Tuna Tales: The challenges of purse seine versus longline tuna fishing

http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&ndb=1&id=52088

The tuna industry can be split into a sub-industry of high-priced fresh fish (particularly of sashimi) market mostly supported by longliners and one of low-priced canned tuna mainly supplied by purse seiners. As the demand for canned tuna has been expanding very rapidly, the purse seine fleet has also expanded rapidly, according to Dr Peter Miyake of the Organisation for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fisheries (OPRT).

It can be argued that purse seine fishing, particularly with fish aggregating device (FAD), is the most economic fishing method and uses the least fuel. But if companies were to catch all tuna only using purse seiners, the total catch which can be sustainable (MSY) would be much lower, and without a longline fishery, there would be no tuna available for sashimi consumption and the reduction in total economic yield would be considerable, he explained.

Purse seiners catch abundant relatively inexpensive young small-sized tuna, while longliners catch much less of very high-quality expensive large-sized fish.

A cohort of tuna gains mass until a certain size/age and thereafter mass will decline (i.e. natural mortality loss is greater than growth gain). This critical point is about 40 kg in yellowfin tuna and 70 kg in bigeye tuna, which correspond to captures by longliners.

Therefore, the total weight of fish which can be sustainably harvested by purse seiners alone would be much less than those caught only by longliners. In fact, the current maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of bigeye tuna taken by longline and a greater number of purse seine fisheries in the Pacific Ocean has been almost halved compared to the level 20 years ago when bigeye tuna were caught by longline alone, Miyake noted.

If only longline was used for catching tuna in order to increase MSY of bigeye, it would ease the pressure on the bigeye stock. For this to happen, a substantial increase in the number of longline vessels would be required, but even then catches may be lower than they are now, he clarified.

Another problem, Miyake explained, is that skipjack cannot be caught at all and yellowfin catches will also drop far below the MSY level. The canning industry will be devastated due to the severe shortage in tuna and the higher price of fish.

He concluded that the best alternative is to seek a point of compromise through a fair balance of social, economic, environmental and biological factors. Scientists must come up with an unbiased and transparent way to achieve a balance among these various factors, without being affected by prejudiced propaganda, money or political pressures.

Dr Peter Miyake is a leading tuna researcher who has worked for many international tuna fisheries management groups, including the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). He now participates in the scientific meetings as a visiting researcher at National Research Institute of Farseas Fisheries of Japan.

WCPFC Conservation Measures for Pacific Tuna circumvented by Gaps in Governance

A rather cynical but somewhat accurate statement of the effect of the application conservation measures from WCPFC to tuna species. This caption is taken from New Zealand Fishing News 01 May 2012

Information for skipjack tuna

The skipjack tuna  (Katsuwonus pelamis), is a member Scombridae tuna family. It is also known as the aku, arctic bonito, or striped tuna. It grows up to 1 m in length.

Skipjack a streamlined, fast-swimming pelagic fish, common in tropical waters throughout the world, where it inhabits surface waters  and feeds on fish and other marine animals such as cephlapods. It is an important prey species for large pelagic fishes and sharks. It is a highly migratory species, swimming long distances to feed and reproduce. They swim in  large schools (up to 50,000 fish), especially around floating objects or hydrographic discontinuities such as convergence zones, boundaries between cold and warm water masses, and upwelling areas, where dense, cooler, and usually nutrient-rich water is pushed toward the ocean surface, replacing the warmer, usually nutrient-depleted surface water. Skipjack are considered to be the most fecund of the main commercial tunas.

The western and central Pacific Ocean supports the largest tuna fishery in the world by volume.  This WCPO tuna is managed by the WCPFC. A large portion of this catch comes from purse seine fisheries for skipjack tuna. New Zealand’s fisheries for skipjack can be divided into two main components: a tropical component that operates throughout the year in equatorial waters, and a subtropical component that extends seasonally into New Zealand fisheries waters. The latter component is fished by both commercial and non-commercial fishers.

Challenges for managing WCPO Skipjack include: Managing the by-catch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the tropical purse seine fishery; Assessing the trophic role of skipjack in marine ecosystems; and managing the interests of coastal states (in particular PICs) and those of DWFNs are the global market.

A schematic of the tuna lifecycle

Synchronicity: An eerie but exciting reality?

Yes I know SYNCHRONICITY it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject scope of this blog, but really I find myself eerily colliding with this concept more and more. 

So here is my most recent collision:

I was in the bus reading about Tuna Fisheries Development (as one does). As I was reading and I was making annotations in the margins (also as one does). Upon writing one comment in the margin I used the word ‘fraught’ and I spelled it ‘frought’. I thought to myself that just looked wrong. However I thought no more of it, and continued with my reading. Eventually I arrived in the City.  Got to work. Checked e-mails. I wanted to reference something and so trawled old e-mails thinking “I am sure I have something here”. I saw a very old e-mail among many old identical looking e-mails all with attachments that was entitled ‘Removing the Berlin Wall’. I don’t know why… There was absolutely no relevance between this e-mail and my present life (well at least that is what I thought). But for some cosmic reason I felt compelled to open it. So I did so. The email was blank so I opened the attachment which was a word document (an article on deconstructing the wall - literally). To my alarm right in the middle of the page of text – the very centre. Was the word ‘frought‘ with the Microsoft Word red ‘misspelled squiggle’ beneath it. As it happens it was the only word in the entire text with that misspelled squiggle beneath it. Consequently it grabbed my attention. Naturally I did what the word required me to do – I right clicked for the preferred spelling… and dear I say I was schooled by the universe via microsoft word - the correct spelling for ‘frought’ is ‘fraught‘.

