Letter: Stop printing Greenpeace propaganda about South Pacific Tuna
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