IMPACT OF PNA MEASURES ON THE GLOBAL TUNA INDUSTRY SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT! Dr. Transform Aqorau Director PNA Office Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be addressing you on the impact of PNA measures on the global tuna industry. I know some in the industry see PNA as a pariah, as a constraint on the industry. I don t think those perceptions are fair, or even true. We are in partnership with the industry: the industry are the players, and PNA the custodians of these valuable resources. We have to work together, but you must work with us. At the SC7 meeting last month, the overview of the tuna fisheries in the WCPO showed that last year, the total WCPO catch of main tuna species declined by 3%, the total purse seine catch declined by 4% and the total Skipjack catch declined by 6%. PNA sees these declines as an early sign of the effectiveness of the application of the limits in CMM 2008-01 including the PNA Vessel Day Scheme and the FAD Closure. The impact of PNA measures in the global tuna industry is also apparent when viewed against the surface skipjack fishery. The PNA share of the purse seine skipjack catch in this region continues to grow from 57% in 2004 to 67% in 2010. To put this into perspective, in 2004, the total purse seine skipjack catch in PNA
waters was 687,742 metric tonnes out of a total WCPO purse seine skipjack catch of 1,180.851 metric tonnes. The total WCPO skipjack catch in 2004 was 1,401,135 metric tonnes. In 2010, the purse seine skipjack catch in PNA waters was 1,018,036 metric tonnes, out of a total WCPO purse seine skipjack catch of 1,500,790 metric tonnes. The total skipjack catch in the WCPO was 1,690,111tonnes. Parties believe they are just about there with regards to the catch levels that can be sustained by the fishery and are looking at implementing full reference points to maintain sustainability. While a substantial proportion of this catch is being taken outside the region for processing, PNA domestic tuna industries continue to grow, and interest in ventures vertically integrated with domestic processing plants in the region are being pursued. It is in the Parties interest to have fish caught in their waters, processed in plants in the region or outside in which they have equity. Taking the fish outside to their competitors only leads to depressed fish prices, and reduces the competitiveness and profitably of their investments, whether these be in plants, joint ventures, or charters. It is in PNA s interest to maintain high fish prices. This year, skipjack prices have been high between US$1,700-US$1,950 a metric tonne (CIF). Keeping prices high ensures their industries are competitive, and the returns from access fees are also high relative to the fish prices as a proportion of the value of the rate of return. To this end, Parties have an interest in where the fish caught in their waters end up. The message Parties have been getting from industry and from other stakeholders in the fisheries is that PNA can and should do this, by regulating supply. That means landing and processing fish caught in PNA waters in the region or in plants in which they have equity.
I don t think that PNA measures per se have an impact on the global tuna fishery. However, when viewed in the context of the fishery itself, it might be fair to say that PNA measures themselves have an impact on a significant proportion of the fishery in this region, which in itself, is a significant component of the overall global tuna fishery. My simple message to those involved is, Shape up or Ship out!! Either you work with the Parties by changing your approach or ship out because only those who work with the Parties will remain in this fishery. Most of the tuna fishing, especially the surface purse seine fisheries occurs in the waters of the PNA. Even at this stage, there are players who do not understand the PNA. The PNA is essentially an acronym; it stands for Parties to the Nauru Agreement. In fact, the full title of the Agreement is Nauru Agreement concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common Interest. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement as most of you well know are: Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. The group itself is not new. The Agreement was signed in 1982, and since then the group has been one of, if not the single most influential grouping of countries, that have shaped international fisheries. Together with other Pacific Island countries, the PNA put together the Regional Register for Foreign Fishing Vessels, instituted Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions of Access for Foreign Fishing Vessels, concluded the FSM Arrangement for Regional Access, and the Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fishery. The PNA also worked together with other Pacific Island countries to shape the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and
the Convention for the Management and Conservation of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific. The provisions on compatibility in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement are an example of an outcome influenced by this region. Unlike, other regions, the Pacific already had well established measures and arrangements in place, and they were not going to let this new international law framework ignore pre-existing rules and arrangements. Thus, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement refers to existing organizations and arrangements. These existing arrangements are the Nauru Agreement, the MTCs, and even the Treaty on Fisheries which had already established high standards for data collection, compliance and flag State responsibility. Some people, however, do not understand this. They think the only body that can make conservation and management measures are the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. While, it is true to say that RFMOs are entrusted with this responsibility, it is not true that grouping of countries cannot collectively decide to enact measures for their EEZs. The simple message is we cannot, and should not wait for others to decide for what is best for us especially when they cannot even decide at all! We cannot afford to wait for a consensus based regime invariably influenced by the narrowly based interest of the participants to protect our heritage. Since when have others worked to protect and preserve our interest! We must act to preserve our pristine environment. We must act to preserve the cultural heritage of this region. We are a unique region. This is the only region for which the ocean is closely intertwined with our cultural heritage. There are dances, and folklores which tell of fishing and imitate the movement of tuna.
