Tuvalu Could Disappear Into The Sea This Century, And…

Small islands in the Pacific Ocean will disappear due to climate change. But there is no attention at the top in Egypt for the population that will have to leave. ‘We are sinking’. (Original article by NRC.)

Kelesoma Saloa (52), a bulky man with soft eyes, mourns his homeland. Tuvalu, a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, is slowly being swallowed by the sea. “I get scared when I think of that little island in the middle of that huge ocean,” he says.

While world leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh are once again trying to hold each other to the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, climate refugees like Saloa have already lost hope. “I carry the worries of Tuvalu with me every day. ‘Cause I know it doesn’t get any better. It’s only getting worse.”

Tuvalu is only 26 square kilometers in size. It consists of three coral islands and six atolls, donut-shaped islands where the top of the island has disappeared due to erosion and water remains in the middle. About 11,000 people live on these narrow strips of land, surrounded by an endless sea. There is not a mountain or even a hill to be seen.

That makes Tuvalu, and other low-lying Pacific island states such as Kiribati, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands, extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels. “One big wave could sweep across the country,” Saloa says. That is no exaggeration, two of the nine islands of Tuvalu have already largely disappeared. If the temperature on Earth rises by more than two degrees, as it probably will at the current rate, Tuvalu will completely disappear under water before this century.

The Polynesian country is therefore a symbol of the consequences of climate change. During the climate summit in Glasgow last year, Tuvalu stood out because of the speech by Foreign Minister Simon Kofe. He sent a video in which he was standing in water up to his knees, in a place where there was previously land. “We are sinking,” he said.

But even now the islands are slowly becoming uninhabitable. The advancing salt water penetrates deep into the ground, so that crops no longer grow properly. Due to the salinization of the groundwater, Tuvalu depends on rain for drinking water, precious water and food have to be imported. After long periods of drought, a state of emergency was declared this week; the inhabitants are on a water ration.

Tropical storms are also becoming more frequent, resulting in erosion and subsidence, which are also causing the islands to disappear.

Kelesoma Saloa saw the number of floods increase and felt compelled to leave his country. Because his wife Atalani had grown up in New Zealand, he was able to get a visa. In 2012, the family moved to Auckland, often referred to as the Polynesian capital of the world. More than 300,000 people from the Pacific live there.

Saloa now lives in the west of the city, in a low bungalow along a road where cars race past. It’s a gray day in Auckland. Inside are woven mats of palm leaves, colorful flower wreaths and beaded necklaces hang on the walls. In the center of the fireplace is a photo of his father sitting on the seawall in front of their home in Tuvalu. The wall is high enough for now, but not for much longer.

Culture shock

Kelesoma had hoped his whole family would follow, but his brothers decided to stay. He speaks softly when he talks about his homeland. “I didn’t want to leave my parents. But my father passed away unexpectedly when we first arrived in New Zealand. I couldn’t say goodbye. My mother did come after that, but she couldn’t settle. She couldn’t stand the cold here,” says Saloa. The culture shock still hits him hard. “I’ve lived here for seven years now and I still don’t know the names of my neighbors.” In Tuvalu he knew everyone. “We all live there together, like one big family.”

stay or leave; it was an impossible choice and it will remain so after seven years. “I feel like a coward,” Saloa says with wet eyes. “I have abandoned my country, my community.”

He hasn’t been home for years. It takes a small fortune to get to Tuvalu. Travel must be via Fiji with a propeller plane that departs twice a week to the capital Funafuti. Still, Saloa hopes that one day he can show his country to his children. “I hope we can go to Tuvalu one last time before the land disappears under water and my children have to sail in boats to point to our house, where fish now live.”

It is not clear how many people have left like Saloa because of climate change. Officially, climate refugees do not exist. People fleeing from rising sea levels, drought or increasing natural disasters cannot invoke the UN Refugee Convention. This only applies to those fleeing violence and persecution. Meanwhile, according to the United Nations, every year some 20 million people are displaced by climate disasters, such as extreme weather.

