US Fisheries reject allegations of foul play in Pacific fishery

Transcript

The United States has rejected allegations that new government legislation is in violation of conservation measures on high seas fishing.

The accusation from the outgoing chief executive of the Parties to the Nauru agreement is that the US's National Marine Fisheries Service last month allocated 1828 fishing days for the US Purse Seine fleet when only 1270 were allocated by the Tuna Commission last year.

Transform Aqorau says the figure which has been reached by combining 558 fishing days from its exclusive economic zones  allows its purse seine fleet to evade the commissions measure.

But the Regional Administrator for NOAA's Fisheries service rejects the claims.

Michael Tosatto says combining the limits is representation of the United States full commitment to the conservation measure and not the other way round.

Mr Tosatto says the rule has been in application since the limits were first introduced in 2009 and it is fully compliant with both US and International obligations.

He told Koroi Hawkins he thinks this is all a big misunderstanding.

MICHAEL TOSATTO: Clearly he is failing to see the method and the rational for how we have implemented this over the past several years. The measure requires the united states as a flag state to place limits on its purse seine vessels operating on the high seas. It also requires us as a coastal state to place limitation on our purse seine vessels fishing within our US exclusive economic zones. The United States has nine US economic zone areas around that are within the WCPFC area. In particular between 20 North and 20 South where this measure is in effect. Some or all of our economic zone areas within that it is not just the US territories it is the unincorporated areas around Helen Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Palmeira Island, Johnston Atoll and the military island at Wake Island. All of those not just our inhabited territories are where we need to place. These limits. So since 2009 we have had a limit in place within these areas. So that is 558 days. So that limit has been in place since 2009 it has been reported to the commission since 2009 and that incorporates our obligation to put that limit in place. In 2012 the additional requirement to limit our effort on the high seas was put in place by the commission and it came about in a couple of ways. It was at a historic level and then in 2013 or 2014 it became a numeric level and that is where he is citing the 1270 days. But those 1270 days are not the only limits that the US has to put in place. We have to put in both limits and since 2009 we have been putting in those limits one time in a total for all US purse seine efforts in the area. And that is because the intent and the objective of these purse seine effort limits are exactly the same. They are to limit purse seine effort in both of these areas. So we are living up to our obligation and living up and putting in place our effort limits for both the high seas and the US exclusive economic zone which is what every coastal state has to do. Those two numbers when added together 1270 plus 558 is the limit that we put into place, we put that limit in place all encompassing.

KOROI HAWKINS: So it is in your view a misunderstanding of the representation of those numbers. Rather than any actual attempt to try and go around the system.

MT: Exactly we have two limits to put in place and we have put two limits in place. And we have put those limits in place as one number.

KH: Now I understand the next meeting for the various countries in the fisheries and the US will be in Auckland next week will you be raising this there?

MT: So again a little bit of confusion on the CEO's part the next meeting of the WCPFC is actually not until December. Next week the United States and the Pacific Island Parties to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty will meet. This rule making has nothing to do with that negotiation next week.

KH: Right so just for a lay person the distinction between those two is?  Can you explain that a bit more?

MT: So the distinction is this rule making puts in place our obligations under the WCPFC the convention that manages fisheries on high seas and within zones in the context of the Pacific wide framework of our obligations. In a completely separate framework the United States enters into a multi-lateral treaty with some Pacific Island parties to gain access to these exclusive economic zones of those parties. So it is a separate international instrument this rule making has no bearing on that treaty.