Wave seeking “High Seas Governance” is rising.

In Jun. 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development called Rio+20 took place in Rio de Janeiro.  Over 40,000 participants were joined from governments, business enterprises, and non-governmental organizations from 188 countries across the world and adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) regarding to environmental conservation, poverty eradication, etc.  Regarding to the Oceanic sector, High Seas Alliance (HSA) took this meeting as an opportunity to promote their activities while focusing onto high seas management.  Its goal is to have a legally binding international agreement to manage high seas.

HSA’s members include most of the world’s leading environmental conservation groups such as Greenpeace, The Pew Environment Group, and WWF, and the members seem to be increasing even now.  In addition, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the largest global conservation network which includes more than 200 governments, is also a member of the HSA.  As a result, it becomes a substantially powerful pressure group.

HSA claims that it facilitates international cooperation in order to establish high seas protected areas and to strengthen high seas governance Then, why do they make campaign for high seas, especially?  The answer is indicated in their claim.  According to HSA, “High sea areas make up nearly 50% of the surface of the Earth and include some of the most environmentally important, critically threatened and least protected ecosystems on our planet.” 
 
As for the current management of high seas, “regional and sectoral management mechanisms have failed.  The existing framework of governance is not fit for the purpose,” it mentioned.  In addition, it claims that making an international High Seas Biodiversity Agreement is the only way to address the issue.  It would be difficult to oppose against its claim when seeing the current situation of Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission which “is now facing difficulty to address the overfishing capacity in the region..
 
However, HSA’s “high seas protected areas” includes an idea to ban fishing activities in the areas completely.  For tuna fishery which pursues highly migratory species swimming high seas freely, it might mean the denial of fishing activities. 

“Global environment conservation” and “maintaining biological diversity” are important for the future, but we should not forget another global issue for the future how we can secure food, given the world population is foreseen to increase from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050. Setting protected areas which would unreasonably block sustainable use of food resources can not be simply justified under such situation. As a consequence, the only solution is to find a way to solve both issues.

HSA urges an international society and government to begin negotiation immediately to establish a new binding agreement.  Hereafter, their movement for “high seas management” may become a big wave and surge to high seas fishing countries and industries.  It is difficult for them to escape from surging waves which has an agenda of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in its context.  They need to face it seriously and pull through it.  To do so, it is at least essential for Regional Fishing Management Organizations to improve and to exert its management capacity.  In short, RFMOs need to be turned into truly responsible and capable organizations.  It is obviously important for them to implement effective stock management measures. Moreover, from now on, it will be necessary for them to dedicate their energy to measures for oceanic environmental conservation as well as for biological diversity.

(This is a translation from the article published by Minato Fisheries Daily of Japan.)

Overcapacity--WCPFC Must Overcome

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is going to hold a working group meeting Aug. 27-30th in Tokyo in order to develop a draft for a multi-year management program to be implemented between 2014 and 2017. The program will be established at the WCPFC annual meeting in December.

The annual meeting in 2012 decided to establish the upcoming working group meeting this year. In the report of the 2012 meeting, the WCPFC frankly acknowledged its failure on the Tuna stock management. It said that "since the foundation of the WCPFC, a number of resolutions and Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) were developed to mitigate the overfishing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna and to limit the growth of fishing capacity in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and that these measures have been unsuccessful in either restricting the apparent growth of fishing capacity or reducing the fishing mortality of bigeye or juvenile yellowfin tuna."
In addition, it noted clearly the current urgent stock condition, saying that "the Scientific Committee has determined that the bigeye stock is subject to overfishing, and that yellowfin stocks are currently being fished at its capacity, reductions in fishing mortality are required in order to reduce the risks that these stocks will become overfished."

As long as the WCPFC recognized the current situation so severely, I bet the working group meeting can't make the program to be simply a formality with little effectiveness. However, to halt on sharply increasing fishing capacity of large-scale purse-seiners and newly emerging small-scale long-liners as well as limitation of FADs based operation are painful measures for many related fishermen. As such, then, can those measures be smoothly adopted into the new program? As watching how the WCPFC has been performing so far, it seems not to be easy.

The OPRT held its members' meeting regarding these issues in Tokyo with its members in Japan and abroad at the end of June. A member stated that "the tuna fishery in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean will be extinct if the issues keep standing as they are," while others said "unless actions are taken to freeze the number of large-scale purse seiners globally, the increase will never be stopped under agendas of the industrial countries and developing countries. The developing islands countries seemingly desire to develop the tuna fishery by inviting purse-seiners from overseas while developed countries try to justify increasing the number of vessels by taking advantage of such island countries." Such harsh opinions made me recognize the seriousness of the current situation and the depth of these issues.

Even if the working group meeting comes out with highly ef fective program to recover and stabilize the stock condition, will it be adopted as it is at the annual meeting? Especially, under the principle of not to entrench legitimate rights of developing countries, there might be no room left for any people to raise disagreement on such principle. Being as such, at the conclusion of the discussion, the program may become mutilated as it may include measures to approve an exception for island developing counties to increase the number of fishing vessels, which may eventually nullify the effectiveness of the program. I have a deep and endless apprehension over the outcome.