Usually people flee within their own country, to cities or to higher areas that offer more protection. But small island states like Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu have no higher land for people to turn to when the sea swallows the lowlands. Those who can afford it and can arrange a visa, therefore, increasingly go abroad.

Domain Name

Other factors also play a role, such as work and education. Tuvalu has been one of the poorest countries in the world since it gained independence from the British Empire in 1978. That suddenly changed in 2000 when the country sold the domain name .tv for 50 million dollars. But it is not enough to guarantee a good future for everyone.

So people like Saloa count as economic migrants, because as climate refugees they have no legal leg to stand on. This became apparent when a man from Kiribati tried to apply for asylum in New Zealand in 2013 as a climate refugee. He stated that the rising sea level threatens his home and life in Kiribati. After a long battle, the Supreme Court rejected his asylum request in 2015, and he was expelled from the country.

That is why migration should be high on the agenda at the climate summit, according to former Kiribati president Anote Tong. “Small island nations in the Pacific have until 2060 before the countries are completely uninhabitable,” he says. He considers it inevitable that people will eventually have to move. “We cannot disappear into the sea like our country,” says the former president.

Tong was president of Kiribati, a country of more than 120,000 inhabitants, from 2003 to 2016. In 2014, he decided to buy a piece of land in Fiji for sixty to seventy thousand people, although his successor Taneti Maamau now uses the land for agriculture. The ex-president was with Thomas (‘Tommy’) Remengesau, former president of the Palau archipelago, in the Australian capital Canberra in September to lobby for the protection of their countries. “Because we are no longer government leaders, we can talk about our concerns passionately and directly,” Remengesau says. He has brought some shell necklaces with him from his country. He gives these to politicians he speaks to, to connect them to the islands. “The time for polite requests is over, it’s a matter of life and death.

Statelessness Convention

The question many Tuvaluans grapple with is what happens to residents of a country when it ceases to exist. The United Nations Statelessness Convention grants people the right to nationality, but the UN admits that climate change is putting this right under pressure. Yet climate migration is not a separate item on the agenda during the 27th climate summit in Egypt.

That is a missed opportunity, argue Elizabeth Ferris, professor of international migration at Georgetown University and researcher Reva Dhingra in the journal of the American think tank Brookings. “Climate migration will only increase. It is of the utmost importance that people are helped with this,” the two write.

It is a dilemma for many island nations. Governments don’t want to throw in the towel by admitting that many residents have to leave. In September, leaders of low-lying islands in the Pacific presented the ‘Rising Nations’ initiative at the United Nations. Kausea Natano, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, urged the international community to recognize the sovereignty and cultural heritage of these islands, even if they no longer exist in the future.

But this initiative is also based on adaptation, adaptation to climate change, and not on climate migration. So far, only Fiji and Vanuatu have made a national migration plan, though it doesn’t specify the exact numbers of residents to migrate and where to go. That is why the international community must step in, say the Brookings researchers. The climate financing of $100 billion per year from 2020, which was already pledged to developing countries in 2009, can contribute to this. “Where is that money? And how can it be used for climate mobility?”

It is well known that countries that are most impacted have often contributed the least to climate change. That is why lawyers are looking at whether rich countries that have caused the most emissions can be held liable. The Dutch climate lawyer Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh (37) is one of the pioneers of this initiative, which will probably be voted on by members of the United Nations before the end of the year. On behalf of the Vanuatu archipelago, she asks the International Court of Justice in The Hague about the obligations of rich countries to limit the consequences of climate change. If most UN countries agree to the request for advice from the court, it will be the first time that it will consider climate change and human rights.

