Written by Natalia Freitas for Atuna.com
The Parties of the Nauru Agreement (PNA) have formally presented this month their proposal to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) of closing permanently the high seas areas (10N-20S – see map) for bigeye conservation, compliance and economic reasons.
According to PNA, the closure of the high seas pockets in the west provoked an increase of effort in the pockets in the east: “This would increase bigeye mortality and require other measures such as extending the FAD closure or limiting overall purse seine effort to compensate for the additional bigeye mortality. The impact of these measures would generally fall on fishing in PNA EEZsâ€, affirmed the proposal.
PNA points out that during 2006-2008, tuna catches in those high seas pockets (Eastern and Western) represented about 12% (or 38.088 MT) of total WCPO high seas catch. From that number, 85-90% of the catches were made in the pockets that are now closed, which supports the fear of increased fishing pressure in the Eastern pockets.
The proposal will be brought back to the members of WCPFC during the Commission’s general meeting next December. If approved and implemented, that would represent a reduction of 40.000 MT of all whole round tuna supply to the industry. By looking at the table below, it is likely that the canning industry will experience the effect in less
skipjack being supplied (about 30.000 MT reduction).
However, according to Professor Glenn Hurry, the recently named WCPFC Director, PNA’s proposal did not receive many comments from members at the technical and compliance meeting this month. Although PNA countries could decide to implement the pockets themselves, the closures cannot apply to United States vessels as an application of the national laws of the Parties because this would likely be inconsistent with the U.S. Treaty text. The current pocket closures apply to US vessels because they were adopted by the WCPFC, but the additional closures can only apply to US vessels if also adopted by the Commission or if the Treaty with the US is amended or terminated.
Although it is difficult to predict the results of the next general meeting, a short interview with Prof. Hurry gives us an indication of the WCPFC’ chances to also adopt these recent PNA closures.
Atuna.com: How were the reactions to PNA’s proposal at the last WCPFC meeting?
Prof. Glenn Hurry: The PNA put on the table the proposal of closing all the high seas between 10N and 20S out of the pockets. There was very little comment on the proposal during the meeting. Despite PNA’s statement that it would be part of the next implementing arrangements for the general meeting, the way it goes from here is that it will depend on the way the member countries feel about it at the Commission’s next general meeting. Then the French delegation and the Coco Islands put a proposal on the table to close two high seas pockets in the East. So the scientific and technical bodies of the Commission cannot really make decisions, they can make recommendations to the member countries.
Will the technical committee study the PNA proposal in order to present a recommendation?
No, there were no comments on this proposal, but member countries are now aware it will come up again in the next general meeting. When the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) has its workshop in the beginning of November, they should discuss more about this proposal; it is up to those nations to decide on the issues of it before presenting the proposal to the Commission.
True, but they will have issues in applying it to the U.S. fleet if the Commission is not on board.
I think it’s going to be an interesting discussion, but it think it pretty much depends on who wants to fish in the waters of the Parties of the Nauru Agreement.
PNA admits that one of the issues of such closure would be the significant effect on the U.S., Korea and European Community tuna fishing fleet, which could prevent the WCPFC’s support to it.
