Pacific tuna nations struggle to ink agreement on 30% skipjack cut

 Following previous failure to agree on a deal that has resulted in a weak temporary agreement, officials have been working to come up with a new conservation measure before a full tuna commission meeting commences in Cairns, Australia in December.

China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, Europe and the Philippines are all big players in the Pacific tuna fishery and are working with Pacific Island nations that own much of the fishery through the Central and Western Pacific Fisheries Commission to protect the stocks.

In an interview with Radio Australia, commission executive director Glenn Hurry reports there is much work to be done before an agreement can happen. The interview, excerpted fromRadio Australia, follows:

Commission executive director Glenn Hurry: We need a 30% reduction in the catch of bigeye tuna, and we have tried for the last two years to get that, and we have been unsuccessful.

So this will be the third year we have tried, and we really do need to cap the catch of skipjack tuna this year, so another 100,000 metric ton reduction in the catch of skipjack.

Even though we had more vessels in the fishery, fishing harder than they have ever fished before, so the effort levels are up but the catch of skipjack is down, so we need to find a way of capping the catch of skipjack and also reining in the catch of yellowfin tuna, as well.

So there are three species that are the bulk of this fishery and we have got all of them a point where we need to begin to restrict catch on them. I don’t think we’ve got an option we have to make a decision in Cairns.

Radio Australia’s Jemima Garrett: One of the crucial decisions will be on capping the number of vessels – not easy with a rash of new boats under construction in shipyards across Asia.

In the past decade the Pacific, especially the 8 nations that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement, have put a huge effort into surveillance of fish catches and into improving economic returns to the Pacific countries.

The distant water fishing nations have acknowleged some of the problems in the fishery but are baulking at cutting the catch.

Hurry: We’ve got quite a distance between the parties in what they are likely to agree to.

Garrett: The large purse seine vessels take most of the catch and are making good profits. Why is it turning out to be so hard to come up with a conservation measure?

Hurry: I think that is a real issue in it. The profits in this are substantial at the moment, which is leading to the construction of new vessels but also the level of payment to the Pacific Islanders. Access fees [have] gone up a lot too. About six years ago, when the Parties to the Nauru Agreement brought in the Vessel Day Scheme, a day was worth about $900 a day. They have now got a floor price of $6500 a day and they are selling for $7,000 to $7,500 a day, and I think that return will increase over time.

So there is a lot of money now coming in to Pacific Island countries from fishing. There is also a lot of money going into the companies and while people are making substantial profits they don’t necessarily want to reduce them but the problem is unless you reduce now you run into long term sustainability problems and you will be forced to lower your catches later on. Sensible decisions now will save us a lot of problems further down the track.

Garrett: How urgent is it that the meeting in Cairns comes up with a new measure?

Hurry: I think it is fundamental to us moving forward, Jemima. I don’t think there is any option for us but to prove our credentials and make a decision on these tropical tunas.

Garrett: That may not be easy. The move to extend the ban on fish aggregating devices is facing opposition from fishing nations that fear for the profitability of their fleet and from Pacific countries demanding $15 million a month as compensation for lost income.

Longline fleets say they have already made the 30% cut to the catch of bigeye tuna and should not have to take another hit.