Large shrimp

Of the approximately 5,000 Tuvaluans in New Zealand, more than 4,000 live in Auckland. On a Saturday in October, a few hundred of them gather in a suburban gym. On long tables are bowls full of king prawns, a whole pig, and local dishes such as taro, a root vegetable. The party to commemorate Hurricane Bebe, which wreaked havoc on the islands fifty years ago, starts early in the morning and lasts into the night. It is a celebration of the resilience of Tuvaluans.

The highlight is the fatele, the traditional Tuvaluan dance. Men and women sit on the floor singing while they beat the rhythm on a large box. Women in grass skirts and with wreaths of flowers dance barefoot. They gently rock their hips and move their arms slowly, as if bobbing on the waves.

Lotonui Iosefa-Naisali (31) dances the fatale that is unique to her island of Nukulaelae, one of the atolls of Tuvalu, with about three hundred inhabitants. She moved to Auckland when she was seven, but still isn’t quite at home in New Zealand. “I’ve felt for a long time that I had to leave a part of myself behind to adapt,” she says.

She has only been wearing her Tuvaluan background with pride for a few years now. She has a white flower garland on her curly hair, which flows over her shoulders. She fears that her culture and language will fade into oblivion as more and more people leave the islands. “In Tuvalu we are connected to the land and the ‘moana’, the sea. When we lose that connection, we also lose part of our identity,” says Iosefa-Naisali.

Her father, Suamalie Iosefa-Naisali, is one of the community leaders in Auckland. He has an urgent appeal to the international community in Egypt. “Save Tuvalu, you will save the world,” says Naisali. “If we can save a tiny country like ours from extinction, there is also hope that the rest of the world can be saved from the worst effects of climate change.”

Kelesoma Saloa tries to speak as much Tuvaluan as possible with his children, although they often answer in English. “The bond is broken,” he says dejectedly. “They don’t know Tuvalu. They never walked on the beach by moonlight, celebrated, lived everyday life. They have no idea.”

Saloa knows he won’t be the last to mourn his home. “Tuvalu may be the first to go down, but the whole world is at risk. This is the only home we have. We must do what we can to save it, it is almost too late.”

PACIFICAL: THE FIRST “GDST-CAPABLE” SEAFOOD COMPANY

Pacifical has become the first seafood company to pass the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST’s) Capability Test, demonstrating its ability to capture all data required by the GDST Standard, receiving and transmitting data in the correct formats, and using a standardized communications protocol. Pacifical’s online platform is called “SmarTuna”, an IT system that facilitates optimal visibility, verification, traceability, and certification in sustainable Pacific tuna value chains for all involved stakeholders.

“As promoters of fully traceable sustainably caught tuna from the Pacific Island nations, we see this as a revolutionary development and are enormously proud to be the first organization in the global seafood industry to be recognized as GDST capable,” said Cynthia Asaf, COO at Pacifical. “We want to provide all retailers and tuna supply chain actors, supporting the GDST initiative, the future ability to be able to receive all relevant traceability data from our fully verified sustainable Pacifical tuna, now in the GDST format. We encourage them to join us in our effort in making large scale interoperable traceability a reality.”

“Availability of the first software solutions to earn the ‘GDST-Capable’ logo represents a major advancement for digital seafood traceability,” said Greg Brown, Executive Director of the GDST. “We now have a realistic way for industry to know if software is capable of fully implementing the GDST Standard.” In order for seafood supply chain actors to be able to prove they can reliably receive GDST-compatible data, they will also first need to pass the GDST Capability Test.

Pacifical started this joint partnership with the GDST in 2021 by engaging in a beta pilot for their first-ever testing tool. This was designed to enable automatic computer-to-computer sharing of GDST-compatible data. Without dispute, the beta process was vital to demonstrate the verified capability of the SmarTuna platform to share data according to the GDST framework.

Transparency is key step in preventing illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing practices. Pacifical invites retailers, brands and tuna processors to implement GDST capable traceability in their tuna supply chain to show evidence that each individual end product has been caught and produced sustainably and in a socially-responsible way.

