The Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s managing director, Richard McLoughlin, claims Japan has been exceeding its quota of southern bluefin tuna for the last 20 years and not just by a few fish. In an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald entiled ‘Revealed: how Japan caught and hid $2b worth of rare tuna’ he claims they have been catching 3 times their quota.*
But last time I read-up on the issue, it was apparent Japan never agreed to operate within the quote that it had been allocated. This is what I wrote at this blog on 1st June last year:
“I was concerned to learn that the Southern bluefin tuna fishery is shared with Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and New Zealand. The total global catch peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes and was then in general decline for three decades. Since 1990 the total catch has ranged from between 13,231 tonnes (1994) to 19,588 tonnes (1999). Stock assessments suggest that the parental biomass is low but stable and unlikely to recover to target levels unless all countries agree to abide by national allocations as determined by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. While Australia apparently operates within its allocation, Japan has not agreed to operate within its allocation, and Indonesia does not recognise the Commission.”
The Sydney Morning Herald article does not appear to have been properly research and it doesn’t look like the Japanese were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story? Furthermore, is it appropriate for Mr McLoughlin to describe the Japanese action as ‘fraud’ if they never agreed to a quota?
—————–
*According to the Sydney Morning Herald article: Mr McLoughlin was speaking at an ANU seminar in a speech recorded and posted on the internet and the official findings of an inquiry into the issue were presented at an international meeting in Canberra in July, but kept confidential. I’ve had a quick look for the speech on the internet but couldn’t find it. If you can, please post the url as a comment or send me an email jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It seems like Japan has a very huge appetite for tuna. Not only do they exceed quotas in your part of the world, but more than 90 per cent of post-harvested ( tuna -fattening in farm)tuna in the Mediterranean Sea goes to Japan.
If nothing is done , wild blue-fin tuna will completely disappear from the Mediterranean Sea.
I think the only tuna that it is really OK to eat is skipjack tuna.
A friend of mine, a French chef( who claims he has been a chef for former US president Gerald Ford, don’t know if this is really true) said to me that he never serves his guests sushi or tuna after witnessing tuna-fattening farms in France.
Jennifer, the CSIRO has a brief run down on bluefin tuna http://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/31sbt/31sbt.html
Japan is a signatory the CCSBT (Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna) and the CCSBT has released the following item;
COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF SOUTHERN BLUEFIN
TUNA (CCSBT)
STATEMENT OF POSITION
The CCSBT met at its headquarters in Canberra, Australia to discuss results from independent reviews of Japanese SBT market data and Australian SBT farming operations.
The results were analysed on a confidential basis, with a view to their being taken into account in a stock assessment, which will be conducted at the Scientific Committee in September and will be discussed further at the annual meeting to be held in October.
No conclusions have been reached and all matters are still under consideration.
Reporting of conclusions is premature and discussions around them will remain confidential until considered again at the October meeting.
http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/news.html
Still trying to find some more about this, but I’m interested in why Japan is singled out here despite overseas suppliers also being accused. Is it right that overseas suppliers’ catch be lumped in with Japan’s quota? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me on the surface of it.
Also elsewhere:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=101526
“Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton says new monitoring systems are working well, and that is how the issue has come to a head. But he says that it is not just Japan. Despite blowing the whistle on Japan, Mr Anderton says Australia has also been caught catching more bluefin tuna than it is allowed to.
Mr Anderton says now those countries know they have been caught, they must make sure the overfishing stops now. He says he will be pushing hard for the offending countries’ quotas to be lowered as punishment. He says he will be making his opinion clear at a regional meeting on the issue in Tokyo at the end of the year”
Doubt very much if the Japanese or anyone else are going to curb the catches of this species because they have been caught exceeding the quotas. The Japanese are the market basically -so how can we expect them to reduce the fishing pressure? It would merely raise the price and make it more worthwhile for the others to exceed their quotas. Unfortunately the Japanese appear willing to go on paying very high prices for tuna and that will continue to give everyone every incentive to continue overfishing. The most likely outcome is a stock collapse and some countries may be forced out of the game, but the Japanese will remain the major fisher and buyer even then.
Closing the lifecycle of this and the other tuna species might make a difference, but the Japanese have expended quite a bit of effort on this for the last 20 years with no success – perhaps it’s simply not possible.