Diagram of CG Jung's Schéma Synchronicité. The idea of synchronicity is that the conceptual relationship of minds, defined as the relationship between ideas, is intricately structured in its own logical way and gives rise to relationships that are not causal in nature. These relationships can manifest themselves as simultaneous occurrences that are meaningfully related. The definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Carl Gustav Jung. Jung coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle", "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

Muro-ami: Un-sustainable Utilisation of Aquatic Resources and Child Exploitation wrapped up in one word!

I saw this clip below of a reef fishing technique used in the Philippines (called Muro-ami  or ‘reef hunting‘) that not only adversely effects coral reef ecosystems, but also exploits children, and felt compelled to share it. It is obviously an older clip, even so this fishing method continues to be used.

It is techniques like this that undermine in the eyes of the concerned public the utilisation techniques that are deployed elsewhere (like in New Zealand, and indeed within the Philippines) that deliberately seek to ‘avoid, remedy or mitigate‘ any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.

The definition of sustainable utilisation by which marine resources are utilised in New Zealand can honestly be deduced by watching the clip below (of a  reef fishing method from the Philippines) and applying the inverse.

This footage is from the movie ‘Muro-ami’ and is therefore over-dramatised.  Let me just say that the corals destroyed in this movie are not real. They were made for the movie.  Also did anyone notice that the freedivers were initially hearding anglefish, batfish, damselfish and reef groupers which at the end of the clip had turned into a wonderful aggregation of pelagic looking species? Still…

This method of fishing is not only destructive to coral reef ecosystems given that the method empties the reef waters of biomass it also results on the breaking of coral. Corals are slow growing are the foundation of a coral reef ecosystem.

Muro-ami fishing was introduced by the Japanese. The method involves children diving into the water and forming a wall in order to scare fish toward a distant net. The Children scare fish with a length string with streamers attached and a rock at the bottom that works as a sinker. This sinker doubles as a pounder to make sound which also scares the fish. However this pounding pounds coral and affects the ability of a reef to sustain itself. The Muro-ami method does not target any particular species, rather it is non-discriminating method that takes it all, including sharks, skates and small reef fish (however in defence of the Muro-ami fishers – at least everything is utilised). It is for these reasons that the Muro-ami fishing method was banned in 1986. Consequently this method has become increasingly applied to reefs in areas on the high seas (areas beyond any sovereign jurisdiction) within the South China Sea where enforcement is limited to the flag state.

With regard to children’s rights aspect of Muro-ami fishing and the exploitation of children (who not only scare the fish into the net, but must also free dive down (sometimes to 30m) and bring the net up) this clip below illustrates what can potentially occur with each dive. The clip above tells of boys having no way out of the net, save a small window in the net. Negotiating this bottleneck deep underwater obviously places their lives at risk.

It obvious that this clip (above) is dramatisation (from the movie Muro-ami, e.g. there are no fish in the net or outside the net), nonetheless this does not subtract from potency of the illustration of the impact of this ‘use’ of child labour. In addition to the dangers to the lives of the children and the low wages, conditions abroad these Muro-ami vessels are rudimentary to say the least (the vessel in the clip above has a staggering 500 people on board (250 of that 500 are children between the ages of 7 and 15). For those who know me. I interned a year at UNICEF and my subjective self cannot abide child exploitation. Doubly so  when children are used to degrade the the ability of an ecosystem to sustain itself.

______________________________________________________________

• For those who are wish to support the work of UNICEF – please visit them – Click here.
• For those who are interested in fishes – Wiki has a great catalogue of tropical aquarium fishes Click here.

This image depicts all of the areas that the Millenium Coral Reef Landsat Archive covers. Red dots indicate coral reef data at the website: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/landsat.pl (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why climate change might not spell death for the Reef(eco-business.com)

Acidification threatens Barrier Reef coral: researchers (abc.net.au)

Study: Corals Reefs Likely to Survive

FCV Inquiry Report Released

Finally, the results of the long awaited Ministerial Inquiry into the use of FCVs in New Zealand waters have been released. And what did it find? Well it found as TV lead in their heading: “Korean fishing boats damaging NZ reputation.”

Although the report did publicly acknowledge what many already knew; that some Korean CVs have indeed damaged New Zealand’s reputation (the Korean-registered fishing  vessel  (Oyang 70) below did arguably damage New Zealand’s reputation a little when it capsized and sank in calm waters 800 kilometres south-east of Dunedin, New Zealand in 2010), it didn’t offer any other surprises at all. In fact, I am even emboldened to say that we all anticipated all the international legal hiccups, that the report circumvents or lightly touches upon.

However personally I like no surprises. The findings show a holistic approach was taken (The 15 recommendations touch on a wide range of ministerial portfolios, including fisheries, labour, immigration, transport and foreign affairs and trade). Furthermore the recommendations seem not only doable, but also consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations. Now the ball is definitely in the Government’s court.

So What does the Government think of the Findings?

According to the Primary Industries Minister David Carter and Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson, the Government has resolved to take a stronger line on the operation of foreign charter vessels (FCVs) in New Zealand waters.

“The report is clear that the issues are not widespread in the New Zealand commercial fishing industry, but they are serious where they occur and need to be addressed in a co-ordinated manner, backed by legislative change…”

The Government has already decided to accept in principle, and act on, the Inquiry Panel’s first six recommendations. According to Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson;

“The recommendations include updating the Code of Practice and strengthening the immigration approval process – both of which will help ensure better conditions for workers on FCVs… We will also be adopting a recommendation that the New Zealand fishing companies chartering foreign vessels have to show the Code is being followed. This is a significant move as it puts the onus on those companies, rather than the Department of Labour, which currently has to prove the Code has been breached.”