See original press release from the GDST:
https://traceability-dialogue.org/announces-first-gdst-capable-software/

About Pacifical

Pacifical verifies and promotes the catch, production, and distribution of sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna from the Pacific Island nations. Set up in 2013 by the 8 PNA nations Pacifical has pioneered and enabled the optimal exchange of tuna traceability and verification data also on the blockchain by gathering all relevant fishing, production and distribution data from catch till final delivery of each individual end product. In Oct 2022, Pacifical has successfully passed the capability test demonstrating the verified capability of its IT system to share data within the GDST framework. Pacifical’s SmarTuna online traceability platform facilitates value chain transparency, insights, verification, certification, and compliance to regulations: www.pacifical.com

About the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability

The GDST was organized in 2017 by WWF and the Institute of Food Technologists as an international, business-to-business platform to advance a unified framework for interoperable and verifiable seafood traceability. The GDST brings together companies from around the globe and across different parts of the seafood supply chain. In March 2020, after a multi-year industry-led drafting process, the GDST released the first-ever global standard governing information content and data formats specifically for seafood traceability systems. Learn more at www.traceability-dialogue.org

PNA MSC Certification Remains 100% FAD FREE

The Independent Adjudicator (IA) has determined that the world’s largest tuna purse seiner fishery, the PNA, should not be MSC certified for FADs and bigeye. This comes after a lengthy dispute process. The PNA purse seiner fishery remains MSC certified for free school skipjack and yellowfin catches.

John McKendrick, the IA, published his decision on October 12. He said the “objection is upheld in respect of PI 1.2.2 and 2.4.2.”  In December 2020, the PNA announced that it wanted to get its FAD catches MSC certified. However, soon after, the certification assessment body (CAB), Lloyd’s Register, gave the go-ahead for the scope extension, the fishery faced fierce opposition from several groups including the Coalition for Transparent Tuna Fisheries (CTTF). This past July, the IA remanded the CAB’s Final Draft Report despite dismissing 13 out of 15 objections against the PNA fishery. The adjudicator highlighted that the passing scores of 60 given by Lloyd’s for HCRs pertaining to the bigeye stock (PI 1.2.2.) and habitat management strategy (PI 2.4.2) in terms of FADs could not be justified.

A month after the IA’s report, the CAB objected to this ruling insisting that the grades that it gave for HCRs and habitat strategy in terms of FADs were justifiable. It especially insisted to the adjudicator that the PNA FAD fishery is complying with WCPFC’s management measures. But the IA has ignored this on the basis that this data was shared after the final hearing was concluded and therefore is not valid.

Given the fact that all stacked MSC certifications held by private companies and industry associations covering the PNA EEZs and high seas have all obtained MSC for both their FADs and bigeye based on the largest part of PNA’s management and research data, this negative ruling came as a surprise.

DELAY IN HCR COMMITMENT

In terms of Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) (PI 1.2.2) especially pertaining to bigeye stock, the IA said in Wednesday’s ruling that the crux of the CAB’s August assertion was that WCPFC’s conservation management measure reads that “… an agreement or framework is in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY is met, given that: i) There is a binding commitment to develop and implement an HCR for bigeye tuna; ii) There is a binding commitment to maintain stocks at or above BMSY.”

McKendrick explained that he does not accept this argument because of the lack of a causative link between the two statements. He said that if the CAB is correct and PNA meets the requirement that an agreement or framework be in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY, then it is surprising that there is no clear statement to that effect. He finds “the CAB has not been able to show the management body has committed to introduce harvest control rules before big eye tuna stocks decline below BMSY. They certainly have not demonstrated a clear commitment in that regard.”

The IA also pointed out that MSC CABs themselves have been troubled by WCPFC’s delay in establishing HCRs, and their adopting a hard deadline for the harvest strategy conditions for the PNA fishery and others.  “If the commitment exists, reading across the WCPFC CMMs, why then was it necessary for the CAB and other CABs to adopt a “hard deadline”? Either the commitment exists or it does not.” So he thinks the score of 60 for PI 1.2.1 has not been met.