If the life cycle could be closed there is the possibility that farm reared fish could be fed artifical feeds with a better FCR than present. Right now the practice of fattening wild caught fish is extremely profitable, but also extremely wasteful as the FCR ranges from 8-12 and that has all sorts of eternal costs -ie environmental impacts.
Does anyone else see problems and inconsistencies with these comments below?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1714860.htm
Senator Ian Campbell says if Australia stops fishing southern blue fin tuna it would also mean withdrawing from the conservation commission set up to protect the fish.
He says that would be walking away from international efforts to ensure the species survives.
“Not only would it be counter-productive for Australia’s environment and for the survival of the species but it would also be very, very catastrophic for another species and that is for Australian fishermen and their families,” Senator Campbell said.
I’ve been looking in the Japanese media for mention of this (a little, not too hard admittedly) but haven’t been able to find anything about it so far, other than basic translated version of the allegations from the Australian newspaper.
Hi Jennifer,
Please clarify, are you suggesting that as long as the Japanese Fisheries Ministry did not agree to a quota to protect sustainable Tuna stocks, it is perfectly ok for them to unsustainably plunder the ‘commons’ of fish that belong to everyone?
How do you feel this reflects on the claims by the Japanese Fisheries Ministry’s delegation to the IWC that they only wish to hunt whales in the ‘commons’ sustainably; bearing in mind that any nation member of the IWC can opt out of any IWC agreed quota?
Is this not a perfect example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the urgent requirement for a properly funded global organisation to enforce genuinely sustainable fishing practises by all nations fishing in international waters?
Lamna nasus,
I didn’t say that I agree with the Japanese position – simply that their position was not correctly reported by the SMH.
My opinion is here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000874.html .
Hi Jennifer,
I understand the point you are trying to make, however my remarks concern the ‘commons’.
Isnt the Great Barrier Reef coral trout fishery in Australian territorial waters, where sustainable use is enforceable?
Hasn’t the Australian government kept to the CSSBT ‘sustainable’ Tuna quota?
In view of the Japanese Fisheries Ministries continued disregard for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and both the Japanese and Indonesian fisheries disregard for the CSSBT quota; how is the Australian government placing the Southern Bluefin Tuna on a protected list going to make any difference to the fishery, except excluding Australian fishermen, who are playing by the rules?
I return to my point about the ‘tragedy of the commons’.
Lamna nasus,
And the text at the link provided suggested:
“Maybe the solution is for the Australian government to put pressure on Indonesia and Japan. So why doesn’t Minister Campbell put some efforts in here – rather than jumping up and down over whaling when Minke whales populations (the species the Japanese and Noreweigans want to harvest) are not under threat.
In summary, as I see it, coral trout and minke whales can be sustainably harvested but the Minister opposes whaling and is putting coral trout fishers out of business. The Minister acknowledges problems with the southern bluefin tuna fishery but will do nothing.”
So I was suggesting that there is a need for an international agreement to avoid the ‘tragedy of the commons’.
Joint statement from the CCSBT after the recent meeting here:
http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/pdf/news/Statement_of_Position.pdf
“No conclusions have been reached and all matters are still under consideration.
Reporting of conclusions is premature and discussions around them will remain confidential until considered again at the October meeting.”
Interesting that details of criticism of Japan’s market controls were leaked.
One can but wonder what was said at the same meeting about Australia’s southern bluefin farming operations. Perhaps this is what Jim Anderton was refering to.
There is a document by Masayuki “minke whales = cockroaches of the sea” Komatsu here from 1999 including some criticisms of Australia’s SBT activities.
http://www.suisankai.or.jp/iken_e/iken99_e/ik005_e.html
Kind of old history now, but interesting reading.
“stocks declined because Australia’s purse-seine vessels caught large numbers of juvenile, small tuna (i.e., those under 2 years of age and weighing approximately less than 10-20 kilograms). In response, Japan actively helped conserve and restore those stocks by providing the Australian fishing industry with massive sums of financial resources and technical support to reduce catches of juvenile and small-size SBT.”
“Australia has increased its catches of juveniles and small fish-an approach that has a strongly negative impact in terms of the sustainable use of stocks – while also hypocritically selling those catches to the Japanese market.”
Hi Jennifer,
Intoducing stricter quotas because there is a problem with the sustainability of a fishery, always means less fish after the quotas are introduced and that always means less fishermen if the quotas are strictly enforced.
