The
Myth Of Tuna Stock Conservation By Consensus
Written by Concerned EPO Tuna Fishermen (Writers’ names known with
Atuna editor), September 22nd, 2006
Tuna stocks all over the world are in decline, most of them are already fully
exploited, and some – like the Atlantic bluefin tuna – are near extinction. How
can tuna stocks, which are researched and closely monitored by highly respected
scientists, and which are managed by professionals, still keep declining? Is it
all due of the Illegal fishing or is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way decisions are made in the regional tuna management organizations such as
ICATT, IATTC,and IOTC. Below the views of some concerned tuna fisherman who
reflect on the recent IATTC (Interamerican Tropical Tuna Commission) meeting
held from June 26th to June 30th 2006 in Busan, Korea.
Their views give us some insight in what paralyzes the decision making within
all Regional Tuna Management organizations. Decision making which is so badly
needed to conserve the world’s precious tuna stocks. They also have some
interesting recommendations:
The Hapless 74th IATTC 2006 Meeting
The Busan meeting started with TWO and a HALF days of pointless discussions on
the appointment of a two year Chairman. Spain and Mexico insisted on their own
candidates, and the parties were unable to agree. Two delegations were ready to
pack up and go home, when the deadlock was finally resolved by appointing a
member of the U.S. Delegation for the duration of the meeting. Much valuable
time was lost, and half of the five meeting days was consumed over nonsense,
instead over talking about badly needed tuna conservation measures.
Obviously the most logical thing would be to appoint a citizen of an American
country as Chairman, since it is the INTER-AMERICAN
TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION after all. Nevertheless the EU, which is not a member
of IATTC, has been trying to impose its will within this organization and thus
expected that a European citizen be elected Chairman for life. This is what
causes the two and half day discussions.
The public remark made by the Spanish delegate that the American countries are
“UNGOVERNABLE” and thus not worthy of chairing the organization is an insult,
and of very poor taste.
Finally after two and a half days the IATTC’s Director, Dr. Robin Allen
presented the scientific findings on the status of tuna stocks in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean (EPO). To our surprise these findings were hotly contested by Mr.
John Spencer, of the European Union’s Directorate General of Fishing, as being
inaccurate. Mr. Spencer claimed that the scientific findings and the Directors
Allen’s conservation recommendations were enormously exaggerated.
The Parties were unable to agree on urgent conservation measures aimed at
restricting the use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and only agreed to extend
the current purse seine tuna fishing ban through 2007.
Mexico heavily protested because it claimed that FAD fishing is depredatory and
shameful, it causes very high by-catches and kills a lot of immature fish, and
that the IATTC has done nothing to control it. Ecuador, which uses FAD fishing
extensively, countered by stating that no conservation measures can be effective
if the tuna fishing fleet grows without control, as is in fact occurring in the
EPO ( Eastern Pacific Ocean), thanks to the Commission’s complacent supervision.
Also Venezuela demanded action to curtail harmful and wasteful by-catch, a
petition which fell on deaf ears.
Venezuela also angrily demanded ratification of its ownership of the carrying
capacity of 4 tuna boats that had changed their flag to Panama, and accused
IATTC’s Director of illegally transferring their carrying capacity to Panama on
the Vessel Registry without his government’s consent, as required by IATTC
rules. No action was taken, as the rule of consensus requires all Members to
agree to the request. Interestingly, the vessels transferred to Panama now
belong to Spanish boat-owners.
Two tuna boats, the ex Atlantis and the Athena F (Venezuela) which are fishing
illegally in the EPO, according to IATTC regulations
for not being at the IATTC Vessel Register, could not be put on the list
of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) list of boats, as their inclusion
was vetoed by the IATTC Party (Venezuela) that flags them.
On the matter of the adoption of a formula to determine each country’s
contribution to the IATTC’s annual budget, Spain blocked the initiative and was
unable or unwilling to make any counter-proposal. Thus, the IATTC’s tuna
research and monitoring operations will be under-funded, yet again. The Director
announced the closing down of several programs, possibly including the Achotines
Laboratory in Panama.