EVIDENCE DISCOUNTED IN HABITAT STRATEGY

In terms of FAD habitat strategy, the IA said that he considered the various pieces of evidence submitted by Lloyd’s but “the six categories of evidence/documents in the CAB’s post remand decision was not properly part of the objection process and cannot be fairly and properly considered by the IA.”

He had already pointed out in his previous decision in July that he was not satisfied with the CAB’s views expressed in the Final Draft Report and that there was an inconsistency in the PNA’s compliance with the respective conservation measures.

The IA concluded on FADs that “given the CAB relies on this information to justify the score of 60, I cannot be satisfied the score of 60 is justified.”

While this whole arbitration process has been going on, several other fisheries such as Tri Marine, OPAGAC, and US Pacific Tuna Group received their MSC logos, which all included bigeye and FADs within the PNA EEZs. As recently as July, FCF collaborating with Nauru Authorities, was the 11th WCPO FAD set fishery to gain certification, which also received its bigeye catch certified as sustainable. In September, three seiner companies that already have the MSC logo for their commercial tuna catches in Micronesia and the WCPO high seas, asked for a scope extension to include free school and FAD-caught volumes from all PNA EEZs. This comprised skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tonnages.

Despite losing this long adjudication process over the scope extension with FADs and bigeye, the PNA purse seiner fishery remains active asn certified for free school skipjack and yellowfin catches. It is scheduled for re-certification in March 2023. This process could provide them a second chance of getting FADs and bigeye included.

Update – scope extension for the PNA Western and…

The independent adjudicator (IA) has published his decisions on the scope extension for the PNA Western and Central Pacific fishery on bigeye and FAD sets; 13 out of the 15 objections were dismissed which included overturning arguments against FADs, which means this fishery could likely soon include FAD sets. However, the IA stated that scores for harvest control rules (HCRs) pertaining to the bigeye stock management and habitat strategy cannot be justified, which means it cannot obtain MSC certification at this stage.

Objection submitted by the Coalition for Transparent Tuna Fisheries (CTTF) includes concerns on the CAB’s scores for several indicators including the FAD fishery’s impact on sharks and bycatch as well as the lack of HCRs and harvest strategy. All parties have been in an adjudication phase early this year and a hearing took place in Dubai and online from 4 to 6 April 2022.

The fact that PNA failed to add bigeye to the MSC scheme is not what was expected considering that at the same time the objection and adjudication processes were taking place, several other fisheries in the same catching area such as Tri Marine, OPAGAC, and US Pacific Tuna Group received their MSC logos, which all included bigeye and FADs. Early this month, FCF collaborating with Nauru Authorities, was the 11th WCPO FAD set fishery to gain certification, which also got bigeye catch certified as sustainable.

HCRS FOR BIGEYE

In the July 12 document, John McKendrick, the IA, remanded two scores by the CAB – HCRs, especially concerning the bigeye stock (PI 1.2.2), and habit strategy (PI 2.4.2). The assessor gave a passing grade of 60 for HCRs. The IA pointed to the WCPFC’s work plan for conservation measures for tuna species, and even though the RFMO has a strategy for managing the bigeye stock, it is clear that there is no measure or WCPFC decision that HCRs will be in place before this tuna stock declines below the biomass’ maximum sustainable yield.

“The CAB’s score of 60 cannot be justified. It is simply incorrect,” ruled McKendrick in terms of HCRs. This effectively bars certification of the bigeye catch by seiners within the PNA region.

FAD SCOPE EXTENTION

The adjudicator gave a comprehensive report on his deliberations. He listed the fifteen separate grounds of objections from opposing parties and dismissed 13 of them, including the impact of drifting FADs (dFADs) on endangered threatened and protected (ETP) species outcome, management, and information (PI 2.3.1, P.3.2.2, and PI 2.3.3).