The Minister is putting some coral trout fishers out of business because the industry has over capacity and is threatening the sustainability of the fishery and the Minister is in a position to do something about that to protect the livelyhoods of the remainig coral trout fishers with allocated quotas that can be enforced.
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/statusfisheries/statusline.htm
The Minister is ‘jumping up and down’ about Minke whales because at present there is no IWC agreement about sustainability of the fishery, no guarantee over quota acceptance and no agreement over quota supervision. Until that changes the moratorium ensures that only a very limited number of minke whales are hunted, thus protecting the ‘commons’.
Australia has signed up to the CCSBT where the Australian Fisheries Ministry is respecting the internationally recommended quota but the Japanese and Indonesian Fisheries Ministries are not. In the news reports the Minister appears to indicate that the only way to try to pressure the other parties into recognising and enforcing sustainable quotas is to remain in the CSSBT and continue to negotiate; I do not see how that is doing ‘nothing’ since as far as I am aware he cannot unilateraly declare the fishery protected.
What international agreement are you refering to that will improve on the CSSBT?
If the Japanese and Indonesian Fisheries Ministries will not recognise the CSSBT quotas, what makes you think they will respect any other agreement?
How do you propose the Australian government puts more ‘pressure’ on them if they ignore the CSSBT and in the case of the Japanese Fisheries Ministry, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary as well?
‘while also hypocritically selling those catches to the Japanese market.’
Strangely the Japanese market saw no hypocrisy in buying those catches. :o)
I believe if you want to be any wiser on this issue you need a read-up on RFMOs( Regional Fisheries Management Organisations) and be familiar with:
The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001)
Seems like I’m not the only one thinking something smells about the leak of this allegation:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1713595.htm
Tuna Boat Owners Association president Brian Jeffriess says there is no hard evidence for them.
“That’s a huge amount of fish and a huge amount of money – it’s a bit hard to believe frankly,” he said.
“Think again – people need to be careful to check some of that facts if they know them before they speculate.
“Pick on Japan happens to be flavour of the month and people need to be very careful about it.”
—
I really want to hear more about this report now – but it seems that even once the facts come out they probably don’t make as good headlines as such allegations.
Hi Ann,
I understand the point you are making regarding UNFA.
However the entirety of this Agreement is not universally accepted..
‘With respect to the new Pacific convention based on UNFA, this has not yet been adopted into law and may never be adopted, as it is not liked by either Japan or Korea who are lobbying some of the Latin American countries to oppose it.’
It should also be noted that the wording of this agreement..
‘the right of States party to the Agreement to monitor and inspect vessels of the other state parties, to verify compliance with internationally agreed fishing rules of regional fisheries organizations such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)’..
means that if states are not signatories or have registered an objection to a quota limit then they could mount a legal challenge to another state unilateraly enforcing restrictions on their fishing vessels. A fact that the Agreement recognises by allowing for a..
‘settlement mechanism to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner.’
http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/Papers/unclos.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1720665.htm
Japan reserves comment on tuna catch claims
By Shane McLeod in Tokyo
Japan says it is premature to respond to allegations of over-fishing of southern blue fin tuna.
The Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s chief executive, Richard McLoughlin, has accused Japan of repeatedly exceeding its quota of the tuna.
He says Japan has illegally taken $2 billion worth of southern blue fin tuna worldwide over the past 20 years.
Japan’s Fisheries Ministry says it is premature to respond to the claims.
An official in Tokyo has told the ABC that research into alleged over-fishing by both Japanese boats and Australian tuna farmers was commissioned last year.
The official says it will be considered by a conservation body at its annual meeting in October.
The ministry announced earlier this year that Japan had exceeded its 2005 quota by 25 per cent.
——-
Seems that they are open about it there – I wonder where the rest of the fish are coming from?
More on the 25% here…
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200603150187.html
Tagging bluefin tuna to prevent overfishing
03/15/2006
By Yasushi Sato, The Asahi Shimbun
Responding to an outcry over excessive fishing by Japan, the Fisheries Agency says that from April all southern bluefin tuna must be tagged when caught.
Under the requirement, each fish will be given a number along with the fishing boat’s name, agency officials said.
In the 2004-05 fishing season, Japanese boats exceeded their quota of 6,065 tons by at least 1,500 tons, agency officials said.
