An Assessment of the Regional Tuna Fisheries Management Regime:A Case Study of the Fiji Islands

This report provides an assessment of the Tuna Fisheries Management Regime in the Western Central Pacific Island Countries and a critical analysis of Fiji Tuna Management Regime as a case study. Fiji provides a good example of a typical island country that has attempted to develop its own tuna industry and has been seen as taking the lead in many of the initiatives that have been agreed at the regional level. Tuna catch in 2008 was 2.4 million metric tonnes, worth about 4.9 billion and accounted for 56% of the global tuna catch. The Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs) fleet account for 70% of the total catch. Therefore the tuna resources of the Pacific Island Countries are not only of regional importance but also of global significance. Its management and conservation thus is important for both Coastal States and the DWFNs. Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) continue to strive to achieve greater returns from their tuna resources in their EEZs. The establishment of sub-regional bodies such as the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, Party to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and Te Vaka Moana (TVM) has played a critical role in coordinating the activities of Coastal States, or else tuna could have been long over-exploited because of the inability to reconcile the development interests of Coastal States as well as the Distant Water Fishing Nations. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), as a regional fisheries management organization (RMFO), was established to manage the tuna fisheries through its entire migratory range in order to ensure the sustainability of tuna within the zones of the Pacific Island countries and the adjoining areas of High Seas. In this evaluation, a total of nine key factors were identified to be negatively impacting on the sustainable management of tuna resources in the WCPFC region. These includes: Abuse of exemptions such as VDA given to purse seine fishing vessels; Observer program is not yet properly developed to ensure compliance; Abuse of Certification and Eco-labeling; Lack of quality data and high levels of uncertainties in the science used; Abuse of sovereign rights granted under UNCLOS; Special recognition given to SIDS under the WCPFC Convention provide windows for abuse; Abuse of rights granted to coastal States to determine Total Allowable Catch in the absence of sound scientific data; Weak governance and non-compliance; and Lack of compatibility of national and regional management objective