The Department of Labour is also to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of FCVs and increase the frequency and thoroughness of inspections. MAF is to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of FCVs, including placing an observer on all FCVs fishing in New Zealand waters and considering non-fisheries offences when making FCV registration decisions. Maritime New Zealand is to strengthen enforcement of FCV compliance with maritime safety standards.

The remaining recommendations cover legislative amendments, ratifying international conventions, and significant policy changes.  The Government is further considering the Inquiry Panel’s report and these recommendations before announcing any decisions.

What is the Seafood Industry’s take on the Report?

Generally it seems that the Seafood Industry hasn’t given much away. Peter Bodeker, Chief Executive of the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC), acknowledged that industry members will need time to review and work through the report’s recommendations, maintaining that:

“The inquiry’s findings will impact on some of our members’ operations and it is important they have time to work through this, alongside the relevant government agencies, to consider and implement any changes that are needed.”

• View the report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the use and operation of foreign charter vessels fishing in New Zealand waters, which was conducted from August 2011 to February 2012.
• See the frequently asked questions for the Ministerial Inquiry into the use and operation of foreign charter vessels on the MAF website.

For a list of the recomendations released by teh Ministerial Inquiry Click the link to a PDF below: List of Recommendations from the Ministerial Inquiry Report on FCVs

Related articles

• Report calls for ‘urgent action’ to raise foreign fishing boat standards (nzherald.co.nz)
• Action of Fishing Abuses Escalates (Sunday Star Times. 03/03/2012)
• Korean groups protest fishing crew abuses (Fairfax NZ News. 17/08/2011)

“Dear Pessimist, Optimist and Realist – while you were arguing we implemented BPAs – Regards Opportunist”

I read a couple of articles in the New Zealand Herald. One in yesterday’s Metro supplementary pullout entitled “Sea for Yourself” by Sophie Barclay, and another a by Linda Herrick that was published a couple of weeks ago, called “Pristine ocean needs to become sanctuary“.

These articles brought to mind a ‘facebook funny’ that is making the rounds.

Both of the storys mentioned above are unduely pessimistic, one moreso than the other. They address New Zealand’s marine sanctuary/protected area short-comings – without looking at what we actually do have in place, nor realising that 5 years ago an opportunity had been ceased, and that a remarkable initiative had been implemented. As an illustration of what I am trying to say, in her article on marine biodiversity protection, Sophie Barclay writes:

In a country where 33% of our land is protected, a similar conservation ethic should apply to our ubiquitous coastline. However only 7% of our waters are protected. Excluding our two major offshore marine reserves, the figure chops to less than 0.1% of the mainland coast. We have failed miserably to meet our obligations under the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy of 10% protected by 2010. Given that 80% of our national biodiversity is found in the ocean, we need more marine reserves.

I find myself a little perplexed by the above quote. Surely the referencing of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000) for the purposes of showing what we have and haven’t done with respect to marine biodiversity conservation and preservation is like referencing the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 for the purposes of illustrating New Zealand’s Constitutional status. Goodness, it is like reading Oliver Twist and maintaining that we still haven’t pushed through much needed labour reforms.

A picture speaks a thousand words… The New Zealand Diversity Strategy (2000) features the map below…

New Zealand’s Marine Environment and Protected Marine Areas (Figure 3.2 New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. 2000. New Zealand Government. Part Three: Theme 3 - Coastal and Marine Biodiversity. P56)

This map paints a pretty stark picture of New Zealand marine biodiversity protection doesn’t it? But then this map is over 12 years old. Below the map the strategy outlines its case for increased protection of biodiversity (interestingly the biodiversity highlighted as most in need of protection is benthic and seamount biodiversity):

“About 8000 marine species have been described in New Zealand waters, including 61 seabirds, 41 marine mammals, 964 fish (of which 108 are endemic), 2000 molluscs (snails, shellfish and squid), 350 sponges, 400 echinoderms (kina, starfish and so on), 900 species of seaweeds and 700 species of micro-algae. These make up almost one-third of New Zealand’s total number of described indigenous species.

However, there are many more to be discovered, with seven new species being identified on average each fortnight. Marine scientists estimate that perhaps as much as 80 percent of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity is found in the sea. While many of our marine fish are found in other countries’ seas, many of our benthic (bottom dwelling) marine species are endemic to New Zealand.”

This is followed by a section in a dialogue box entitled Seamounts – jewels of the ocean. In this special ‘somewhat provocative’ section it is written:

“… New Zealand, with its complex undersea landforms, has many and varied seamounts scattered throughout the region. Many have only recently been discovered. The marine life inhabiting our seamounts is poorly known and many species have yet to be described. However, we do know that seamounts host many unusual and unique species and have rich biodiversity. Species include benthic (bottom dwelling) animals like bryozoans (small coral-like animals), corals (some growing in “trees” up to 15 metres tall), sea stars, sea cucumbers, sponges, molluscs, anemones and crabs. Seamounts also attract fish and so have become favoured sites for deep-sea fishing for species like orange roughy, oreo and cardinal fish.  There is growing concern among marine scientists in New Zealand about the impact of deep sea fishing using bottom-dragging trawl nets on seamount communities, for example within the Chatham Rise fishery. Research on seamounts south of Tasmania has shown destructive effects in heavily trawled areas. Deep-sea benthic species are particularly vulnerable to disturbance because they are generally slow to grow and reproduce. Some of the coral trees, for example, are estimated to be centuries old…”

The strategy acknowledges that biodiversity has been protected in New Zealand by a number of legislative tools, but that the focus has been on ‘sustaining fisheries’ rather than ‘protecting marine biodiversity’.

