Interview: New Pacific Tuna Commission Boss On The Challenges Ahead ff

Andrew Wright is the new executive director of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The Australian took on the leadership of the Commission in October and now operates from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Pacific Magazine's Jessica Chapman spoke with Wright as he settled into his new role.
 
Andrew Wright

Pacific Magazine: You have a four year tenure. What do you hope to accomplish during that time?

Andrew Wright: There are a lot of challenges before the Commission. Probably in order of priority is getting the Secretariat up and running so that it can service its members adequately, recruiting staff, establishing financial and management processes, and being able to respond to the needs of the members in relation to implementing decisions that they might make in their annual session. We need some technical and administrative expertise in the Secretariat to be able to provide that service to members. That's the short-term priority.

The longer term priority is to provide the Secretariat's services to members to be able to support the management and conservation aspirations in relation to highly migratory fish stocks in the western central Pacific region. We're starting off not off a low base in relation to that but we do have a lot of work in front of us. The Pacific Islands region itself has a long history of collaboration and cooperation in terms of fisheries, particularly in terms of harmonizing arrangements for the activities of distant-water fishing nations that have operated in the region since before the Second World War

But the challenges now are something different. It's an arrangement through the Commission whereby the coastal states, the Pacific Island countries and others who also benefit from a significant tuna resource, sit down at one table with the current majority fishing fleets - which tend to be from distant-water fishing nations - to decide on how the tuna resource is going to be managed for long-term sustainable economic benefit, both for the coastal states themselves, which have very few other resources on which to base their economic development aspirations, and also for those who fish in the region. It's a pretty fine balance, because no one wants to jeopardize, either in biological terms or economic terms, the long-term sustainability of the fishery.

On one hand we need to find a formula whereby the development aspirations of the coastal states within the region and the long-term economic interests in the resource by those whose fleets have fished in the region for a long time can be balanced in an equitable and fair way.

In terms of the challenges before us, and me as an incoming executive director, in four years there's an awful lot to do. Coastal states, like members of the Forum Fisheries Agency, have been used to dealing with fishing nations on access terms and conditions. It's a slightly different playing field now when we're talking about management and conservation arrangements. The indications are that the yellowfin and bigeye tuna stocks in particular need some quite sustained management attention. I think that that is probably going to be the biggest issue that the Commission is faced with in the next four years. If it takes some paring back of the current level of catch and the level of fishing effort that goes on in the western central Pacific region to make sure that the resource continues to be exploited inside sustainable limits then it's probably going to be the biggest challenge before the Commission in the next four years.

PM: Will the Commission enforce sustainable fishing practice any differently than other regional fisheries agencies?

AW: The Commission will develop measures that will apply to the high seas and it has some influence over how they are implemented by members fishing on the high seas. Of course there are some that aren't members of the Commission that might be fishing in the region and it's very difficult to impose regulations on them. The other issue is the extent that coastal states, either FFA member countries or other coastal states that have significant tuna resources, apply compatible measures within their exclusive economic zones to ensure that they do their bit towards managing and conserving the tuna resource. The Commission has some influence over what happens on the high seas but we have to rely on individual coastal states to develop measures that are compatible with high seas measures. Or in vice versa, coastal states might develop conservation and management measures which need compatibility provisions or considerations in relation to what measures might be adopted for the high seas.

PM: How will the Commission sustain itself? Where does its funding come from?

AW: One hundred percent of the funding comes from member contributions at the moment. That contribution is assessed on the basis of an equal shared cost, which accounts for 10 percent of the budget, a cost based on national wealth and a cost based on catch. 70 percent of the assessed contribution is based on the catch of vessels flagged to an individual member operating in the convention area. We do have some special projects which are funded from the voluntary contribution of members. For example we've got a special project going in Indonesia and the Philippines to try and strengthen data collection activities there. We need improved data from these two countries, as well as Vietnam, in order to provide a better basis for decision making in the Commission. There is also a special fund set aside to support the special requirements of small-island developing states. That is also financed through voluntary contributions from members. The organization is entirely self-funding.

PM: How many staff will you employ here?

AW: Probably by this time next year it will be nine or 10. Hopefully by April we will have recruited and have here in Kolonia; a science manager, a compliance manager and someone in charge of the finances and administration for the senior-level positions. We'll have four or five local staff - including drivers and secretaries and accounts people.

PM: Could you expand a bit on the challenges confronting the Commission, particularly the challenge of over fishing?

AW: Well one of the biggest challenges facing us at the moment is there's not enough data or information on which to improve the confidence in which scientists can provide advice to the Commission. One of the challenges across the board is to improve the data flow into the Commission to provide a better basis for scientific analysis and then, subsequently, the quality of scientific advice and recommendations that go to the Commission. That's a big issue. Only about 50 percent of fishing operations in the region are covered by submission of daily log sheets. We've got very low observer coverage on most of the fleets - approaching 20 percent for some select fleets but on average just 5 percent. Observer coverage on a purse seine fleet is sort of reasonable but observer coverage of longline fleet operations in the region is quite poor still. In conjunction with improvements in submission of log sheets by vessel operators themselves and stronger deployment of observers we hope to be able to improve the data flow to the Commission to assist in strengthening the scientific advice in particular to the Commission and also providing us with a bit of a handle on the extent that fishing operations in the region comply with the conservation and management measures that are being adopted by the Commission. The other issues which the Commission will have to deal with in the near term will be mainly in response to the target resources of the four tuna species. The other issues that the Commission will have to turn its attention to soon are the bycatch issue and in particular bycatch of species like seabirds, turtles and sharks. Those three issues are on the agenda for the meetings in December. I'm not sure there will be major decisions emanating from the discussion around those three agenda items but I think that what is likely to happen is there will be a roadmap laid out whereby the Commission takes action to try and address the concerns in relation to the bycatch issue.