He said that the overall thrust of CTTF’s case was that dFAds were causing significant harm across the marine environment, and the seiners in PNA waters were not using biodegradable and non-entangling dFADs. All this, in the Coalition’s view, contributed to high levels of ghost fishing and this combination had a particularly deadly effect on silky sharks. CTTF argued that on ETP species outcome, management, and information the scores of 60 could not be justified. The IA said that much of the evidence presented by the objector was focused on the wider Pacific and not on the Unit of Assessment (UoA) in the PNA EEZs.

“I have little hesitation in finding that dFAds contribute to silky shark and turtle mortality, however, the issue is whether the direct effects of the Unit of Assessment are highly likely to not hinder recovery of silky sharks, turtles, or other ETP species. The CAB have carefully considered this issue and assigned differing scores for differing ETP species,” reads the document. He concluded that “known direct effects of UoA are highly likely to not hinder the recovery of ETP species and the scores are therefore justified.”

He also tossed out several other opposing arguments. Under compliance and enforcement (PI3.2.3), the CAB had scored the PNA fishery 100. CTTF said that there was deliberate abandonment of FADs taking place in this fishery but McKendrick explained that placing FADs in the water for commercial fishing does not constitute deliberate dumping of these devices by the PNA or “that it contravenes any of the international conventions which deal with pollution.”

CTTF argued that PNA had no strategy to minimize the environmental impacts of FADs and that there was no evidence of work plans or time frames for implementing a transition to non-entangling FADs and biodegradable devices. The IA reacted that he was not satisfied with the CAB’s report and views expressed in the FDR and there seems to be an inconsistency in PNA’s compliance with respective measures regarding this MSC indicator. He said the CAB should further investigate this issue and reevaluate the grade. This makes it unclear if FAD fishing is now considered MSC certified or not.

The IA also pointed out the objector presented the Human Rights at Sea report entitled “Fisheries Observer Deaths at Sea, Human Rights and the Role and Responsibilities of Fisheries Organizations as part of the evidence. Although this paper presents serious concerns about labor abuses of observers working at sea on commercial fisheries, there is no evidence to suggest that the PNA fishery has a “significant problem with compliance and enforcement.”

He concluded that the final draft report has been remanded and expressed his regret for his delayed decision “caused by the complexity of the issues, the quantity of reading required to determine the issues, and other professional demands.”

Now the ball is in the CAB’s court for the next step but the PNA fishery has been mostly vindicated. At the same time, the question arises of how most of the 11 WCPO purse seiner MSC certifications could pass on bigeye and all of them on FADs, whereas most of their data and compliance are based on the same management measures as PNA, and are basically stacked upon the world’s largest MSC tuna certification.

IMPACT ON OTHER MSC-CERTIFIED FISHERIES

The PNA tuna fishery was the first in the world to be certified for free school skipjack and yellowfin back in 2011. It has around 150 tuna vessels under its MSC certification in the WCPO and many of these also fall under separate certifications such as Tri Marine, FCF, and Dongwon. But now the adjudicator has ruled that the CAB’s positive score over HRCs, especially pertaining to bigeye “is simply incorrect”. Last July, even the MSC warned that 22 WCPO-certified fisheries are in danger of being suspended as there is no harvest strategy and HCRs in place.

It is astonishing that purse seiners operating under the PNA certification will not be considered to be fishing sustainably on bigeye, but under the other certifications these very same vessels in the same PNA waters are considered fully sustainable and MSC approved. There are 11 certified purse seine fisheries in the WCPO, already five hold the blue logo for bigeye — the US Pacific Tuna Group, Nauru skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye fishery, PNG FIA, OPAGAC, and Micronesia tuna fishery. The others such as Tri Marine, WPSTA WCPO fishery, and Solomon Islands are all undergoing assessment for bigeye.