“Management of the marine environment over the last century has largely focused on sustaining fisheries for use, rather than protecting marine biodiversity for its own sake. This differs from our approach on land where there has been a greater emphasis on protecting species and their habitats… Only a limited number of species are protected under law – our marine mammals (protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978), most seabirds and a small number of other species (spotted black groper, marine reptiles, black and red corals)(protected under the Wildlife Act 1953). Approximately 4 percent²⁹ of the territorial sea is protected in marine reserves that are established for scientific purposes under the Marine Reserves Act 1971.”

But then when has the balck and white of the law books ever stymied a good idea?

These pictures (below)(that also speak a thousand words) were produced a decade after the map above that was published in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy of 2000.

Location of benthic protection areas (BPAs) and seamount closures in New Zealand's EEZ. (Fig.1. From Helson et al. 2010. Private rights, public benefits: Industry-driven seabed protection. Marine Policy, Volume 34, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 557-566).

Location of the seamount closures (filled red boxes) and benthic protection areas (open red boxes) overlaid with the Marine Environment Classification 2005 (Figure 3: From Helson et al. 2010. Private rights, public benefits: Industry-driven seabed protection. Marine Policy, Volume 34, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 557-566).

These two maps directly tell us a very different story. They indicate to us that large areas of New Zealand’s EEZ are closed either to all forms of fishing (in the case of Seamount Closures) and to bottom trawling, and dredging and other methods that contact the seabed (in the case of Benthic Protected Areas (BPAs)) so taht New Zealand’s marine biodiversity in those areas can be protected.

So why the inconsistency?

Well its easy. These measures that protect marine biodiversity were not only ignored by Barclay and and Herrick, they were implemented after 2000.

How did they come about?

BPAs are a collaboration of the seafood industry and the New Zealand government. Currently the primary legislation for establishing marine protection in New Zealand is the Marine Reserves Act 1971, which only allows for the establishment of a marine reserve in the New Zealand territorial sea.  The problem here is we all know that lots of New Zealand’s biodiversity exists in deepwater benthic habitats on the continental shelf or continental rise of the New Zealand micro-continent, outside the territorial sea but within the New Zealand EEZ.

Although the Marine Reserves Act 1971 is unable to protect deepwater benthic habitat, the purpose provision of the Fisheries Act 1996, proved to be helpful in this regard. The purpose of the Act (s 8) is to:

“… provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. In this Act ensuring sustainability means (a) mainatining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment. Utilisation means conserving, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for social, economic, and cultural well-being.”

While defining an “adverse effect” is complicated, avoiding them can be arguably less so. So in keeping with the purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996, almost a third of New Zealand’s entire EEZ was closed to bottom trawling in order to protect deepwater benthic habitats where biota maybe more fragile, slow growing and have long regeneration times. The rationale behind these closures is that given the sensitivity of some of these benthic habitats and the species within, avoiding a defined area altogether and utilising another portion of the same type of area, protects representative biodiversity better than having all areas open to potential utilisation.

It is for this reason that the Deepwater Group (a company that represents approximately 95% of the quota owned in New Zealand’s deepwater and middle-depths fisheries) first approached government in late 2005 with a marine protection initiative to address the environmental concerns over bottom trawling (Helson et al. (2010)). Yes, you are reading correctly, the New Zealand fishing industry drove the BPA initiative.

In response, the the Minister of Fisheries requested that DWG amend its BPA proposal to ensure greater representation of depth, substrate type, oceanographic conditions, geographic location, and to ensure closures were located to encompass sufficient latitudinal and longitudinal variation. The Ministry of Fisheries then consulted the New Zealand public, and as a result of this public consultation three new BPAs, 10 active hydrothermal vents, and and 35 underwater topographical features (UTFs), which included 10 seamounts, were added to the proposal (Helson et al. (2010)).

Existing marine management tools in New Zealand’s waters. (Source: Ministry of Agricuture, Forestry and Fisheries (NABIS); Ministry for the Environment). Note: New Zealand's EEZ is 4,083,744 km2. This figure is for the EEZ of New Zealand proper, and do not include the EEZs of other territories in the Realm of New Zealand (Tokelau, Niue, the Cook Islands and the Ross Dependency).

BPAs which close large representative areas of the seabed to bottom trawl fishing methods, including dredging, in perpetuity, house 88% of all known active hydrothermal vents, 52% of all known seamounts and protect the benthic biodiversity of about 1.3 million km² of seabed—over a third of New Zealand’s EEZ and more than four times the area of New Zealand itself (Helson et al. (2010)).

This benthic protection initiative which forms one of the largest networks of protected marine habitats in the world for the express purpose of protecting the biodiversity of benthic communities at the broad ecosystems, is unequalled anywhere else in the world.

So I am not too sure what Sophie Barclay was saying when she wrote that only 7% of our waters are protected – when actually the protection afforded New Zealand’s marine biodiversity is more like an unrivalled ~34% of the entire EEZ. Furthermore this 34% preserves the biodiversity of some incredible areas including (but not limited to) the entire Kermadec area of the EEZ (some 620,000 km²), the Tectonic Ridge area, the area around the Antipodes Islands and the Bollons Guyot, and the area of Sub-Antarctic that is adjacent to Australia’s MacQuarrie Island.