PM: Regional fisheries have struggled in the past. How will the Commission be different?

AW: There's a range of issues you bring up related to: should government become involved in commercial enterprises or is it better left to the private sector, or does a government have a social obligation to assist in the economic development of a nation when it's difficult to attract private sector investment. They're all issues which are basically the sovereign right of a nation to take a position on and proceed as it sees fit. In terms of the Commission, we're not involved in investment. What we are involved in is trying to create a stable economic resource by which the private sector and governments can all benefit in a fair and equitable way and for long-term sustainable, mutual benefit. We're not actually involved in any investment in the tuna industry. We're trying to create an environment whereby the tuna industry is sustained for the long-term benefit of all those who have an interest in it and preferably is managed in a precautionary way so that at some time in the future the tuna resource isn't put in jeopardy because of the irresponsible or poor decisions that have been made to further the interests of a small group rather than considering the interests of the whole. So it is a little bit different.

PM: It has been said that the vessel monitoring system could make or break the success of the Commission. Could you comment on that?

AW: A working vessel monitoring system, achieving the objectives of which they're set up to do, can be an amazing tool for fisheries management. The Commission is definitely looking at supporting the operation of a vessel monitoring system. There's already one operating in the region, and that's being administered by the FFA out of Honiara in the Solomon Islands. There's some fairly legitimate questions around whether the Commission should develop a vessel monitoring system: either one that duplicates what the FFA one is doing, or whether or not we shouldn't try and work in with the existing system that's being established by them or perhaps even contract a third party to develop some standalone system for the commission. With the rate of development technology, vessel satellite monitoring technology does offer a very valuable and useful tool for the Commission in the future. But it's not without its challenges. There's a lot of issues. The FFA one is working well but it has been faced with challenges. We're open to options at the moment. We're in a very early decision making stage in relation to VMS. All we are fairly convinced of is that it's a very useful tool that definitely has beneficial, practical application in the Commission. It's just the formula for how that would be applied needs to be determined.

PM: What is the Commission's annual budget?

AW: It's in the vicinity of $1.6 to 2 million a year. I'm just putting that together for 2006 right now.

PM: What kind of scientific work does the Commission plan to work on?

AW: There is a scientific committee which is a subsidiary body of the Commission and it is made up of scientists from all the members of the Commission plus others that have a real interest in scientific aspects of regional tuna fisheries. They largely do their work on the basis of information collected and analyzed by the Oceanic Fisheries Program of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community based in Noumea. Of course they undertake the best possible analysis but it's constrained by the quality of information and data that are available to them. Each year they've been meeting for a long time - nearly two decades - in what was originally called the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, which is now the scientific committee, to discuss assessments and the biology of western and central Pacific tuna stocks. They've been assessing the quality of information available and how that information can be used to support decision making in relation to the management and conservation of the tuna resources of the region. They also work on the biology of the individual tuna species; oceanographic issues associated with tuna distribution and fishery dynamics. They work on ecosystem issues in terms of how tuna fits into the entire oceanic ecosystem and they work on fisheries issues in relation to how fishing is impacting the status of stocks. Each year they determine on the basis of the information they have available what the current situation is and they make recommendations on priorities for future work to try and improve the information available to support decision making in relation to tuna stocks.

PM: Can you talk a little bit about regionalism in terms of the strategy of the tuna Commission?

AW: I think that probably the best way that the Commission can contribute to regionalism is by exploring new ways for Pacific Island countries and distant water fishing nations to generate practical benefits through cooperation. This is an opportunity that's not provided in any of the other regional organizations that exist at the moment, like SPREP, SPC, Pacific Islands Forum, FFA, because their membership is almost entirely composed of either some large metropolitans or Pacific Island countries. There's a huge challenge there. There's an opportunity as well as some risks. I think that if we can create a forum and an environment whereby the mutual interests of some of these large industrialized fishing nations and the small resource-owning countries of the Pacific Islands region and others such as Indonesia and the Philippines can cooperate for genuine mutual benefit then some significant benefits for regionalism will flow. It's a long term challenge and it's going to be a doing-by-learning exercise.

PM: Another challenge facing the Commission may be the involvement of the private sector. Can you speak to that?

AW: It's going to be important for the Commission to be able to establish good direct relationships with the industry, because really it's the industry that knows what's going on in the tuna business. The more intermediaries, the more people that filter out information between the Commission and what's actually happening in the industry means that we're not getting the best possible information in which to frame advice to our members in relation to how tuna fisheries are being operated in the western central Pacific region. On a personal level I'm really keen to make sure that the Commission makes best efforts to develop good working relationships with all of industry, whether that's industry based in the Pacific Islands region or elsewhere. I expect industry to play a very important role in the Commission processes in any case because there are not many members of the Commission that don't include influential members of industry in their delegations to participate in the Commission's meetings. Also industry around the globe now is establishing associations. We'll have at least three industry associations observing the December meetings of the Commission here this year; including the newly formed Pacific Islands Fishing Industry Association which will I presume will be sitting in as an observer. Commission members still have another ten days to object to whether or not we invite them, but I imagine there will be no objections to them being granted observer status.

For more information on the Tuna Commission go to www.wcpfc.org