Written by Natalia Freitas, for Atuna.com
The head of the United States delegation, Dr. Rebecca Lent, not only attended the meetings organized by the tuna RFMOs in 2010, but was chair of the Steering Committee of the bycatch workshop held in Brisbane, Australia. The workshop was part of the “Kobe Processâ€, which started in 2009 and intends to improve the global management of tuna stocks.
Dr. Lent spoke with Atuna.com about her experience as Chair of one of Kobe II workshops and about the management workshop, also held in Australia following the bycatch one.
Dr. Rebecca Lent
Atuna.com: What do you believe to be the most concrete outcome from the bycatch workshop?
Dr. Rebecca Lent: There are two ways I’m looking at this. First is the U.S. as a host. What we really wanted in this workshop as a host was good participation and we had 170, including 30 countries, couple of NGOs. Therefore, we felt good about that. We also wanted a good common understanding of the issue of bycatch and the research around the planet, given access ahead of the time (of the meeting) to background documents to bring a certain level of knowledge to participants. As a biased opinion, from all the four workshops I can say that this was the one that most work was gone into it. We have to be realistic about those Kobe meetings, however. Nothing binding can come out of a Kobe meeting, I mean; it’s a good challenge and a way for the RFMOs to learn from each other. Nevertheless, I would say we had strong recommendations to strength the way they address the bycatch issue, both in accessing it and on observer’s coverage. We also formed a cross-RFMOs working group focused on the science and established some terms of reference as well. Each of the tuna RFMOs will have to take some binding moves to commit their science bodies to participate of this working group. We believe that will help avoid duplicate work on the issue.
Does the working group on bycatch have a member from each tuna RFMOs?
Only one tuna RFMO has its own science and that’s IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission), the other scientific bodies are made up of scientists from member countries, so representation will be considered that way as well.
How much is duplicate work on bycatch relevant?
Well, I think there is duplication in a sense that some issues are highly discussed by all tuna RFMOs, such as FADs, how to handle and release sharks to ensure survival, seabirds bycatch studies in particular are the most overlapping ones. This is truly awful. A colleague pointed out to me, at the end of the management workshop, that there is actually a controversial about three different RFMOs’ jurisdiction over Southern bluefin tuna.
The WCPFC stated that the 5% observer’s coverage from the IOTC is nearly not enough to improve bycatch levels. How were the talks about the different measures taking place in different RFMOs?
I would say that if there is one thing you need to know about RFMO meetings, these Kobe meetings, they tend to be a little bit of one saying that “my RFMO is better than yoursâ€. Nobody is perfect, there are RFMOs that are stronger in different issues, it depends on the pressure of the dolphin safe issue for the IATTC, for example, that lead this particular RFMO to take observers coverage very seriously. At the same time, IATTC has a challenge on FADs that they still need to address and they know that’s an area where more capacity should be built to address the issue. The differences in RFMOs are also related with history, with membership and with their convention.
I do think it helps to come to these meetings and see what the other RFMOs are doing, and also gives leverage to some countries. The United States, as a member of three RFMOs can go to ICCAT and say “look what the WCPFC have been doingâ€.
How much do you think member countries are fighting for those changes and how much are they blocking them?
It varies by country. Some countries say “we can’t do that, it’s too expensiveâ€, or “too technologically challengingâ€. There was a specific dialogue on small developing states to ensure that the other countries would provide them technology, for example. The observers’ coverage issue was also addressed in a way that countries would consider the economical disadvantages on paying for observers while others don’t have to do so. It is pretty obvious though, after a workshop like this one which countries are more resistant to changes.
WWF has also recently organized a workshop on bycatch, but they decided to focus on fishermen instead of RFMOs. What do you think about their approach?
Well, I definitely think that we need to work on the bycatch problem from that angle: from the bottom up. Mr. Martin Hall, a renowned scientist from IATTC, has done a lot of work in the field with fishermen to come up with new technologies and implementation of them. He believes that’s the only way to success in the long run and that’s true. Even if you find the technical solutions, you can’t just impose them overnight, you have to work with the fishermen.