I suppose my point here is that we New Zealander’s can’t always blindly push push push, we have to enjoy what we have achieved on occasion. I am proud of the BPA initiative. They are ingenious really. To me they represent a ‘can do’ Kiwi No. 8 wire approach to as a reponse to a real need, within a complicated and restrictive marine biodiversity protection legislative framework. And whats more they are effective. Benthic biodiversity is completely protected and the sustaianble utilisation of pelagic species is not precluded.

---

Findings of Ministerial Inquiry: Out but not about!

The results of joint ministerial report on foreign chartered fishing vessels (FCVs) in New
Zealand waters that I discussed below in the entry last week entitled ‘Slavery and New Zealand in the same sentence… Surely not?’ has been presented to the Government. However its contents will be kept secret until decisions are made in relation to the operation of FCVs in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

Primary Industries Minister David Carter and Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson have publically acknowledged receipt of the Ministerial Inquiry Panel’s report on FCV

The foregoing of public disclosure of the content of the report has lead to loads of speculation from some groups of human rights advocates.  For example human rights Lawyer Craig Tuck submits that the silence speaks to FCVs breaking the law and holding crews in inhumane conditions. However, it is also just as likely that the converse is true. The findings of the Ministerial Inquiry Panel could prove to be inconsistent with human rights activist assertions.

Given the levels of emotion in the New Zealand Seafood, Trade and Labour Rights Sectors lately – the deferment of  the release of the Panel’s findings is arguably the best course in the interim.

Slavery and New Zealand in the same sentence… Surely not?

Right now there is a Media furoe in New Zealand about an article that was published this week in Bloomberg Businessweek by Ben Skinner; Fishing as Slaves on the High Seas.

Photo: 28 year old Yusril seen fishing with his friends on a small boat on the Java Sea Photograph by Sanjit Das for Bloomberg Businessweek  By E. Benjamin Skinner.

 

“Fishing as Slaves on the High Seas: For some Indonesian workers, commercial fishing in the seas off New Zealand became a nightmare of abuse aboard foreign-chartered vessels.”

In the article Mr. Skinner used the “S” word with reference to New Zealand fishing vessels and the export of their “ill-gotten products” to United States retailers. And this has gone down like a lead balloon. For goodness sake the “S” word has even been uttered here in New Zealand on occasion in reference to Foreign Charter Vessels (FCVs).

There is emotion everywhere – and why not, this is one of those subjects that rubs against the fundamentals of what it is to be a human. A melange of human rights against human needs, sovereign rights against soveriegn needs. At first blush it all just smells wrong. The  temptation is strong to lash and do what we New Zealanders do so well when confronted with something abrasive, pass a law! But that isn’t an option here. So we need to exercise temperance and perspective. We need to hold back and we need to do the other thing that New Zealanders do best – we need to get get to the bottom of it and sort it out. And that is what is being done.

There is a lot more here than what is in Skinner’s Businessweek article. First of all, irrespective of Skinner’s  article that has resulted in Wal-mart and Safeway – having another look at some of New Zealand’s fishery products – their is a plethora of other factors that need to be taken into account. International trade constraints on States that have come about via the ‘age of global trade‘ that we live in. International labour law, private international contract law, sovereign jurisdictions and lots of other good stuff needs to also be taken into account. Most of all the facts have to be ascertained and the nature of the allegations have to be verified.

Since July a Ministerial Inquiry has been considering the operation of FCVs in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters.

I agree with this take. This is a domestic issue. An issue that has been massaged malleable by the media and pummelled pliable by party politicians. In New Zealand we have put it in perspective. We are on it.  For starters the the conclusions of the Ministerial Inquiry into FCVs, which has been a broadly consultative enquiry, will be released, I heard, this Friday. Our trade partners and customers have to trust that we will get to the bottom of it, and improve the situation – whatever that situation happens to be. Because we will.

So what of the Ministerial Inquiry into FCVs?

Why was it launched? Well over the years there has been no shortage of incidents that have arisen with regard to FCVs (and in particular those from Korea). Media have revealed a procession of alleged ‘decrepit’ Korean vessels in which crew have died and alleged abuse has taken place. Recently, Insung No 7 (which is owned by one of Korea’s biggest fishing companies – Sajo Oyang Corporation of Korea) has been exposed in an official report in which states including New Zealand, the US and the European Union demanded Seoul clean its act up in the wake of “many incidences” of non-compliance involving its flagged vessels (after being caught over-catching Antarctic Toothfish by 339%). Incidentally, the Insung 7 is a sister ship to Insung No 1 which sank in the Southern Ocean in December 2010 with the loss of 22 men. We all remember the Oyang 70 which sank in the Southern Ocean in 2010, killing six onboard (which is presently the subject of an inquest).

Incidents involving Korean FCVs in New Zealand’s EEZ include the alleged discarding of fish by the Oyang 75 and the desertion of the vessel in Lyttleton harbour by the some of the Indonesian crew (many of whom are witnesses for the Crown). The discard or dumping of taken fish is a breach of the Fisheries Act 1996, which relies on the accurate reporting of all activities and requires all commercially taken fish to be landed to Licensed Fish Receivers.

This investigation by the Ministry of Fisheries led to 26 charges being laid against five Korean officers including the captain of the Oyang 75,  Chong Pil Yun, who is being charged with three charges of aiding the dumping, and six charges of making false or misleading statements. These charges are due to be heard on 1 March 2012.

There have also been reports of alleged human rights abuses by crew members who served on board Korean flagged FCVs. In the days following the sinking of the 92 metre Korean flagged FV Oyang 70 700 kilometres East of Dunedin, in August 2010, the rescued Indonesian crew relayed tales of poor working conditions and poor pay to their rescuers and the media. Indonesian crew from other Korean flagged FCVs (like the Shin Ji, the Oyang 75 and more recently the Melila 201) have refused to return to their ships complaining of abuse, poor conditions, and poor pay.

