Abstract
The eighth Commission meeting (COMM-8) of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), and the seventh meetings of its Compliance and Technical Committee (CTC-7) and Financial and Administration Committee (FAC-7) took place in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in February 2020, just prior to the lockdown measures that have subsequently prevented many international multilateral negotiations and meetings. This article will address the main outcomes of these meetings, focusing on the progress that the SPRFMO has made and the challenges it faces in a changing environment regarding marine governance. 1
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) are formed by countries with fishing interests in a given geographical area, including neighbouring coastal States and “distant water fishing nations” with fleets in the areas in question. These organisations regulate highly migratory stocks, mainly tuna, 2 or all fish stocks in a specific range. 3 RFMOs are often distinguished from other regional fisheries bodies via their competence under international law to adopt legally binding conservation and management measures regarding fisheries. This competence must apply to a part of the high seas; 4 thus, the number of RFMOs is significantly lower than the bodies participating in the Regional Fishery Body Secretariats’ Network of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). 5
RFMOs may set catch and fishing effort limits by collecting related statistics to assess resources and enable the use of best available science; adopt other technical, management and conservation measures; and monitor activities, promoting compliance. Many consider their role pivotal regarding intergovernmental cooperation in fisheries management, pointing towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries. 6 General criticism usually revolves around insufficient data collection, inadequate administration systems, limited mandates and lack of political will to confront national fishing or processing interests.
SPRFMO
Originally, the planning for the establishment of SPRFMO started in 2006 when Australia, Chile and New Zealand began discussions on the conservation and management of non-highly migratory fisheries and protection of biodiversity and the marine environment in the South Pacific Ocean. The Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean 7 was adopted in November 2009 and entered into force almost three years later, in August 2012. It held its first Commission meeting in late January 2013 in Auckland, New Zealand and currently has 15 members. 8 The high seas of the South Pacific, for which the SPRFMO is responsible, represent around a quarter of the planet’s high seas areas. The objective of the Convention is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources in the Convention Area, which consists of the high seas between 10° North and 20° South latitude, and 135° East and 150° West longitude. 9
To date, SPRFMO has adopted 21 conservation and management measures (CMMs), addressing a variety of topics, including requirements for data collection and reporting, regulations for monitoring and control, illegal, unregulated and unauthorised (IUU) fishing, and management of specific stocks like the Jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) or the Jumbo flying squid (Dosidicus gigas). 10 The organisation holds annual meetings of its Commission and, as well as the CTC and FAC, has also established a Scientific Committee.
COMM-8 and Related Meetings
Jack Mackerels and Jumbo Flying Squids
Managing specific fish stocks and potentially setting catch limits based on best available scientific evidence is one of the main functions of RFMOs. Since the SPRFMO does not cover tuna and associated species, which are managed by dedicated RFMOs, the Jack mackerel and the Jumbo flying squid are two of the main species under its management. 11
Managing Trachurus murphyi sustainably has been a priority since the early days of the Convention’s inception. Catches had been increasing during the 1980s reaching a peak in the mid-90s, totalling five million tonnes. During the negotiations for the Convention, in 2008, the already established Science Working Group conducted a comprehensive review of the fishery, revealing that it was suffering from low biomass, recruitment and spawning, suggesting urgent fishing-limitation measures. Participants first adopted a set of interim measures, through which they voluntarily limited catches for the following years and later, in early 2013, following the Convention’s ratification, they approved CMM 1.01, which includes a total allowable catch, individual catch limits for countries and further details on the sustainable management of Trachurus murphyi.
One of the issues under discussion during COMM-8 was that 2019 was the first year that total catches exceeded the level specified in the relevant CMM by nearly seven percent or a bit more than 40,000 tonnes. The second major issue regarding Jack mackerel was Ecuador’s proposal to be assigned a quota of 12,900 tonnes in order to develop a fishery in the Convention Area. Ecuador accompanied this proposal with the provision of its express consent to open its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable management of the stock in accordance with the Convention’s objectives. Deciding on quota allocation is always a strenuous exercise as countries try to protect national interests; reaching an agreement on the Jack mackerel allocations was equally difficult back in 2013, including conducting a review panel following an objection by the Russian Federation. 12
Resolving these issues proved no easy task; a total of five proposals were initially tabled to amend CMM 01-2019 on the Jack mackerel, which, following lengthy discussions and the formation of a working group, were reduced to a single compromise proposal, developed by Commission Chair Osvaldo Urrutia (Chile). Still, the new allocation for Ecuador remained a point of contention, at least for the Peruvian delegation, until the very end of the meeting. 13
A few Members supported an increased allocation for Ecuador, underscoring primarily the steps taken for the inclusion of its EEZ within the scope of the CMM, and a relevant quota of 8,594 tonnes, initially suggested by Vanuatu, was calculated based on catch history during the 2009– 2016 period, and proposed to be extracted from the unallocated portion.
