SALEM, New Hampshire — March 27, 2013 — The American Bluefin Tuna Association and the Pew Charitable Trust have not always seen eye to eye in the past on issues regarding bluefin tuna. In fact, no fishery organization has a longer history of fighting for its survival against the environmental establishment, and for good reason: no fishery issue within the environmental community has received more attention than has bluefin.
What has recently changed that has led ABTA to consider working with Pew? Two important things: 1/ For the first time, Pew has openly acknowledged something that the fishermen have been saying for a very long time; that US bluefin tuna handgear fishermen do fish sustainably, using selective gear, and, 2/ Pew and ABTA find that they are largely in agreement on a comprehensive approach to a recent and critically important regulatory initiative, Amendment 7. This marks the first time that both organizations agree on the same approach to an important bluefin issue.
Amendment 7 focuses on bluefin bycatch and dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery. There is a very real threat that rulemaking on Amendment 7 will result in a dramatic restructuring of the bluefin fishery as we know it today, resulting in quota share being taken away from the bluefin tuna handgear fishermen and given to the longline fleet in order to cover highly excessive bluefin bycatch and discards. This is completely unacceptable to ABTA.
ABTA’s mission is “to protect the fishery”. ABTA’s commitment is to the traditional bluefin handgear fishery and to the resource. No industry association has spent more time, money or effort in working toward these goals which benefit all sectors of the bluefin handgear fishery.
So, when ABTA received a request to join forces with Pew and the International Game Fish Association (IGFA) on Amendment 7, ABTA had to take this very seriously. Why? Up to that point, ABTA was prepared to “go it alone” on the issue of Amendment 7, but ABTA realized that this strategy was dangerous given the formidable opposition it is facing.
First, there is Blue Water, the US longline organization. BWFA has tendered comprehensive written comments to NMFS, advocating for a complete restructuring of the traditional bluefin fishery that would result in bluefin handgear fishermen sacrificing their traditional allocation so that longline fishermen could continue to incur present unacceptably high levels of bluefin bycatch and discards. One such letter, written by the Executive Director of Blue Water on October 29, 2012, summarizes their position. i
In the letter, Blue Water urges the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to first use US bluefin quota to “…cover the incidental, accidental catches of BFT caught by (longline) fishermen while targeting other species before allocating directed quota.” Blue Water then explains, “If sufficient residual quota is available, then NMFS could allow for directed BFT fishing.” Finally, Blue Water reiterates that, “NMFS should prioritize year-round incidental fisheries over seasonal directed fisheries with respect to fish with very limited quotas, such as BFT.” In other words, Blue Water is openly advocating for NMFS to establish rulemaking under Amendment 7 that will first give the longline fishery all the quota that is needed to cover bluefin bycatch and discards, and only that quota which remains (if any) is to be allocated for the use of the historic handgear fishery. These proposals, along with others put forward by Blue Water made it clear to ABTA that it must use every avenue possible to put forth its own comprehensive plan for protecting the bluefin handgear fishery in the debate over Amendment 7. (See the Letter to NMFS from Terri Beideman, Executive Director, Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, October 29, 2012. To view this document, click on this link: http://www.theabta.com/CurrentActions.html)
Secondly, NMFS is currently under direction from ICCAT to ensure that all sources of bluefin mortality in the US fishery—including bycatch and discards—are covered by the overall US quota. ABTA must fight any attempt by NMFS to bring the US into compliance with these directives without simultaneously putting in place regulations that dramatically reduce bycatch and discards of bluefin in the longline fishery. Should NMFS fail to put in place a comprehensive bycatch reduction plan, this will set back, and potentially endanger, the rebuilding of the Atlantic bluefin stock, a rebuilding program that has been embraced, and not without great sacrifice, by US bluefin fishermen from its inception. Equally importantly, the absence of a significant bycatch reduction plan by NMFS would likely result in bluefin handgear fishermen losing quota.
ABTA believes that NMFS has a vested interest in ensuring that the longliners win this battle. NMFS’s “Swordfish Revitalization Policy”, intended to promote utilization of the US swordfish quota, could conflict with any comprehensive longline bycatch reduction policy. Elevating this revitalization policy over conservation through meaningful bycatch and discard reduction can only be achieved at the expense of the the traditional user groups that utilize more sustainable fishing methods. ABTA believes that real steps could be taken to allow for the longline fleet to catch swordfish while avoiding excessive bluefin byctach, it would be far easier for NMFS to solve its problem by converting longline discards to landings and by providing the longline category with sufficient quota to cover these landings. Again, this would be at the expense of the traditional fishery and the resource.
The proposal to join forces with the Pew was thoroughly vetted and carefully evaluated by the ABTA Executive Committee. With the aggressive stance taken by Blue Water, and the concerns over NMFS’ position, it became clear that ABTA, and the fishery is represents, is in a fight for survival, and that every possible step must be taken to win this battle. The entire executive committee of ABTA realized that it was looking at the very real possibility of a dramatic reduction of historical quota share for commercial handgear and recreational fishermen, and this was considered unacceptable under any circumstances.
