SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - June 25, 2008 - Lost in most of the articles about tuna conservation recently has been the fact that industry is behind the push for conservation measures in the Pacific.

At the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) meeting this week, NFI and other industry groups called on the IATTC to follow the advice of its own scientists and support time-limited closures for yellowfin and big-eye tuna in parts of the Pacific.

The groups also called for more research into reducing by-catch from fish aggregating devices.

Based on reports from people at the meeting, it appears that the skipjack tuna stock is healthy in the Pacific. However, the big-eye and yellowfin stocks are showing signs of strain, in that catches have been diminishing over the past few years, and the average size of fish caught is declining as well.

In the absence of stock abundance surveys, these signs have been used by fisheries scientists in the past to signal problems in recruitment to a fish stock.

The scientific recommendations before IATTC are for closures for 90 days at a time in specific zones to help protect the stocks.

According to NFI ‘The coalition is calling upon the Commission to follow the advice of its scientific staff to adopt time and area closures to protect tuna [yellowfin and bigeye], and implement a research program to investigate how to manage fish aggregating devices (FADs) to reduce the capture of non-target species.’

At issue is the fact that IATTC is a government to government organization, and member countries attending the meeting in Panama included Colombia, Ecuador, the United States, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Venezuela and Japan. Not all these governments have the same level of commitment to following scientific advice or to fisheries conservation, instead at time maneuvering to protect their industries at the expense of the overall stocks.

The EU, as an example, although not a member of IATTC, has a long record of ignoring scientific advice in fisheries.

It would be more honest for the environmental groups to point out the governments that are recalcitrant in this area, rather than make a blanket charge that all groups are opposing tuna conservation.

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Letters] June 24, 2008 -

Dear John:

I think it would be a good idea if you did not print these stories about the Pacific Island Nations closing the high seas areas to fishing to protect tuna resources, unless you also print a comment on their inaccuracy. (Pacific nations ban tuna boats to stop stock collapse June 20th)

This is just another Greenpeace scam and the L.A. Times should not have swallowed it whole either. This stuff makes about as much sense (NONE) as the Greenpeace Red List.

The idea that you can protect tuna resources, i.e. highly migratory species, by closing pockets of the high seas is a red herring, as any scientist familiar with tuna will testify to.

There is an agreement between 8 Pacific Island States called the Nauru Agreement which has been in force for several years. The countries which are parties to this agreement are referred to as the PNA countries.

The Nauru Agreement sets up certain requirements which these countries have agreed to abide by when licensing foreign vessels to fish for tuna in their EEZs.

In the past it has usually referred to things such as unloading in a country’s port(s), using crewmen from the country, etc.

It was recently amended by an agreement (which I have a copy of) which is prospective only in application. The gist of the amendment to the agreement is that for any new licenses issued by these countries there will be a requirement that the country receiving the license agree not to fish in three high seas ‘pockets’ in the Western and Central Pacific.

This means it applies to ‘all subsequent’ access agreements with foreign fishing vessels and to the period for which a license issued by a PNA Party is valid. Of course, the PNA’s intent is that a vessel is free to continue to fish on the high seas but, if it does, it forfeits the prospect of being considered for licensing in zone by the PNA members.

Under international law, as reflected by the 1982 U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, the only way these areas of high seas can be closed is if
a country or countries agree not to fish there. For example if PNG does not sell a license to Korea, Korean vessels have every right to fish there. If it sells a license to Korea, and Korea fails to agree not to fish in these high seas areas, it can still fish there. If Korea wants to buy a license to fish in PNG’s EEZ, it will apparently have to agree not to fish in these 3 high seas pockets.

Most of the press releases from that part of the world about the amended agreement are being issued by Greenpeace, and they are very misleading. This started when Greenpeace began an internet contest a while back to have people suggest names for these high seas areas for when they eventually became Marine Protected Areas.

They never will in the foreseeable future because too many countries will not give up their international rights to fish there, including the U.S. The amended agreement does not even apply to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty for U.S. tuna purse seine vessels. One can check with the U.S. Department of State
to confirm this.

Greenpeace has also been illegally harassing tuna purse seine vessels on the high seas in the Western and Central Pacific which have been duly licensed under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty with the U.S. or by individual Pacific Island States in the area. All of that fishing is in accord with the RFMO in the area, which is the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

Please stop printing without comment such stories — it does the tuna fishermen a great injustice. Also, just to clarify, this has nothing to do with what Greenpeace vessels are doing in the Mediterranean.

Thanks,
Pete

PETER H. FLOURNOY
SAN DIEGO, CA