It is essential to note that according to the 2020 assessment of bigeye by the SPC, the WCPO stock is fished below the maximum sustainable yield and the biomass of the population indicates that it is not overfished. However, there are no HCRs but the WCPFC has plans for management procedures in its mixed-fisheries framework for skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye, and South Pacific albacore. On this basis, CABs have certified the other five MSC certifications to be fully sustainable on bigeye.

The unavoidable question arises, given the adjudicator glaringly highlighted that the current WCPFC conservation measures are insufficient to help the bigeye stock, should it not also affect the other fisheries which have achieved the sustainable certification for Thunnus obesus? Because this is where the MSC harmonization rule kicks in.

On its website, the MSC states this about overlapping fisheries. “Those that target the same stocks, operate within the same management frameworks and impact the same habitats and species – should receive consistent scores and conditions of certification. When overlapping fisheries are assessed, they must go through a harmonization process to make sure scores and conditions have been consistently applied by assessors.”

However, the MSC itself explained that there is ambiguity around how assessors should coordinate the harmonization process. This has led to uncertainty, and delays in assessments and surveillance audits.

There are now discussions about what step the MSC should take in this situation. Should it give a blanket statement saying that bigeye for other WCPO certifications should be remanded and fisheries in assessments cannot continue with the process for this tuna stock? And what precedent would that set for other gears such as longliners catching bigeye?

An MSC spokesperson said that outcome of the scope extension assessment will have no immediate effect on other certified fisheries as decisions by IAs are not precedent setting. “The MSC is reviewing the Independent Adjudicator’s decision to understand how our Standard has been interpreted by those involved in this assessment and to understand any wider impacts of this decision.”

The spokesperson pointed out that “this outcome demonstrates the checks and balances in place to ensure the rigor of MSC certification within the dynamic and complex context of fisheries management. International agreement on harvest strategies is one of the biggest challenges facing tuna fisheries globally. ”The entire tuna sector will be watching closely what the final reasoning and the consequences of this rather controversial ruling against PNA bigeye will be for all current WCPO certifications, and how this will be explained to the retail trade and the public.

Pacifical Completes GDST Beta Capability Test

Pacifical, the only seafood industry member to take part of the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST) beta-Capability Test, has successfully completed all the steps in the beta testing environment. Their advancement towards GDST IT capability signals that they will be in a leading position to verify the capability of their system when the final version of the test is formally launched later this quarter.

All Pacifical partners involved in the supply chain of bringing MSC certified skipjack and yellowfin from small Pacific Island nations to consumers, will have the ability to receive sustainable tuna traceability data meeting the GDST standard. For brands or retailers to be able to prove they can reliably receive GDST-compatible data, they will also need to comply with the IT requirements of the standard and pass the GDST Capability Test.

“We are excited to be at the forefront of this important step for the tuna industry and look forward to continue the cooperation with the GDST to enhance traceability, facilitate compliance and increase the verifiability of seafood supply chains.” adds Cynthia Asaf, COO of Pacifical.

Pacifical is inviting retailers, brands and tuna processors who are part of the GDST initiative to cooperate together by adding further accountability and reliability to tuna sourcing. Implementing GDST capable traceability contributes to evidencing that each individual end product has been caught and produced sustainably and in a socially-responsible way.

Pacifical has promoted the importance of traceability since inception, therefore aligning Pacifical’s Key Data Elements (KDEs) and Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) with the GDST EPCIS language is a crucial and exciting milestone. Transparency is vital for the future of sustainable fisheries, not only because it is “interesting data”, but because it is a key step to eliminate Illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing practices.

TODAY WE CELEBRATE TUNA

And its pacific custodians. To ensure future generations enjoy tuna for good, the choice is simple. Support those caring for the resource.