This proposal was met with stern opposition by Peru, contesting, among others, the time period used for catch-history calculations. Peru stressed that, since 2002, they had lowered catch levels by introducing regulations stating that Jack mackerel can only be used for direct human consumption, and that a different time period had been used during the delicate negotiations on the CMM in 2017. Peru suggested instead, that if an increased allocation was to be provided to Ecuador, it should come via a percentage transfer of the total allocation of each Member.
The Peruvian delegation stood by its opinion during the ensuing deliberations and, when all efforts to reach a decision by consensus had been exhausted, Article 16 of the Convention was evoked and a decision, allocating Ecuador the suggested quota of 8,594 tonnes, was adopted when more than three-quarters of the Members present so voted. The amended CMM on Jack mackerel also includes sections on cooperation in respect of fisheries in adjacent areas under national jurisdiction, catch management, and data collection and reporting.
Regarding Jumbo flying squid, significant effort was channelled towards reaching consensus on an important new CMM for effort limitation on squid. The proposal, originally submitted by the European Union, attracted considerable support; yet, lengthy negotiations were needed to reach common ground on matters such as observer coverage and review dates. Successfully concluding these deliberations allowed the Commission Members to adopt the new CMM, which is a significant necessary step to address the substantial increase in catches of Jumbo flying squid in the Convention Area since 1990, as well as the uncertainty concerning the species’ stock status and exploitation rate. 14
Balancing Conservation and Fishing Interests
The need to balance conservation and fishing interests that are often in direct competition, is omnipresent in RFMO meetings. During the last SPRFMO meeting, a good example of this on-going tug of war was the proposal to make the bottom-fishing framework more precautionary for the protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), particularly amending the weight thresholds for triggering the VME encounter protocol. The proposal was originally submitted by the European Union.
VMEs are groups of species, communities or habitats that may be vulnerable to impacts from fishing activities. The vulnerability of an ecosystem is related to the vulnerability of its constituent population, communities or habitats. The notion emerged from discussions at the UN General Assembly and is now firmly embedded in regimes for the management of deep-sea fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 15
In plain terms, fishing vessels are required to apply the “move on” rule, that is to move to a new fishing area if they uplift a certain weight of vulnerable species, such as coral, in a single trawl, since this is an indicator that they are probably on top of a VME. The previous limit was set at 250 kg for stony coral and the original proposal was to reduce it to 25 kg. Following lengthy arguments on the need for financial viability and the necessity to weigh economic costs against conservation outcomes, the limit was agreed at 80 kg.
Listing of Vessels Involved in Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
IUU fishing remains one of the greatest threats to marine ecosystems due to its potent ability to undermine national and regional efforts to manage fisheries sustainably as well as endeavours to conserve marine biodiversity. 16 For RFMOs, including SPRFMO, adopting a list of vessels presumed to have carried out IUU fishing is an important tool for ensuring compliance.
Regarding the SPRFMO, such listing is “subject to an annual process involving several steps in decision making, discussion and scrutiny”. 17 The process is based on CMM 04-2020, which includes a set of nine conditions 18 that, if not fulfilled, would place a vessel on the unenviable IUU Vessel List.
For 2020, the SPRFMO IUU Vessel List contains a single vessel, the BELLATOR, currently under an Angolan flag, for which Members deemed that essential information to prove the change of ownership of the vessel was lacking. Since the change of ownership was a necessary precondition to remove the vessel from the IUU List as the previous owners had been responsible for prior regulatory violations, the Commission suggested further communication between the Secretariat and the flag State.
Two more vessels, the VLADIVOSTOK 2000 and the NAKHODKA, both under Russian Federation flags, were delisted from the IUU List. Following extensive discussions, Members were satisfied with effective action taken by the flag State, including change of ownership and planned activities of the vessels.
One further vessel, the AMALTAL APOLLO under a New Zealand flag, attracted some interest during the SPRFMO meeting. The vessel had been added to a draft IUU list, based on allegations that it had illegally conducted bottom-trawling operations in a protected part of the Tasman Sea two fishing seasons ago. Following extensive deliberations during the CTC meeting, the vessel was removed from the list, in light of the effective action taken by New Zealand and the commitment to provide quarterly reports on the progress and outcome of the prosecution case. In this case, effective action included confiscation of the catch, bonding the vessel and denial of a high seas permit. Environmental non-governmental organisations present in the meeting cautioned against removing the vessel from the provisional list without the prosecution case having been concluded, noting that it sets a bad precedent. 19
While the IUU-vessel lists are an important tool for RFMOs in promoting sustainable ocean management, their scope is limited due to the individual RFMOs’ regional character: “Without coordination on cross-listing of individual lists between RFMOs ... operators involved in illicit activities can easily move from one fishing area to another, crossing into the jurisdiction of another RFMO, where they may not be subject to restrictions”. 20
Despite the fact that most Commission Members agree, in principle, on the importance of cross-listing, a relevant proposal to adopt a similar system, originally tabled during COMM-8 by the EU, could not reach consensus. Some Members voiced concerns regarding cross-listing of IUU vessels, especially for those RFMOs of which they are not members. Further discussions will be needed on this important topic in the future.