These events, and the accompanying national and international media attention directed at the deepwater fishing industry in New Zealand led the Seafood Industry Council to request that the Minister of Fisheries initiate an inquiry into the operation of foreign charter vessels in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. This formal Inquiry that was initiated by the previous Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister, Phil Heatley and Labour Minister, Kate Wilkinson, is considering all key issues relevant to the use of FCVs. There maybe those who claim that the New Zealand Government is indifferent to the operation of FCVs in New Zealand waters. Yet the launch of this Ministerial Inquiry suggests otherwise.  Minister Kate Wilkinson said in a statement to the media:

“Reports alleging the failure of some FCVs to comply with proper employment requirements, including crew working conditions, and vessel safety standards imposed by New Zealand had raised the Government’s concern … We decided a Ministerial Inquiry was the appropriate course of action as a number of ministerial portfolios have an interest in FCV engagement and operation. Fisheries, labour, immigration, transport as well as foreign affairs and trade all have an involvement in this area.”

The principal objective of the Ministerial Inquiry is to ensure that the operation of foreign owned and flagged vessels chartered by New Zealand fishing companies supports the following government objectives:

1. Protect New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access.
2. Maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our fisheries resources.
3. Ensure acceptable and equitable New Zealand labour standards (including safe working environments) are applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s fisheries waters within the exclusive economic zone.

Specifically, the Ministerial Inquiry is considering:

1. The application of New Zealand’s legislative regime to the use and operation of fishing vessels, and in particular foreign charter vessels (FCVs), with respect to labour, immigration, maritime safety and fisheries management and the compliance with that regime by such vessels and their operators;
2. Any international reputation risks associated with the use of FCVs;
3. Any trade access risks associated with the use of FCVs;
4. Whether the economic factors supporting the use of FCVs deliver the greatest overall benefit to New Zealand’s economy and to quota owners;
5.  Whether acceptable and equitable labour standards (including safe working environments) are, or can be, applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s fisheries waters within the Exclusive Economic Zone; and
6. Any other matters that the Inquiry considers relevant.

The inquiry is being administered by a Ministerial Panel. This panel has considered a very wide range of submissions from a wide range of sectors within New Zealand. In addition the panel held public hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch in October and visited fishing vessels. The Panel Chair, Paul Swain, acknowledged the importance of the wide-ranging scope of the inquiry as it is important to get input from as many interested parties as possible.

“We will be reviewing New Zealand’s current policy and legislation as well as the economic return New Zealand is getting from our fishing resources… Our principal focus will be on protecting New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access, maximising the economic return from our fisheries and ensuring safe and equitable conditions on board all fishing vessels operating within our Exclusive Economic Zone.”

The findings are out tomorrow. They should be a good read and no doubt controversial. For those of you who cannot wait – why don’t you check out some of the submissions to the Ministerial Inquiry Panel into use and operation of Foreign Charter .

• MAF
• The Human Rights Commission
• The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.
• The Department of Labour
• New Zealand Seafood Industry Council
• New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild
• The Indonesia Human Rights Committee (IHRC).
• Aotearoa Fisheries Limited
• Dawson & Associates
• Maritime New Zealand Union
• Northland Deepwater Limited
• Sanford Limited
• Talley’s
• Sealord
• Southern Storm Fishing Limited
• Sullivan & Spillane

So what about this story by Ben Skinner?

This article by Ben Skinner, Fishing as Slaves on the High Seas is a compelling read. Skinner has a personal interest in slavery – he has been writing about it for the past 10 years. This is apparent in the story, where the focus is solely on the subject of the story, Yushil and their alleged experiences on board the Melila 203. The story isn’t exactly an exposé on the crew recruitment practices of Korean  fishing companies, but it does indirectly accuse those companies of recruitment malpractice. Actually it turns out that Ben Skinner has a substantial kiwi connection, recently acknowledging that half of his family are Kiwis and that he has an affinity for things New Zealand.

Skinner first published his investigations into human trafficking and slavery in A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery. In the five years during which he researched his book, Skinner traveled the globe to tell the stories of modern-day slaves, survivors, traffickers, and abolitionists. Going undercover when necessary, Skinner infiltrated trafficking networks and slave quarries, urban child markets, and illegal brothels. People estimate that there are more people  enslaved today than at any time in human history. Because the specific number is difficult to pin down, Skinner adopted a narrow definition of “slaves” as “people who are forced to work, under threat of violence, for no pay beyond subsistence.”

Skinner’s interpretation of ‘slavery’ is problematic to many. For it arguably captures employment conditions that are not or were not considered to be fundamentally breaching human rights. Terminology like “slavery” are value laden, and culture laden – and because the starting points are various, so to are the conceptions. This is why this story brought with it such polemic debate.

So what do we think?

Contrary to what one may believe from media reports where FCVs are more trouble than they are worth, the reality is very different. There are currently 26 FCVs operating in New Zealand that are flagged to four countries: thirteen are flagged to South Korea, seven to Japan, four to the Ukraine, and two to Dominica.

Twenty (80%) of these FCVs are trawlers that operate year round, fishing low return, high yield species like jack mackerel, barracouda and squid. Most have been doing it for years, and are compliant with New Zealand law. I would even go so far as to say, for the most part, FCVs provide a valuable service to New Zealand economically, and as many of them have fished New Zealand waters for decades, they are intimate with our bathysphere and aquatic environment and are responsible fishermen.

