Frozen Bigeye Imports Drop Sharply In Indian Ocean–Data Looks Fake ff

By Atuna

Frozen bigeye tuna for sashimi imports went down dramatically in the past 5 years within members of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). From 2003 until last year, the amount of imports reported through the Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document program decreased 56% - from 65.414 M/T to 29.127 M/T in 2008.

The program, established in 2002, requires that all frozen bigeye tuna, when imported into the territory of an IOTC Contracting Party, be accompanied by an IOTC Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document or an IOTC Bigeye Tuna Re-export Certificate. The data for the first year (2002) accounts only for the last six months.

Bigeye tuna caught by purse seiners and pole and line (bait) vessels and destined principally for the canneries in the Convention Area are not subject to this statistical document requirement. Plus, most longline catches are exported as fresh bigeye, not frozen, and therefore not subjected to this reporting.

Contracting Parties who import frozen bigeye tuna are required to report the data for the period of 1 July - 31 December is by April 1 the following year; and data for the period 1 January - 30 June is to be reported by October 1 in the same year.

The remarkable change through the years can be explained by the fact that the largest harvesting nation of the species within the IOTC convention area, Taiwan, has decreased its number of vessels through the years. However, by comparing the numbers from Taiwan with the largest importer of the fish, Japan, the similarity of numbers jumps out.

The correspondence between Taiwanese and Japanese numbers were said to be, by some industry players, a strategy to avoid reporting bigeye catches caught in the Atlantic ocean surpassing ICCAT quota levels. Therefore the drop in imports of frozen bigeye may be unreal, as amounts reached in 2003/2004 may not have been authentic.   

The harvest numbers reported in the Bigeye Tuna Statistical Program are also not to be considered as catches. A quick comparison with IOTC official catching data of the species in earlier years of the Program will show lower amounts for Taiwanese catches and, more importantly, it shows that IOTC Contracting Parties were aware of this behavior.

IOTC last performance review had concluded that the stock status provided by the Commission has a “high degree of uncertainty” caused by a lack of reliable data. This behavior compromises a realistic evaluation of the state of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean and therefore any conservation measure in order to attempt a recovery.

The last Bali meeting also made it clear that data gaps are creating difficulties for RFMOs, particularly the IOTC. According to the IOTC Science Committee, “low levels of reporting directly affect the reliability of the assessments conducted by the working parties.” ISSF is committed to helping all RFMOs fill in those gaps.

In April this year the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), which consist out of major tuna industry players, said that ISSF is committed to helping all RFMOs fill in gaps, in relation to IOTC data collection and conservation measures : “We’re hopeful that the next time the world’s RFMO leaders are all in the same room, they will address the critical areas of conservation and data collection together.”

To avoid that tuna being caught in other areas are reported at the IOTC, the Commission has put into effect -since January of this year= the regional observer scheme for transshipment overseas. That is only allowed to happen within IOTC convention area if an observer is on board.