By Pita Ligaiula in Manila, Philippines
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is approaching a critical juncture regarding the management of bigeye tuna, with experts cautioning that important decisions must be reached this week to keep the region’s fisheries management strategy on track.
A comprehensive report from the Pacific Community’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC-OFP) outlines the essential choices WCPFC22 is faced with, as the commission aims to establish a Management Procedure (MP) for bigeye tuna by 2026. The document encapsulates years of technical research and emphasizes the need for the Commission to provide significant input to inform future actions.
Among the six key areas highlighted for decision-making at WCPFC22 are the target reference point, assumptions regarding Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) closures, output metrics, and the management of bigeye catch taken by fisheries outside of the MP’s control. WCPFC21 had previously identified three candidate target reference points based on data from 2012 to 2015, but the SPC urges members to assess if these truly align with their management goals and whether they should be viewed as targets or thresholds, each requiring distinct likelihoods of achievement.
Further complicating the matter is the mixed nature of bigeye tuna fisheries. Only about 27 percent of the total bigeye catch is attributed to the tropical longline fleet, which operates under the MP’s authority. In contrast, approximately 17 percent comes from the archipelagic waters of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, areas where reporting is unreliable, leading to rising catch levels.
The SPC has also put forth “sensitivity scenarios” to evaluate the MP’s effectiveness under existing conditions and possible increases in catches beyond its reach, particularly due to changes in Indonesia’s domestic fisheries.
An additional pressing issue is related to the purse-seine fishery and the use of FAD closures. The SPC interim analyses are based on the assumption that existing closure systems will remain in place. However, some WCPFC members advocate for testing MPs without a FAD closure baseline, while others propose that closure periods should be integrated into the MP. This matter is now positioned as a political decision requiring clarification from the Commission.
The Scientific Committee (SC21) has largely endorsed the technical framework and highlighted the need for harmonious integration of bigeye management strategies with those for other species like yellowfin, skipjack, and South Pacific albacore, emphasizing aligned performance indicators.
Time is of the essence as WCPFC is required to deliver a bigeye MP by 2026, and the SPC has raised concerns that the current timeline leaves limited room for substantial dialogue in the upcoming year.
The paper encourages WCPFC to explore additional mechanisms for strategic guidance in 2026, a sentiment strongly supported by WWF Japan. Uematsu Shuhei, representing WWF, warned that delays in the management strategies for bigeye and yellowfin would yield significant repercussions if agreements continue to be postponed, stating, “If Harvest Strategy with Management Procedure and Harvest Control Rules for both species agreement delay, not only it will sustainable fisheries become more distant, but also it could have negative impacts on fisheries and markets in the future.”
As the WCPFC convenes, the decisions made in the coming days could prove pivotal in shaping the future of bigeye tuna management and the sustainability of fisheries in the Pacific region.
Leave a comment