VIDEO: Reporter Michael Field goes onboard the FV Aleksandr Buryachenko  (Sealord Ukrainian FCV) amidst allegations that human rights and labour abuses are taking place on foreign fishing vessels

However like anything, there are those few that through there labour practices, have lead the New Zealand public to question their presence in New Zealand. We’ve seen headlines like: “Not in New Zealand Waters Surely?” This was the headline of a report by the New Zealand Asia Institute at the University of Auckland, which used the “global labour chain and global labour production analyses to examine which institutions were responsible for the working conditions of an important but largely invisible and vulnerable workforce on FCVs in New Zealand waters.” The report found that there was an “institutional void pertaining to labour standards on board FCVs and in some cases disturbing levels of inhumane conditions and practices have become institutionalised.” The report claimed that Indonesian crew members (owned and operated by the same companies), citing physical, mental, and psychological abuse, as well as non-payment of wages. Other recent headlines include:

“Kiwis join struggle against sea slavery,” Michael Field, November 20, 2011, Stuff.co.nz“Fishermen claim unpaid wages, sexual abuse,” Hamish Clark, November 16, 2011, 3News New Zealand“Fishing rivals face off over foreign boats,” Bill Moore, October 28, 2011, Stuff.co.nz “Ngapuhi fishing with Asian charters ‘not slavery,’” October 27, 2011, TVNZ “Probe exposes fishing underbelly,” Michael Field, October 23, 2011, Stuff.co.nz“Fishing ‘slave labour’ slated,” Helen Murdoch, October 20, 2011, Stuff.co.nz“Slave fishing in NZ waters exposed,” Michael Field, August 11, 2011, Stuff.co.nz

I think it was all a bit of a shock! We were all a little flabbergasted! This kind of thing just isn’t Kiwi. New Zealanders are proud of our pro-human rights stance. We were the first to have universal suffrage, the first to institute the Welfare System, labour reform legislation. How can there be this kind of thing be happening in New Zealand Waters?

In August and September last year, when all the business was going down with the FV Oyang 70 (pardon the pun). I, like all the others in New Zealand was shocked. I was pleased something was being done. But unlike most other New Zealanders I was aware of the importance of FCVs to this country. However, when I read Ben Skinner’s story the other day, I became inflamed again. I found myself a little affected, and quite angry. No one deserves to be demeaned, and abused. People deserve fair remuneration for a fair day’s graft. New Zealand is built on principles like these. Then I heard a sage voice in the most unexpected place.  I read an article by our own ‘belovedly opinionated’ Gareth Morgan who pointed out how disingenuous it is to express outrage at the commercial practices by FCVs in our EEZ but tacitly embrace the same practices on the high street. In his article “Outrage at foreign fishing fleet hypocritical” he writes:

“Some within the local fishing industry who own fishing vessels have been protesting loudly at the unfair competition that foreign charter vessels pose. Of late, they have been joined by environmentalists, trade unionists and local human rights activists deeply concerned about the on-board abuses… These same folk buy a multitude of products from China, India and other economies where workers endure the same conditions they find offensive on their competitors’ vessels. Apple has been in the news about the work conditions in its factories in China. I’m not aware of many Kiwis shunning their products because of the “slave-like” conditions for workers… The only factor used to justify the double standard is that because the foreign charter vessel activity actually occurs within our exclusive economic zone, that apparently makes it unacceptable by comparison. Selective hypocrisy though, is not a convincing basis for credible argument. Credibility should be a prerequisite of any success in lobbying government. To be consistent the protest needs to be against all product that arises from sweatshop-type practices, no matter where it occurs.

It is this reference to to ‘select hypocrisy’ and the last sentence that gets me. If New Zealand wants to take a stand. Then we have to do it consistently. When we buy a business shirt or a pair of jeans, we have to make sure it was made according to international labour standards, and not in a Mumbai sweatshop. If it wasn’t we shouldn’t condone the practice by buying it. As Gareth says:

“If New Zealand wishes to close itself from trade with those parts of the world where such practices are de rigueur then that’s a conscious choice to make, with clear costs (economic) and benefits (moral), but to selectively discriminate on some arbitrary delineation such as geography simply is not a sustainable logic. You do it properly or you don’t.”

The fact remains that with the ‘dodgy’ labour practices on board Korean FCVs, we are in a position that we can do something about it. And we are. But what about the ‘dodgy labour practices’ that we condone through preferential purchasing via free-trade agreements.  Where shiny goods manufactured out of sight of potential kiwi purchasers were in fact made in factories that fail to meet ILO standards.

So What should We Do about FCVs in New Zealand.

This is the hard part. Before we attempt to fix it – I think we first have to ask if it is broken? And that is what the Ministerial Inquiry into FCVs is for. For the Ukrainian FCVs the present regulatory system is working well. In the article “Sealord defends foreign chartered fishing operation,” Sealord harvest operations manager Colin Williams believes the FCV issue is to do with the abhorrent behaviour of some operators.

“I don’t believe the regulatory frame work is broken. What you have is people at one end of the scale allegedly not complying (and) who need to comply, and people at the other end of the scale who are complying and carrying out legitimate business and contributing to the people of New Zealand.”

However the article points out that for vessels like the FV Aleksandr Buryachenko, where the crew is not only all Ukrainian, but also all from the same city, Sevastopol on the Black Sea it is easy. According to the Aleksandr Buryachenko’s Captain, Yuri Kylybov, it is this that, that marks the difference between his FCV and others:

“I can only speak for Ukrainian vessels and we have good discipline, good crews, good food and we have common culture and common values. Same country, same nation, same values…. I feel sorry for the crews with their different religions and nationalities and culture. They could end up fighting over simple things like food.”

