Written by Natalia Freitas for Atuna

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), delivered to the U.S. Congress a report with six identified nations – France, Italy, Libya, Panama, the People’s Republic of China, and Tunisia – whose vessels were engaged in Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch during 2007 and 2008.

At least 3 of the identified nations’ illegal activities were associated with bluefin tuna and all of them had violated the regulations of the International Commission for the Conservations of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

The report is the result of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, signed into law by former president George Bush in 2007. The act emends the Moratorium Protection Act, which requires to identify -in a biennial report to Congress- those foreign nations engaged in IUU or bycatch activity.

Two days later, NOAA proposed a rule to implement not only the identification but also the certification procedures towards those nations. The rule is now opened for public comment before being approved.

NOAA’s International Affairs Director, Dr. Rebecca Lent, explains in this interview the importance of such steps, as the report and the proposed rule, and the future consequences of it.

Atuna.com: Why did NOAA release this report only now? Information on IUU and bycatch has been available for a while.

Dr. Lent: That’s a fair enough question. Actually, the deadline of the report was exactly the day we delivered it: on January 12^th. That was set by our legislation, which said that exact 2 years after the President signed the bill into law is the deadline for us to do our first report to Congress and we will do one every two years after that. So January 12^th will always be our deadline, every two years.

What was the major species targeted by those identified nations?

I want to emphasize that the list of identified nations is a function of IUU activity and available information. There may be lots of IUU activity going on elsewhere but we didn’t necessarily have the type of information the U.S. Congress required in order to do identification. As it turns out, at least three of the countries – France, Italy and Libya – had their identifications based on Atlantic Bluefin tuna activities.  There was a mix of activities for the other countries, but every country was associated with an ICCAT violation, which can be a reflection of the transparency of the information provided by the Commission.

The report mentions difficulties in finding data. What were the main sources?

I would say that in addition to the RFMOs, there was more information available in the Mediterranean Ocean, which is geographically constrained. Frankly, we relied really heavily on photographs, videos and specific vessel location that were provided by environmental NGOs. That was the type of information we needed, since our Congress told us to identify countries which had evidence of their vessels’ activities, and that was a little hard to provide.

Was there a period criteria for the identification?

Yes, the legislation said that we had a two-year period to identify IUU activities from nations, from 2007 to 2008, and one year for bycatch, which was 2008. We were a little bit constrained due to that as well, and it’s difficult to always have individual vessel evidence. This was our first experience with this new legislation, and we are actually speaking with our Congressional representatives about what worked and about what was more difficult when working on the report.

Can you briefly explain the identification process?

The process is not really complicated. We basically worked in cooperation with RFMOs, NGOs and everyone who could provide all the possible information on IUU and bycatch during that period. Based on that information we came up with a list of nations of interest. Those nations were all contacted, we had some feedback and based on that, we came with the final list, which was the list of the six identified nations.

And what were the criteria for the final list of identified nations?

The criteria involved are: whether or not there was more than one vessel from each nation involved in IUU or bycatch activity; the period the activity actually took place; and what types of responses already occurred by the multilateral organizations.

In fact, the timing of the report, January 12^th, made it difficult for us, but we made a point in waiting for all the tuna RFMOs to have met, and the last one met in the first week of December (Dr. Lent refers to Western and Central Pacific Tuna Commission). Based on that meeting, there was a change that affected our final list. That’s an important factor looking down the road now. We have another two years before we do any certification decision, and we have two more rounds of RFMOs meetings to go.

Countries like Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea and Spain made to the list of interest, but not to the final list. Is there any action being taken towards those nations, which had some IUU and bycatch activity as well?

They’ve all been contacted, we are still talking, and, but in one case we got an answer from a developing country actually asking for our help to change the situation. This is exactly what the U.S. Congress wants us to do. The idea here is to help those countries that need technical assistance and to work multilateral with the other countries in order to address the problem. We all have an interest in reducing IUU fishing.

What’s your opinion about the current management of the marine life by the tuna RFMOs?

I think the ocean’s management needs to be done by everybody. The RFMOs are as good as the countries that sit around the table. So, we can all work unilaterally but we work better multilaterally. The RFMOs are not perfect, but I think they are going down to a road of significant improvement. The good thing is that the tuna RFMOs are meeting with each other, so they are sharing information. The RFMOs performance review-processes are a step in the right direction and I think that the compliances committees of the various organizations are getting stronger. The compliances meetings are an opportunity for us to work with them in order to address the IUU problems. This is what Congress wants us to do: to make the RFMO process stronger. We understand that the last meetings were disappointing on reducing fishing quotas, but I believe that we shouldn’t turn our backs to it. We should do the best we can do. Call me an optimistic, but the fact that you see several different proposals on RFMOs meetings, and not only the major players giving voice to their needs, shows a lot of improvement.

What will be the next step, now that the report was sent to Congress?

This launches a complicated process; we are reaching out to all of the identified countries, making appointments, scheduling meetings, working bilaterally and multilaterally to make progress. The actual certification decision will be published in the next report to Congress, on January 12^th of 2011, when we decide if the identified countries will be negatively or positively certified.

Could you explain the process and consequences of the certification system?

For each identified country, we will need to make a determination on whether or not the nation has been able to make progress in addressing the issue that led to their identification. This can include progresses made by the nation itself or by the RFMOs that covers their activity. So, those are the criteria for the certification.

Now, very important, the final process for certification will only be determined once we have a final rule. Congress requires us to put the certification process to a public process, with public hearing and comments, so we can figure out what it’s going to take to have a country positively certified. So, we urge folks of all countries, industry people, NGOs, all the stakeholders, to pay attention to this rule and send us comments.

Positive certification means that the nation is no longer of concern, it’s off the list. However, negative certification will immediately lead to the inability of that certain nation to off load their fish landings in U.S. ports and NOAA can recommend the U.S. President that trade sanctions be taken against the products associated with illegal fishing, but it’s up to the President to make that final decision. Nevertheless, the report of 2011 will have a new list of identified countries and the decision of positive and negative certification.

The proposed rule and information on how to submit written comments on it can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/iuu_bycatch_rule011409.pdf
The deadline for public participation is May 14^th, 2009.