An international organization that monitors most of the world’s tuna catch does not permit observers at its most important meeting, where compliance is discussed.
Just before the member nations’ delegates gather to consider compliance records for the past year, representatives of nongovernmental organizations are told to leave the room.
The demand for secrecy comes from nine small Pacific island nations, backed by New Zealand and Australia. The doors are closed despite support for openness by the United States, Japan, Canada, China and other member nations.
They all belong to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which “seeks to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (i.e. tunas, billfish, marlin) in the western and central Pacific Ocean.” The commission overseas 56% of the global tuna catch.
By contrast, all four other “regional fisheries management organizations” dealing with tuna allow observers at their meetings.
Readers: For notification of new postings please sign up for free in the right column. (No deluge, usually several a month.) Follow EYE on Blue Sky (tobymc.bsky.social), Twitter (@tobyjmcintosh) or via LinkedIn (Eye on Global Transparency).
Compliance Issues Discussed in Private
The WCPFC holds closed meetings when its Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) discusses whether the about 30 members are in compliance with commitments. So, for example, The Philippines got a “non-compliant” score for not taking “measures necessary to require all sharks retained on board their vessels are fully utilized and ensure the prohibition of finning.” The last TCC meeting was held in September, with the closed portion lasting about two days.
The major outcome of the meeting is the annual compliance monitoring report, which is made public. The 2023 Final Compliance Report runs to about 75 pages.
Pro-Transparency Efforts Rebuffed
Lobbying by NGOs to end the observer ban, in effect for about 20 years, has failed thus far.
A motion to change the rules is likely to come up at the annual WCPFC meeting that will begin Nov. 28.
But there are no signs that those opposed to letting NGOs observe the TCC meeting have changed their positions.
In September, letters urging more transparency were sent to 17 WCPFC members who support the observer ban by Accountability.Fish, an NGO “dedicated to improving the transparency and accountability of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).”
Only New Zealand replied, saying that the procedural decision is determined by the WSPFC consensus.
Ryan Orgera, Accountability Fish’s Global Director, commented: “New Zealand has a reputation as a country of laws with a commitment to international law. But its failure to stop WCPFC secrecy actually contradicts its obligations under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). The tone of the ministry’s response reflects a particular cavalier attitude towards those obligations and shames New Zealand.”
What’s discussed at the closed meetings “remains a bit of a mystery,” said Orgera, adding, “They are creating a sense of doubt where it might not be warranted.”
One argument for closed meetings that has been advanced is that commercially sensitive information could be disclosed. But a nonpublic US government report debunked this argument, Orgera said.
Accountability.Fish’s September letter addressed other objections to transparency, pointing out that NGOs have offered to sign non-disclosure agreements.
The letter to New Zealand said:
On numerous occasions delegates have stated that their opposition to observer attendance is based on the belief that certain nongovernmental organizations would be prone to “airing dirty laundry” discussed during these meetings, thus using that information to make jurisdictions, especially Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and members of Pacific Islands Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA), look bad to the public. In response, observers have offered to sign non-disclosure agreements; however, this does not seem to assuage the concerns of New Zealand or its peers. Moreover, delegates often state that the act of allowing observers into this process is unfair to nations because it invites a level of scrutiny that they feel is undue.
The letter continued:
But by blocking observer participation delegates are not protecting the interests of New Zealand, they are sowing seeds of doubt about what may be concealed during these meetings. Repeated assertions by WCPFC Secretariat staff and by various delegates that “nothing nefarious” is discussed in the draft report meeting sounds to civil society and market players as though members are in fact working to hide information. Irrespective of the reasoning, Accountabilty.Fish is confident that New Zealand’s role in blocking observers from participating in this important TCC meeting equates to a failure to uphold your obligations under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.
Dave Gershman, senior officer at The Pew Charitable Trusts, said, “Greater openness is a key part of building a more effective system and greater public confidence in how WCPFC manages its fisheries.”
Exclusion from the meetings keeps NGOs “from gaining a better understanding of the nature of the discussion, and doesn’t recognize the role observer organizations play,” he said.
Greater transparency “is an effective practice for enhancing the legitimacy of this process and generating better outcomes on the water,” Gershman said. The participation of observers “would add value to the compliance process,” he said, adding, “More specifically, observer organizations can act as watchdogs for the process, and can comment if they think it is being applied unfairly to any member.”
Gershman expanded:
Observer organizations possess resources that could be used to help members improve their compliance. A more transparent process could help observers target their efforts. Finally, observers also possess research and knowledge on effective practices for fisheries management, which would be of value when any deficiencies in the design of WCPFC measures are discussed in the context of compliance. Overall, more transparency would enhance the interaction between commission members and civil society.
For a broader look at RFMOs, and their transparency, see a 2024 Greenpeace report, Untangled – How the Global Ocean Treaty Can Help Repair High Seas Mismanagement.
