COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 5
January 2009
ICCAT failure prompts CITES talk for bluefin
MARRAKECH, MOROCCO – Positive steps were taken toward improving quota compliance, but beyond that, it was hard for US participants and observers to find much good to say about the results of the 2008 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) regarding bluefin.
During the Nov. 16-24 meeting, the commission: cut the western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota, which US fishermen target; agreed to phase out the rollover of uncaught quota from one year to the next; agreed to rework the percentage share split of the western quota among the US, Canada, and Japan, setting the stage for a reduction in the US share of the quota in 2010; and adopted an eastern Atlantic quota well in excess of scientific advice.
The eastern Atlantic bluefin agreement was so out of synch with the recommendation of ICCAT’s scientists that it triggered calls to place bluefin under the scrutiny of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
A CITES listing can seriously restrict or even ban country-to-country trade of species deemed to be endangered or likely to become endangered.
“ICCAT has missed its last chance to save the bluefin tuna from stock collapse,” said Sebastian Losada of Greenpeace Spain. “Bluefin has become an endangered species because of ICCAT mismanagement. It’s time to take the fishery out of their hands and look at conventions like CITES to impose trade restrictions on the species.”
While it’s unclear it will come to that, Rebecca Lent, director of international affairs for the National Marine Fisheries Service and head of the US delegation to ICCAT, issued a statement on Nov. 24 also expressing her frustration at the commission’s failure to do more to protect eastern and Mediterranean bluefin.
“I am extremely disappointed with the results of this meeting,” she said. “ICCAT continues to put the species as a whole in jeopardy by authorizing excessive fishing levels on the eastern stocks.”
West quota details
Rich Ruais, executive director of both the East Coast Tuna Association and Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, which represents US swordfish interests, and a long-time member of the US delegation to ICCAT, characterized the November meeting as “grueling and tense.”
And even though the results for US fishermen on bluefin were discouraging, he pointed out that the quota cuts for the western Atlantic could have been worse.
The scientific recommendation was to reduce the western quota from the current 2,100 metric tons (mt) to 1,500 mt. However, the final agreement reduced the western quota to 1,900 mt for 2009. The next year, in 2010, the quota will drop again to 1,800 mt.
The US share of the western quota remained the same – 57%. However, Ruais explained the agreement requires a re-evaluation of the percentage split among the US, Canada, and Japan in 2010.
“This can only result in a loss of quota share for the US unless our domestic production increases dramatically and soon,” he said.
The US is under extreme pressure to give up bluefin quota because US fishermen have caught only a fraction of their allocation for years now. This year, Canadian fishermen had no trouble taking their quota and want more opportunity to fish.
Chartering option?
Ruais went on to say that it might be time to consider allowing temporary “chartering” of foreign vessels to catch US bluefin quota. That would help because the way the rules are written, the country that chartered the foreign boats gets credit for having caught the fish.
“Chartering begins to protect our share,” he said.
However, Ruais further called the idea “a necessary short-term evil” since the production would be sent to Japan where it likely would compete with US-caught fish.
ICCAT also was adamant about curtailing the practice of adding uncaught quota from one year to the next.
“We were able to protect the 50% rollover of base quota from 2009 to 2010 but then it drops from 50% to 10%,” he said, adding that the decision stemmed from recommendations recently made by an independent review panel, which called for the elimination of quota rollover for all ICCAT-managed species.
Mexico concerns
Another disturbing element of the western Atlantic bluefin agreement was that Mexico won permission to harvest up to 95 mt but, Ruais explained, refused to put in writing that it would abide by the existing 25 mt cap on catches from Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds.
“We are left trusting that Mexico will limit its catches of spawning bluefin to 25 tons and not directly fish on triple the amount of catch of spawning bluefin,” he said. “This was a most risky proposition at best and one that I continuously drew attention to.”
Writing on her Tag-a-Giant online blog, Stanford University bluefin tuna researcher Barbara Block said that Mexico’s refusal to acknowledge the cap was “alarming “ and potentially opened a loophole for Mexico to increase effort on spawning giants.