A resolution concerning the adoption of Trade Measures to promote compliance was
approved. The resolution applies to IATTC Parties as well as to non-Member
States that “undermine effectiveness of IATTC’s conservation and management
measures”. This resolution, as well as many others, is illegal, since it is not
authorized under the IATTC’s basic charter, the 1949 Convention. This lends
further credence to the EU’s representative’s statement at the meeting that the
IATTC is acting illegally on many issues.
As the 74th IATTC Meeting was concluding, Dr. Robin Allen, its
Director for the past 8 years announced his retirement, effective as of
September 1, 2007. Several participants commented that the Director’s tenure in
office was disappointing, as conservation of tuna in the EPO is in a state of
disarray. Much of this chaos is due to the conflicting interests of the Parties,
as well as to illegal deviations from the IATTC’s basic charter.
A replacement convention, known as “the Antigua convention” , not yet in effect,
attempts to correct this. “The Antigua convention” is, in a nutshell, a
proposal to create an autonomous supranational regulatory monster with no checks
and balances and no accountability, political or otherwise, and ruled by
consensus.
One of the central flaws of the IATTC’s recent policies is to force non-Member
countries into compliance with its measures, via illegal declarations of IUU
vessels, trade measures, carrying capacity limits and the threat of the use of
force against non-Members in order to demand compliance with its measures.
Member country delegates have approved these illegal measures, which amount to
amendments of the 1949 Convention, without the full knowledge and authority due
from their superiors. The IATTC is not accountable to any national or
international organisation and is therefore acting like a runaway horse, totally
out of control.
In view of the disappointing results of the recent 78th Meeting of
the Parties, it is time to return to the basics in tuna stocks conservation, to
return to a firm institutional framework which cannot and should not be
circumvented time and again by special interests and complacent leadership.
For Further Analysis
The events narrated above are by no means unique to the 2006 Meeting of the
IATTC. The recurrence of these types of events in the past, and even far more
serious ones, invites us to further consider the current regulatory philosophy,
as well as its limits.
The IATTC and its companion agreement, AIDCP
(Dolphin Protection) are conventions lacking in transparency, but mainly,
lacking a bona fide effort to comply with them.
Continuously these conventions are manipulated according to the interests of
Member countries. That way the main objective, which is to recommend the
protection of tuna resources in the EPO, has not been achieved. The AIDCP
agreement has fared better, but also there is substantial room for improvement.
The IATTC has in fact resulted in a “cartel” which wants to impose its interests
and points of view on Member States and keep fisheries to themselves, keeping
non-Members States out and ducking opportunistic IUU and Trade Measures
cannonballs.
AIDCP has become an agreement manipulated by commercial interests, where some of
its Members are satanized by Earth Island Institute (EII), in favor of others
which are called “EII dolphin-safe” but who
really fish in association with dolphins ( but not report it). Later these
country’s tuna companies manipulate documents in order to make it appear
otherwise towards EII, thus allowing for the processing and selling of catches
to European tuna companies located in Italy, France and Spain
that are then labeled as “EII approved dolphin-safe”.
A quite obvious example of the manipulation of special interests at the
AIDCP Meeting, one week prior to IATTC’s, was a request for the publication of
boats with Dolphin Mortality Limits (DML’s), vetoed by Costa Rica. Actually
Costa Rica does not even have a single purse seine fishing in the EPO, but they
are afraid of the well-known commercial threats of EII.
The IATTC Commission only acts according to the
interests of its Members, instead of focusing which is best for the tuna stocks,
which becomes evident in its resolutions, mainly the one on Carrying Capacity or
the license to fish.
To begin with, almost no Member country has complied with the resolution of
June, 2002, established to stop the increases in carrying capacity. This
resolution says theoretically that no Member can increase its fleet, with a few
exceptions.