Are the RFMOs planning to offer fishermen workshops jointly?
Yes, that was part of the terms of reference of the working group: pay attention to the fishermen and the implementation of technology.
As the head of the U.S. delegation, what were the most important outcomes of the RFMO Management Workshop held in Australia?
It’s always overwhelming, since there were only a couple of days with so many issues in the room. The one thing quite noticeable about this workshop was that it was dominated by the issues from the region. Within the WCPFC convention, most of the tuna fishing is happening inside the EEZs, quite amazing to see that. There were a lot of participation from those small countries, which was a learning experience for us, who are most used to deal with issues in the Atlantic. At the same time I was interested in keeping the discussion global. Nevertheless, the Chair, Dr. Glen Hurry, did a great job keeping things in line and we ended up with a list of few things that emerged from the workshop as well as a number of recommendations.
What were the major issues discussed?
Well, this workshop was first intended to address over capacity and later changed to management. Therefore, overcapacity was still one of the main issues there. There was a reference that even though coastal states have rights they also have obligations, and an unresolved issue was whether or not RFMOs measure should apply inside EEZs, which for me was unbelievable, but it is part of WCPFC reality. There were talks about the responsibility of market states, such as United States and the European Union, to ensure that we don’t purchase illegal tuna.
What about the recommendations?
There was a call to develop a list of authorized vessels, by gear type. We talked about getting capacity reduced. The Canadians, at the last minute, introduced the term of potential temporary freeze. There was a call to review the allowable levels of catch in order to be able to recognize when overcapacity occurs.
Japan proposed a reduction in tuna fishing capacity during the meeting, what’s the U.S. position on that?
Japan’s proposal was 20% reduction in purse-seine vessels within the WCPFC area and the U.S. has actually done that already. We were OK with the concept of reducing overcapacity, obviously, but we are not comfortable with the WCPFC specific proposal in this global tuna RFMO meeting, of course nothing binding could be considered anyway, but we were happy that Japan made their proposal because someone had to take the first step. It was not really appropriate to the board to discuss a specific proposal to a certain area, and they recognized that during the meeting.
Does the U. S. have any national measure to reduce capacity, or will you take those decisions together with the RFMOs?
Together with the RFMOs, that’s the way it should be done. The proposal Japan made for the 20% reduction, if that was done just by the seven countries suggested, it doesn’t cap the rest of the world’s capacity. Someone has to take the first step, but at the same time we need the commitment that other countries will be freezing or even reducing their capacity, otherwise it is just pouring water into a bowl with a role in it.
What do you consider to be the major future challenges on tuna management?
As head of delegation on both workshops, for me the greatest challenges in both workshops was the incredible diversity that we have in tuna fisheries around the planet. In terms of the theme and the big issues and challenges, the U.S. will focus on that on the next few months because we are planning to be the next host for Kobe III, which would be held in the San Diego area in July of 2011. We want to take up in Kobe III: how well is this Kobe process working? We had a plan of action that came out of Kobe I, and Kobe III will give us a chance to see how we are doing, if it is affective, if it is not…should we just give up? Or try something else? We look forward to start a Steering Committee to organize and plan Kobe III so a good assessment or these meetings are made. I think everyone is ready for that. At the end of Kobe II some people were like “gosh, do we have to do this again?â€, but in a year we will be refreshes, we will be renewed and ready for a new challenge and to try to make this happen.
There is a great pressure from NGOs and tuna stakeholders over those meetings. Do you think something binding may come out of the next meeting?
The Kobe Process, the jointed meetings, have already contributed in concrete ways for tuna management, mostly related to science. After Kobe I, the color scale (green, yellow and red) for tuna the state of tuna stocks were implemented in all RFMOs. From Kobe II a strategic matrix was implemented, which made presentations of scientific data to the RFMOs management much easier. So, it is not like nothing concrete has came out of those meetings, and I’m sure they will keep being productive next year.