Tokelau

Tokelau is a dependent territory of New Zealand. 1500 people live on 3 tropical coral atolls (Atafu, Nukunonu and Fakaofo). A 100% solar powered nation. With 65% of their government income coming from fishing revenues, tuna pays for their schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Celebrate WTD with Tokelau today!

Tuvalu

One of the fourth smallest countries in the world, but its tuna-rich EEZ is twice the size of Spain. About 100 million kgs of skipjack, yellowfin and big-eye from here are consumed around the world yearly. Making the 12000 Tuvaluans key actors in guarding the health of our tuna stocks.

HAPPY WORLD TUNA DAY

May 2nd is our day. The day in which communities, firms and NGOs all across the globe commemorate the existence of tuna and emphasize the importance of its sustainable management to have it available for generations to come.

Did you know that World Tuna Day was first celebrated as a small event in 2011, in Alotau, Papua New Guinea? We are certainly happy to see that 10 years later, it has rightly become a global event.

Pacifical Partners Ask Tuna Fishing Companies to Adopt the…

Pacifical partners call for the Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard (RFVS) to be adopted in their MSC tuna supply chain. Retailers and brand owners, sourcing MSC tuna from the Pacific, are aware that labor conditions in wild capture fisheries, such as tuna, are difficult to observe and monitor, due to the remote nature of their workplace. The RFVS certification can play an important role in providing assurances for crew members and their families, but also to End of Chain tuna buyers.

The potential for workers in the fishing industry to be exposed to exploitation, due to the challenging environment of working at sea, is a reality. In some instances, there could be inadequate living facilities onboard the vessels, physically dangerous working conditions, lack of safety equipment, excessive working hours and low wages.

The RFVS specifically focuses on ensuring the crew’s rights, their welfare and safety on board and provides comprehensive assurances of vessel best management practices from catch to shore. The standard was developed to be in alignment with International Labor Organization (ILO) C188, the fundamental ILO labor conventions, as well as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN International Marine Organization (IMO).

The RFVS is offered by the Global Seafood Alliance (GSA). The RFVS is not an industry based social accountability standard, but rather a one designed through a global multi stakeholder engagement process. Developed in line with ISO 17065 requirements to ensure that impartial, robust, and credible certification decisions are made by independent certification bodies. It is also the first vessel standard program to apply for the new SCCI At-Sea Operations Benchmark.

Pacifical partners, including Simplot Australia, producers of John West Tuna products, are backing the move to have vessels adopt the Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard (RFVS) in the Western Pacific region. Simplot sources 100% Marine Stewardship Council certified skipjack tuna, from the waters of the PNA Pacifical Island nations. Graham Dugdale, Managing Director Simplot Australia, said, “Ensuring that our John West tuna products are responsibly sourced is of paramount importance to our business. This extends beyond the way fish are caught, it runs through the entire supply chain and includes protecting the human rights of the people working on fishing vessels.”

“Knowing that fair working and living conditions are undertaken on board these vessels is vital and integral to our business values. We are committed to increasing our visibility of human rights, enhancing practices and remediating any issues that we may find.”

The PNA nation’s observers bring an extra dimension to social accountability on board. They are their eyes and ears on board of purse seiner vessels. Daily, they monitor and report on everything that happens on the boat, including living and working conditions. These observations will assist in continuously monitoring compliance with the RFVS program.

“Without these crews and observers hard work we would not have any sustainable tuna. So ensuring their daily well-being is fundamental to us all. The RFVS governance is a further evolution of the already robust practices that we have in place across our Pacifical supply chain. With our fishing partners we will work closely together to further improve on-board practices and conditions” says Henk Brus, Chief Executive Officer at Pacifical.

Working under one social standard within PNA waters brings several benefits for Pacifical’s fishing partners. The social accountability criteria will be clear for all crew, captains and fishing masters, the management staff and human resources department. Social accountability claims will be independently verified onboard, on a trip-to-trip basis. Default and simplified independent verification processes will replace the self-assessment protocols currently in place.