The bold fact is that the purse seine fleet capacity, which in June, 2002 was of
199.000 MT, today exceeds the alarming amount of 230.000 MT !!
Over the last 4 years, a significant number of boats, mainly Spanish, were
flagged in Central America and Ecuador, this being the main cause for the
increase in carrying capacity. The cynicism and irony of the Spaniards reached
the extreme of demanding that the Colombian fleet, one belonging to a
non-Member, be declared IUU because one of its vessels is not
in the Registry established by IATTC.
The situation is that the IATTC can only
recommend measures for the protection of tuna resources. Consequently, none of
its resolutions on Carrying Capacity, Registers, IUU Vessel List and Trade
Measures has any legal basis.
It makes no sense that a country such as Spain, which is well-known for its
boatowners having the greatest number of boats under Flags of Convenience, as
well as being the greatest depredator due to its fishing methods –FADs- presents
itself as a moral force.
Spain, not only in the EPO but in also other oceans such as the Atlantic,
Mediterranean and Indian, is demanding sanctions against coastal states in their
own tuna catching areas. This when Spain itself has no coastal waters in any of
these oceans, except the Atlantic (which is heavily over-fished).
The Nicaraguan and Mexican delegates openly singled out the Spanish boat owners
as environmental violators due to their FAD fishing method, which has led to the
near-extinction of Bigeye tuna in the EPO, and is seriously damaging other
marine life. Notwithstanding, the IATTC, fully aware of this, did not take any
action, paralyzed by the fear of a veto.
Member countries whose fishing fleets use this
depredatory FAD system, such as Spain and Ecuador, blocked action. This can
happen because decisions in the IATTC can only be taken by consensus and thus,
if just one of its members opposes, important conservation measures cannot be
implemented.
Conclusion
The current IATTC-AIDCP tuna fish stocks and dolphin conservation efforts are in
a state of crisis, as the Members failed to take urgent tuna conservation
measures, as well as protection of other marine life. Its Director has announced
his retirement, following last year’s attempted resignation at the Lazarote
meeting over his procedural violation of the INN resolution concerning the
Colombian fleet and the organization now lacks any leadership.
Conservation by consensus has run its course, and reached its exhaustion point.
It needs to be replaced by another type of effort before tuna fish stocks in the
EPO become irremediably exhausted and other marine species equally affected, due
to the current practice of FAD fishing.
The fact is that, as long as FAD fishing is used, tuna stocks will be in danger
and conservation measures such as fishing bans are and will continue to be
ineffective since FAD’s continue to aggregate fish during closures.
We should consider a tuna fish stock regulatory structure kept in balance by two
main elements: market forces and consumers. The latter organized around fish and
ocean conservancy NGO’s or by highly respected international organizations, such
as the FAO.
Market forces would weed out the fishermen who are unable or unwilling to run a
profitable operation in the face of dwindling stocks or consumer boycotts.
Consumers could be educated to buy tuna only if it carried a “Best Fishing
Practices” label, which would be certified by selected and qualified fish and
ocean conservancy NGO’s.
These would audit individual fishing practices at the interested party’s
expense, much in the same way as accounting firms audit company financial
statements, and issue a certified “Best Fishing Practices” logo. In both cases,
the substantive standards used by the NGO’s would rest on FAO’s Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries, as the standard in the regulation of fisheries.
The IATTC must then go back to its original purpose of making recommendations
based on its scientific findings, instead of attempting to police the tuna
fishing fleet. Regional Tuna organizations such as the IATTC are unqualified to
do so.
It is time to end the hypocrisy and deceit that has prevailed during the last
years in the running of the IATTC-AIDCP and truly protect tuna stocks as well as
other marine life.
This opinion article is written by Concerned EPO Tuna Fishermen (Writers’
names known with Atuna editor).
When you want
to share your own opinion or view on a tuna related subject on Atuna.com, we
welcome you to our discussion group, pls click this hyperlink!