If such exception, regardless of to what extent, is approved, the catch capacity will never effectively be controlled. Even if any small exception is admitted, the new plan needs to show security that it will not harm the effectiveness of catch capacity control. Otherwise, the WCPFC will end up by exposing how incapable it is in managing relevant issues to the world.

Will the WCPFC be able to regenerate its ability as the stock management organization? The working group meeting being held in this month will be a key to see whether or not such revitalization can be attained.

(This is a translation from Minato Fisheries Daily in Japan.)

RFMOs’ efforts needed to effectively control FADs

“Aware that approximately half of the global tuna catch comes from fisheries that employ Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), but the information on the exact number of FADs deployed and their locations is generally not shared with fisheries scientists and managers”

“Concerned about the impacts from the unconstrained use of FADs including, inter alia, large increases in fishing mortality of juvenile Yellowfin and Bigeye, differences in
sizes and ages of target catch compared with free-school caught tuna, increased difficulty of properly assessing the status of individual tuna populations…”
Above statements are excerpts from the preamble of the resolution adopted by the IUCN in the World Conservation Congress (WCC) held in the Republic Korea, 6-15 September, 2012. It explains the fundamental problem concerning the use of FADs to catch tunas. The resolution called on Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to establish har vest control rules. It further called on tuna RFMOs and governments to take steps to improve the traceability of tuna catch, as well as to minimize illegal, unregulated and unreported tuna fishing. It goes without saying that the tuna RFMOs and their member governments, being responsible for ensuring sustainable tuna resources and fisheries, should establish rules to control FAD use.
The present situation in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean in terms of FAD use seems to be posing a serious and real problem causing overfishing. Namely, the total fishing days by using FADs increased to 21,500 days in 2011 from 13,032 in 2010 in the region against the introduction of a 3-month period banning the use of FADs. The measures were apparently not effective. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and its member governments are required to give serious attention to such a fact and make their best efforts to introduce more effective measures. Sustainable tuna fisheries in the region would become just a dream unless virtually ef fective measures are implemented. Differences in interests between advanced nations and developing nations should be overridden in dealing with this problem.

CITES To Hold COP16 From Mar.3rd

The Minato Newspaper (internnet news) carries OPRT’s view.

 

Record price has no relationship to bluefin tuna conservation

The record price of USD1.76 million paid for one 222 kilo Pacific bluefin tuna during the New Year's first auction at Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo has captured the world's attention. However, the price paid for this single tuna has no relationship whatsoever to the market price for bluefin tuna in Japan or the current biological status of bluefin tuna resources.

The first auction of the year at Tsukiji fish market, the largest in the world, brings higher bidding as a traditional business ceremony in the fisheries industr y circle to celebrate the New Year. In our view, however, such record price this year was brought about by a sense of national pride by the winning Japanese bidder who is the owner of a Japanese restaurant chain. The competing bidder is the owner of a Hong Kong sushi restaurant chain. Reportedly, once the bidding, which started at a much lower level, began to exceed each other's expectations, neither could give up easily. Thus, the hard bidding occurred. Our view may be confirmed by a statement of the winning Japanese owner of the restaurant chain who provided the tuna sushi at a regular cheap price saying, "The tuna was harvested off the Japanese coast. One piece for each one guest so that many Japanese people can share the happiness".

Fish is a major food for the Japanese people and tuna is one of the popular fish because it is historically consumed as traditional sushi and sashimi cuisine. Naturally, the Japanese people want the sustainable use of tuna resources and therefore support their conservation and management by regional tuna fisheries management organizations established for all the oceans because of the highly migratory nature of tunas.

Excess fishing of bigeye tuna still prevails in the Western Central Pacific Ocean

The Wester n and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission strengthened the restrictive management measures for FADs operation by purse seine fisheries for next year by simply extending the closure period one month. Apparently, it did not follow the scientific recommendation to rectify the situation. Moreover, the most effective measures to stop excess fishing was not discussed at all in the meeting, according to observer who participated the meeting. Neither freezing nor reducing fishing capacity of large scale purse seine fishing vessels was put on the table of the discussion.

What is the meaning of the recommendation adopted in the joint meeting of tuna regional fisheries management organizations last July? Is it just a propaganda without any follow-up? Where have gone responsible advanced countries which supported the recommendation? Now, we only hope the multi-year recover y plan of bigeye tuna be established next year as declared and implemented, before it becomes too late.

Oct.10^th is the Day for Tunas
 
“Oct.10^th is the Day for Tunas.” This was established by Japan’s Tuna Industry in 1986 based on the old poem in Manyoshu (A Collection of Myriad Leave, the oldest existing anthology of poetry) compiled in Nara-era (A.D.710 to 794) in order to promote domestic consumption of sashimi grade tunas. The Day was buried because of the restructuring of the industry.

The industry is currently working on the revival of the Day in light of the fact that the fish demands are decreasing in Japan over all kinds of seafood including tunas.

 
When we look into the current excessive catch of major tuna species, I believe that it has a significant meaning to position “the Day for Tunas” from the global perspective as the day to promote cooperation among international society to ensure the sustainable use of the resource. How do you think about it?