Moving Towards the Future
While the SPRFMO is arguably still in its infancy, its impact is already considerable. It started by agreeing on four CMMs, and as of now has adopted more than 20. Despite limited human and financial resources, it has completed a considerable amount of work in a variety of areas, including the Record of Vessels or the implementation of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Its Scientific Committee is producing valuable scientific work. These developments are not depicted in this article, which focuses on specific topics under deliberation in COMM-8.
In the past, RFMOs in general have been the focus of broad-based criticism in the context of increasing fishing effort, the scale and sophistication of IUU fishing, and concerns over the wider environmental impacts of fishing activities. 21 Responding to this criticism, the UN General Assembly has called on RFMOs to carry out performance reviews. 22 SPRFMO’s performance review 23 was thoroughly discussed during both the Commission and the CTC meetings. The FAC is acting upon its recommendations.
As noted, SPRFMO’s impressive array of important activities could probably be further increased and improved, if further financial and human resources were at its disposal. This can be said of all RFMOs, however, it is still difficult to ignore the gap-filled and fragmented nature of ocean management, as things currently stand. RFMOs don’t always use the same tools or adopt similar thresholds, however, governance problems are even greater in areas like the Central and Southwest Atlantic or the Arctic where no RFMO currently exists. 24
The need for coordination is often evoked and steps have been taken towards that direction. For instance, during the last SPRFMO meeting, memorandums of understanding were signed with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The overall landscape regarding ocean governance is expected to change following the conclusion of the on-going negotiation for an international legally binding instrument on biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in which the RFMOs have participated.
In the binding instrument negotiating mandate, there is an explicit note that any new agreement “should not undermine existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks, and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies”. 25 While this premise has been central in the discussions, it is often framed negatively, posing questions of whether a hierarchical relationship between the new and existing bodies would/should be envisaged. While it would be unwise to disregard these important activities it would be equally myopic to ignore the need for effective coordination. Whether this discussion can be framed constructively, building on what is already there and filling the uncontested gaps, is still to be answered, even as the process of negotiating the binding instrument has considerably matured.
Finding the right balance would be beneficial both for the new envisaged global body and for the RFMOs, including the SPRFMO. In parallel to all internal developments and on-going work, the process of putting together all the jigsaw pieces in ocean management, and confirming their respective roles, seems to be an important reference point for the SPRFMO in the near future.
Footnotes
The official background documents of COMM-8, CTC-7 and FAC-7 meetings are online at https://www.sprfmo.int/meetings/comm/8th-commission-2020/, https://www.sprfmo.int/meetings/ctc/7th-ctc-2020/ and https://www.sprfmo.int/meetings/fac/7th-fac-2020/. The final reports of the meetings can be found at https://www.sprfmo.int/assets/0-2020-Annual-Meeting/Reports/COMM8-Meeting-Report-Final-10Mar2020.pdf, https://www.sprfmo.int/assets/0-2020-Annual-Meeting/Reports/CTC7-Meeting-Report-10Mar2020.pdf and 
. This article is based on an assessment of the meeting by the author, based on a review of the documents, his personal notes and observations as a report writer for the meetings, and interviews with selected participants.
These include the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
For example, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, and SPRFMO.
Australia, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Cuba, Ecuador, European Union, Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, the United States of America and Vanuatu. Curaçao, Liberia and Panama are cooperating non-contracting Parties (CNCPs).
Deep-sea species often associated with seamounts in the southwest Pacific are also managed by the SPRFMO.
The discussion on the proposed allocation for Ecuador is quite extensive and sometimes detailed and technical. It is not the author’s intention to undermine either position on the matter; however, extensively discussing the basis for the suggested allocations falls beyond the scope of this article. The reader may find more details on the respective positions in the meeting’s report and the accompanying documents.
Urrutia, O. and Rodriguez Alfaro, S. 2020. “The IUU Fishing Vessel Listing Process in the Practice of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization”. Ocean Yearbook 34(1): 337– 361.
Hutniczak, B. 2019. “Coordination between RFMOs on mutual recognition of IUU vessel lists”. Marine Policy 107.
The calls are included in UNGA Resolutions 72/72 and 73/125.
Resolutions 69/292 and 72/249.