The fact remains – all of these vessels are not flagged to New Zealand. And because of this our labour laws do not apply. The 12-mile limit is where most New Zealand tax and labour laws, as they apply to foreigners, end (except for minimum wage laws, thanks to the Fisheries Act 1996 where s103(5) was amended in order to regulate the rates of pay of foreign crew to provide for the protections of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Wages Protection Act 1983  to apply to foreign fishers). The common misconception is that the 200-mile zone EEZ is New Zealand Waters. It isn’t. New Zealand has exclusive jurisdiction over the resources within the water column. That is it.

In 2006 the Government along with the Department of Labour, the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (on behalf of New Zealand fishing companies) and the New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild implemented the Code of Practice on Foreign Fishing Crew (19 October 2006). This Code is is a set of policy guidelines (labour and Immigration) that applies to the charter arrangements between the foreign vessel owner and the New Zealand charterer. However according to Jennifer Devlin’s 2009 paper”Modern Day Slavery: Employment Conditions for Foreign Crews in New Zealand Waters“, the code is problematic to enforce.

“By purporting to apply New Zealand law to foreign flagged vessels in New Zealand’s EEZ, the Code (which is simply a set of policy guidelines of Immigration New Zealand) violates international law and is ultra vires. As such, the Code is vulnerable to an administrative law challenge on the grounds that the executive does not have the power to make  immigration policy guidelines that have extra-territorial effect.”

Devlin also argues that section 103(5) of the Fisheries Act 1996 is in violation of international law as it imposes New Zealand law on foreign flagged vessels outside of New Zealand’s territorial waters (see Dawson and Hunt).

We could remove the ability of FCVs to register. And thereby deny FCVs permits. But why would we do that. FCVs do New Zealand a service. They catch fish that New Zealanders simply cannot, and allowing us to benefit of those resources. Therefore arguments that New Zealanders should be catching all the fish, processing it and trading it, simply ignore the reality of international competitiveness. Put it this way, the New Zealand Deepwater fleet comprises approximately 45 vessels, 20 of which are FCVs. Some FCVs are
specially equipped to operate in fisheries such as the trawl fishery for jack mackerel. Of the nine main species caught by FCVs, roughly two-thirds of the total volume has been
taken by FCVs over the last five years. This is approximately 40% of the total commercial
harvest of all species in the Quota Management System. The annual value of this catch is
estimated to have ranged between $274.6 and $387.3 million dollars (see MAF Background Paper on the Use of Foreign Charter Vessels). In a nutshell We need FCVs.

One suggestion is that FCVs could be required to flag to New Zealand. Re-flagging would ensure New Zealand’s full prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction over these FCVs, and bringing them under a New Zealand flag could also clarify New Zealand’s rights and responsibilities. Also the re-flagging option would not preclude the future use of foreign owned or foreign-crewed vessels.

However this is not really an option either. For starters according to Sealord the Ukrainian Government will not allow the Ukrainian fishing vessels to be re-flagged under to New Zealand. And the Korean FCVs? One would be safe in guessing that the Korean Government would also not be too happy with their flagged vessels re-flagging to New Zealand. Furthermore and most importantly, forcing FCVs to re-flag would not only be a disincentive for FCVs to operate in New Zealand and catch the fish we are unable to catch, but re-flagging all FCVs to New Zealand will likely impact on the ability of some operators to secure tariff free access of product from Korean vessels into Korea. For example the New Zealand squid has easy access to the Korean market because it is caught by a Korean flagged vessel and is therefore able to be classified as a product of Korea, and thereby not attract a tariff.

Another is to allow only demise or bare charters – where New Zealand would have to provide or recruit the crew. But again this is not an option. Not only is there a shortage of trained crew, New Zealanders have proven to be very backward about coming forward to crew fishing vessels. It is not really surprising, New Zealanders don’t pick our fruit any more either. New Zealanders are not only reluctant, we are too expensive. New Zealand crew will drive up the price of fish taken. That is not sustainable economically. In their submission to the Ministerial Inquiry MAF wrote:

“The Ministry considers that it is appropriate to allow quota owners to choose the most appropriate means to both harvest their quota and ACE allocations and to operate their businesses. For some operators this could be achieved by the lease of foreign owned vessels under contractual arrangements; and the Ministry supports this continuing. The Ministry acknowledges that on occasion the use of foreign labour to crew these vessels is both necessary and appropriate. The Ministry also considers that irrespective of how business operations are structured they should make an economic contribution to New Zealand.”

There is no single solution and really only one way forward, to continue to support FCVs and implement a suite of various diplomatic and coastal responses that in concert improve conditions on board FCVs. In my opinion the most effective solution will be sustained pressure on Governments that employ substandard labour conditions, through the plethora of fora available, to lift their game. This pressure should be widely conceived and apply to all such products entering the New Zealand market – not limited to just fish from FCVs.

Related Articles

On a different, but related note – this article from today’s Timaru Herald indicates that in spite of what is being said by the media and soap boxing politicians. New Zealand takes its obligation as stewards of the area of the High Seas that are the New Zealand EEZ and above the New Zealand Extended Continental Shelf very seriously. And where a vessel is in direct breach, it will be held as such. Until that point however – nothing ‘of substance’ can really be done.

• Foreign-Chartered Vessels: The Controversy (The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism)
• NZ fish investigated after report into labour on boats in Kiwi waters (nzherald.co.nz)