Up until 1 January 2010, the PNA group was supported by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The decision by PNA to establish the PNA Office was meant to strengthen the region. It was an expression of self-determination and self-reliance, to unravel the stranglehold that aid donors have over regional fisheries management agencies. The influence PNA has over the tuna resources, in particular the skipjack fishery cannot be underestimated. Yet some people do not believe that this is the case. What is not in doubt is the influence of PNA actions on the fishery itself. As one prominent scientist has said,.more fundamentally, that while terms such as management of stocks are quite common, at an operational level, we do not manage stocks (which are subject to many sources of variability other than fisheries); rather, we manage the fisheries that exploit them and their impacts. Therefore, in any debate about the influence of PNA management actions. I would argue that it is the extent of the catch, and therefore fishing mortality, under the control of the PNA (approaching 70% of the WCPO skipjack catch in 20105), rather than the percentage of biomass that is the important indicator. My preliminary conclusion is that management action by the PNA, which in recent times has also impacted events outside their EEZs (e.g. the closure of the high seas pockets), can potentially have a high degree of influence on overall management performance measures in the WCPO skipjack fishery. I am sure that all of you here are familiar with the measures that PNA have put in place. In 2008, following the failure of the WCPF Tuna Commission in 2007 to agree to conservation and management measures to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna, the PNA adopted the Third Implementation Arrangement (3IA) under
the Nauru Agreement. The 3 months FAD closure with options for up to an additional 3 months FAD closure in 2012, 100% catch retention, 100% observer placements on all purse seine vessels, prohibition on setting on whale sharks, introduction of minimum mesh size, and closure of the high seas pockets have an impact on the industry. The information provided to the recent WCPFC Scientific Committee meeting shows how well these measures are working. The application of hard limits under the VDS in 2011 is also now starting to have an impact in ways that were never anticipated. Overall, the impact of these measures are showing in improved catch rates with enhanced effort limits through the application of hard limits in 2011. While some people have been quick to point fingers at the PNA about the increased effort in their EEZs, they fail to take account of the fact that it was inevitable that there would be some effort shift from the high seas to the EEZ, but the one positive is that all this effort is now under the VDS, and can be controlled, and dare I say removed! But it is also easy to point fingers the other way, and ask, what have industry and flag States done to remove effort from this fishery? The answer is nothing. The recent evaluation of CMM 2008-01 by the Scientific Committee also indicates that the 3 months FAD closure is also having an impact on bigeye mortality. In general terms, the measures proposed by PNA are having an impact on the fishery. As with the conservation measures, for the first time we are seeing that effort limits under the VDS are creating opportunities for trading. With the closure by Solomon Islands of its EEZ in June, following the lead by Nauru in 2010, there has been increased trading of days. There has been about US$10 million worth of traded
days since July. The projected TAE is expected to be reached in November this year. The TAE for the FSM Arrangement vessels was reached last month with 25% allowance being made for non-fishing days apportioned to the respective FSMA vessels most of this effort is expected to be reached by early October. The upshot of all this is that Parties have been able to demonstrate that they can apply hard limits. Importantly, they are now seeing the benefits that flow through the imposition of hard limits with allowances made for trading between those Parties who need days, and those that have days to trade. There are still teething problems to be learned about the VDS. We are in the middle of building systems that will enable Parties to better monitor and administer the VDS. Parties will be able to receive real time information on the days utilized in their EEZs, with intellectual property rights over the raw data generated by the systems. I remember for a long time, Industry ignored PNA, and even worked against the VDS. Several meetings were held with the industry in 2005 and 2006 about the VDS. Some in the Industry openly opposed the VDS. They said it would not work. But the PNA have done, in spite of everything that was done and said about it. The VDS is not there to kill the industry. It is there to maximize the sustainability of the fishery, and to maximize the industry s profitability. The sooner the Industry realizes this and gets on board, the better you, PNA and this region will be. There is an underlying message in this. As I said earlier on, you need to work with PNA. Things are slowly falling into place. As we have seen, Parties are continually improving the VDS. In short, the VDS is working and it is going to get a whole lot harder to fish unless you have days.
This calls for innovative, non traditional approaches to fisheries development. Parties are looking at equity arrangements and participation because they want a sense of ownership. Not just being idle bystanders while others benefit, but taking a key role, and the VDS has put the Parties on a higher pedestal. The PNA has played its part for conservation and management. Parties have said that they will not continue to accept the transfer of a disproportionate burden of conservation action on bigeye given that current measures for bigeye conservation are unfair and are not consistent with Article 30 of the Convention. They transfer a large proportion of the burden of bigeye conservation action to the Parties who get only a small share of the benefits from the bigeye resources. It is time for those who consume bigeye tuna and do most of the catching of bigeye tuna to take up a larger share of the conservation action. There is no scope for the application of additional measures for bigeye conservation to the purse seine fishery in PNA waters. The Commission and those who benefit must establish arrangements to compensate Pacific Island countries who suffer a disproportionate burden from conservation measures. The Industry and CCMs represented here can take conservation and management measures without waiting to be told by the Commission, especially those who benefit most from the resources. At the last WCPF Tuna Commission meeting, the Commission called on CCMs to adopt measures voluntarily. PNA have done that. PNA have agreed to apply an additional FAD closure; they require vessels licensed by Parties not to fish in additional high seas area, and have applied a minimum mesh size limit in their waters. It is now time for other major players to do the same.
What have others done. Nothing. Countries such as Japan and the US should not wait for the Commission to solve the problem of bigeye conservation created by their high consumption of bigeye tuna. They have plenty of resources and they should take voluntary measures with their own fleets, since they are the ones who will get the major benefits from bigeye conservation. We will no longer tolerate the position where those who have done so much to damage our resources are now prepared to do nothing about protecting them, and seek only to continue to protect their own selfish interests by sending out their scientific lackeys to oppose the measures we take such as the FAD closure. Therefore, PNA Parties will be asking the Commission this year to formally request all CCMs to take voluntary measures and report back on them. In particular, Parties will be asking the Commission to call on processors and other major buyers to take business measures to mitigate bycatches and report back on the measures they have taken. The PNA have been able to demonstrate that effort controls can work, and is working. The PNA have also been able to demonstrate their commitment to protect their heritage. It is a shared heritage, and one that benefits consumers in countries that have alternative opportunities for employment and economic revenue. It is now up to the Industry to make the play, provide alternative approaches if they are to continue to be part of this fishery.