The coalition that has been put together to work on Amendment 7 and to support the fishermen cannot guarantee victory, but all three organizations realize that they are worth more together than they would be if they each employed a “go it alone” strategy. This partnership is only about the singular goal of ensuring that traditional handgear bluefin fishermen prevail under Amendment 7. There are no other motives and there is no intent to influence larger fishery management issues, notwithstanding some allegations in this regard. The bottom line is that in order to win this battle, ABTA needs all the help it can get.
About Amendment 7
Amendment 7 is about bycatch and dead discards of bluefin tuna in the US swordfish and yellowfin longline fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Atlantic Coast.
Why Amendment 7 ? According to ICCAT directive No. 10-3 (2010), all forms of Atlantic bluefin mortality must be accounted for within the quota of all member- countries to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) that fish for Atlantic bluefin. All forms of bluefin mortality refer to all catch, bycatch, and dead discards of Atlantic bluefin tuna. The US has had an excellent record of compliance with ICCAT quota up to the present. However, until recently, excessive bycatch and dead discards of Atlantic bluefin have not been fully accounted for by NMFS under the US quota because, until recently, this has not been required by ICCAT.
What is the problem with longlining and Atlantic bluefin? Pelagic longlining in the US is not legally allowed to “target” Atlantic bluefin. However, this fishing method, which involves deploying a longline of up to 35 miles in length and containing many hundreds of hooks, cannot help incurring bycatch of over 40 species of fish and mammals, including Atlantic bluefin. US longlining is only legally allowed to “target” swordfish or yellowfin tuna. However, as a concession to the longliners, NMFS has in the past accorded the longline category, 8.1% of the total annual US Atlantic bluefin tuna quota, plus an additional annual quantity of 25 MT for discards occurring in the Northeast Distant Fishery (NED) to cover bluefin bycatch in the longline fishery. If the present excessive bycatch and dead discards are taken fully into account, as is now reqired by ICCAT, this 8.1% allocation pluse the 25 MT NED allotment is woefully inadquate. Simply put, the current 8.1% equates to about 75 MT, however longline landings and discards of bluefin have averaged about 250 MT of a 3-year period (2008-2010). So, whose fish (quota) are NMFS going to take to make up the difference?
What does the law have to say about bycatch and dead discards? There is a mandate in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, a mandate in the ICCAT charter and a mandate in no less than 4 United Nations resolutions for the dramatic reduction of bycatch and dead discards in any fishery in which it is incurred.
What does NMFS intend to do about this? It is NMFS’ intention to not address these mandates for the reduction of bycatch and dead discards. In the pre-draft of Amendment 7, NMFS has presented a list of alternatives for dealing with bycatch and dead discards in the longline fishery. These alternatives do not include a comprehensive plan for significant reduction of bycatch. Rather than attacking the problem by putting in place regulations that would result in the dramatic reduction of bycatch and discards, it appears NMFS intends to “sanction” and “legalize” bluefin bycatch and discards by simply allowing all bycatch and discards to be retained and “landed”. In effect, bycatch and discards would become legitimate “catch”. Given that the present longline allocation of 8.1% is inadequate for this purpose, it will likely take allocation away from other fishing categories and give this quota to the longliners. In this situation, Atlantic bluefin tuna fishermen who fish sustainably with rod and reel or harpoon, catching one fish at a time, and without incurring bycatch or incurring damage to the ecosystem, would be required to reduce their catch to allow for the “legalization” of illegal bycatch and discards in the longline fishery.
What about conservation and Amendment 7? The only provision in the predraft of Amendment 7 that is aimed at an actual reduction of Atlantic bluefin bycatch and discards is a proposal to implement time-area closures in areas where longline vessels have incurred bycatch in the past (“hotspots”). While time area closures do have potential to reduce bycatch, they must be continually evaluated over time to be effective. Time-area closures will only be an effective tool for a reduction of bycatch when combined with bycatch caps and 100% at-sea monitoring (which can be done either with fishery observers or video monitoring). Unfortunately, this is not even an option in the pre-draft of Amendment 7. Presently, only 8% of the fishing conducted by the Atlantic longline fleet operates with observer coverage.
Unless Amendment 7 includes a drastic increase in monitoring over the woefully inadequate level of 8%, there is little hope that Amendment 7 will achieve any meaningful levels of conservation.
What does ABTA want to do? ABTA wants to maintain the existing longline quota allocation of 8.1% and put in place meaningful measures to ensure conservation through the reduction of excessive bycatch and discards of Atlantic bluefin. The only way to achieve this is by monitoring of catch/bycatch of longline vessels through 100% observer coverage along with other measures, such as bycatch caps, to ensure that the bycatch and discards levels are kept in check. This will address ICCAT’s recent ruling and will address the mandates in Magnuson-Stevens, by ICCAT and by the United Nations for the reduction of bycatch and discards.
For further information, contact Rich Ruais:
Email: rruais@aol.com
Office: (603) 898-8862
Cell: (603) 490-4715
Site: http://www.theabta.com
For ABTA’s official position on Amendment 7, see the document entitled, “March 2013, ABTA Position Paper on NMFS Amenndment 7 on Bluefin Bycatch and Discards in the Longline Fishery” at the following link: http://www.theabta.com/CurrentActions.html