this reality; equally it would be insensitive to impose on this group of countries a regime which would add further to their sense of vulnerability."
This conflict was played out in the issue of what area the new commission would apply to and the rights of sovereign states under this new regime. There was a view within FFC that the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement which provided the legal requirement for cooperation with DFWNs was essentially about cooperation for high seas fisheries, not country’s EEZs.
In contrast, the position of DWFNs was not to differentiate between EEZs and high seas for the purpose of management and conservation and instead the commission should manage stocks through their migratory range. Both the US and Japan vigorously advocated this approach, although the US supported strong enforcement measures for the high seas, while Japan preferred a weaker enforcement regime.
Negotiations on this issue appeared to reach their most critical point at MHLC4 in February 1999. The FFA member states proposed text which would ensure that the functions of the WCPFC in respect to conservation and management measures would be limited to the high seas. This specifically included the allocation of total allowable catches (TACs). DWFNs were dismissive (if not scathing) in their response to the proposed text with the US delegate describing it as a “non-starter” and “at cross-purposes with the Majuro agreement to manage stocks throughout their range.” This view was shared by Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei.
As a result of these contrasting views, negotiations were not only difficult and at times fractious, but key issues were left unresolved to become the subject of later negotiations within the WCPFC once it was established.
The need to provide assistance to developing countries has been described as a “consensus issue” in the MHLC process.
However, FFA states faced strong resistance during the MHLC negotiations from some DWFNs to their efforts to give practical effect to this principle. Japan was opposed to the creation of a special fund to assist developing member states, particularly to support their attendance at meetings of the WCPFC.
There was also strong disagreement about how specific services of the WCPFC would be funded—such as fishing observers. While FFA states favoured the principle of cost recovery with costs borne by fishing vessels operating in the area, DWFNs argued that these services should be covered by the WCPFC budget.
The FFA group called for the so-called special requirements fund to be part of the core budget of the WCPFC funded by assessed, not voluntary contributions.
The reason for this was because of the experience of other regional fisheries management organisations where the practice of voluntary funds had failed to facilitate effective participation of developing states.
Allocations to this fund should be sufficient to meet the costs of participation for developing states and territories in all commission sessions and meetings of its subsidiary body.
The fund should also be sufficient to enhance the technical capacity of participants from developing states. This proposal appeared to be anathema to a number of DWFN participants with Canada supporting the Pacific Islands but most countries objecting.
Korea voiced its concern that such a fund would “change the nature of the commission to a development assistance organisation.”
What was eventually agreed was that participation costs for developing member states would be a line item in the WCPFC’s budget, funded from assessed contributions. The financial regulations stipulate that the purposes of this fund are to assist in human resource development, technical assistance and technology transfer relating to the development of fisheries and conservation and management; as well as building capacity.
Those eligible to apply for and receive assistance are developing state parties, particularly small islands developing states. How meaningful and useful the special assistance fund is for Pacific Islands States remains to be seen. But there is no doubt the WCPF Convention’s provisions relating to the needs and interests of small islands developing states are important ‘power-points’ for the region to take forward its interests at the WCPFC in future.