Block and others petitioned NMFS a few years ago to virtually shut down US longlining operations capable of taking bluefin as bycatch on Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds. NMFS rejected the petition but efforts to achieve the goal continue.
“We are working to reduce mortality in US waters of the gulf,” she said. “This is no time to launch a new fishery in the western bluefin’s most critical habitat.”
Eastern quota
After years of warning that the eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean bluefin population was being seriously overfished, the ICCAT scientific panel issued recommendations for the lowest quota range yet – 8,500 mt to 15,000 mt.
Yet, even as the protests of western Atlantic countries and environmental groups grew to a fevered pitch both in diplomatic circles and in the media, a coalition of countries led by the European Community (EC) managed to secure an agreement allowing the harvest of 22,000 mt in 2009.
This represented a reduction from the current quota level of 27,500 mt – on paper, anyway, as Ruais quipped – but set the stage for yet another year of astounding levels of overfishing.
“This is not a decision, it is a disgrace, which leaves the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) little choice but to look elsewhere to save this fishery from itself,” said Sergi Tudela, head of WWF Mediterranean’s fisheries program, referring to CITES.
The eastern agreement also failed to come in line with scientific advice regarding purse seine closures.
Compliance
Chris Rogers, chief of the Trade and Marine Stewardship Division of the NMFS Office of International Affairs, is now chairman of the ICCAT compliance committee, and he used his new authority to make changes that observers predict will help to put some real teeth in the commission’s agreements.
In a follow-up statement, Rogers explained that attainment of ICCAT’s conservation objectives for all species depends on science-based management and effective compliance with the rules.
While ICCAT generally adopts sound measures, he continued, not all contracting parties fully and effectively fulfill their obligations, particularly when it comes to staying within quota limits and accurately reporting fishery statistics.
“This prevents recovery of depleted stocks and leads to uncertainty in stock assessments,” he said. “This has been a longstanding problem for the eastern bluefin tuna fishery.”
The chronic problem also was pointedly identified by the independent review panel as a fundamental flaw in ICCAT’s ability to function effectively.
In only one of a long list of items detailing ICCAT’s shortfalls, the panel said that it “found the management of fisheries on bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean and the regulation of bluefin farming to be unacceptable and not consistent with the objectives of ICCAT.”
Furthermore, the panel found that “ICCAT’s failure to meet its objectives is due in large part to the lack of compliance by many of its contracting parties.”
In response to the panel’s findings, Rogers said he worked with new ICCAT Chairman Fabio Hazin of Brazil and ICCAT staffers to use the 2008 meeting as an opportunity to systematically review the compliance record of each country, with a focus on eastern bluefin tuna.
According to Ruais, Rogers handled the review meeting in such a way that it wasn’t long before country representatives were volunteering to come forward and put their compliance failures on the record before being singled out and likely embarrassed publicly by Rogers.
“Chris is really to be congratulated for his outstanding work and persistence in achieving what was a sea-change in the workings of the compliance committee,” Ruais said. “It is something we have been trying to achieve for many years.”
Rogers added that ICCAT has scheduled a special meeting of the compliance committee in 2009 where sanctions will be considered.
“This is a critical first step towards a more effective compliance regime at ICCAT,” Rogers said.
Swordfish
The US held the line on the swordfish front in that it got the current swordfish agreement extended for one more year. That postpones a quota reallocation debate that the industry here is dreading because it has continually failed to harvest its share due to restrictive domestic regulations.
The last year the US industry caught its quota was 1997, according to Ruais.
“We’re vulnerable to losing share,” he said.
ICCAT agreed to wait until 2010 to renegotiate the swordfish agreement so that it can work with an updated stock assessment, which is due out in 2009.
“Thus, we have our full swordfish quota share for 2009 and our underages will be transferred in similar fashion as was done in 2006,” Ruais said.
The ICCAT swordfish panel also approved a US-supported recommendation to require the release of any live bigeye thresher sharks taken by longliners. US fishermen are already required to release the sharks.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