The global quota, set by the Canberra-based Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), was 14,080 tons.
Japan is allowed to catch the most tuna, followed by Australia at 5,265 tons and South Korea and Taiwan at 1,140 tons each.
Fatty southern bluefin tuna is highly favored as a sashimi dish.
The agency investigated Japan’s excessive catch after Australia raised the issue at the annual CCSBT meeting in October.
To tighten control, the agency will allocate domestic quotas to each registered operator, officials said.
All tagged data will be reported to port authorities when ships return home.
The agency says a farm ministry ordinance will impose penalties on violators, a prison term of up to two years or a maximum fine of 500,000 yen.
Businesses that process or sell southern bluefin tuna caught in excess of the annual quota will be punished.
Previously, operators faxed in their total-catch reports to the agency, which instructed them to stop fishing when the international quota was reached.(IHT/Asahi: March 15,2006)
‘Japanese boats exceeded their quota of 6,065 tons by AT LEAST (my capitals) 1,500 tons’ –
$22 per kilo*
1000 kilos to the metric ton(tonne)= $22,000
‘at least’ 1,500 metric tons = $33,000,000
20 years @ $33,00,000 per year= $660,000,000
Those are ballpark figures from details on the web but Tsukiji’s Tuna Auction keeps accurate records of prices and the Japanese Fisheries Ministry keeps less accurate records of quotas and how much they have been exceeded by……..so why the delay in releasing those figures?
The Japanese Fisheries Ministry need to spin the story through the ‘sustainable development’, ‘picking on Japan’, ‘there are worse culprits than us’ and ‘we have learnt from past mistakes and are now taking steps to rectify the situation’ filters and all that stuff takes time to research.
The blame game should go to extra time.
‘Since 1997, the CCSBT has failed to reach
agreement on the global TAC for its members……………Japan, the final destination for 99% of SBT, has not previously agreed to be limited to its national allocation of 6065 tonnes…………..Member governments of the SBT commission agreed in October 2003 that the way to bring major players to the table was to INCREASE (my capitals) the TAC to 14,030 tonnes/year.
– INFOFISH
Fishing Technology Digest for Asia-Pacific
Issue No. 48 • Kuala Lumpur • Oct – Dec 2004
‘Seems that they are open about it’ –
Brazen is the correct word, not ‘open’. :o)
* – In actuality the tuna price per kilo, depending on the quality can be substantially more. The record for a single tuna is 100,000 yen per kilogram, approx.$840 per kg.
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3774221a11,00.html
New Zealand’s media has finally caught up.
“We view over-catch by any country as a very serious matter,” Mr Anderton said yesterday. “As a matter of principle, New Zealand has always believed that if, in international arrangements, you over-catch your entitlement, you should pay it back.”
I agree with Anderton – at least that the effect of the overfishing should be considered by the Scientific Committee and their advice heeded. Unfortunately it seems that politicians at the CCSBT are just as unlikely to listen to scientific advice as are politicians at the IWC.
“Mr Anderton said the commission was reviewing anomalies in Australia’s tuna farming operations and in Japan’s market data. Findings will be analysed by a scientific committee, due to meet in October, which will then pass on its advice to the commission.”
Excellent 🙂 Hopefully the politicians listen.
One thing I still am yet to see evidence of is the allegation that it was Japan’s fishers who exceeded their quotas. Of course, they have acknowledged the problem on their side, but does that account for all the fish on the market? Everyone sells the fish to Tsukiji, not just the Japanese fishers.
Greenpeace in the action again:
“French fishermen block Greenpeace boat”
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3774314a7693,00.html
Here’s Anderton’s press release:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=26866
I wrote to Jim recently commending his work as Ministry of Fisheries. He’s been doing a good job as far as I have been able to see.
‘In the 2004-05 fishing season, Japanese boats exceeded their quota of 6,065 tons by at least 1,500 tons, agency officials said.’ – Asahi Shimbun quote posted by David, August 22nd 2006
‘One thing I still am yet to see evidence of is the allegation that it was Japan’s fishers who exceeded their quotas’ – David, 24th August 2006
‘I really do not see the signal’ – Admiral Horatio Nelson, deliberately holding the telescope to his blind eye at the Battle of Copenhagen, 2nd April 1801.
:o)
:o)
:o)
I am wondering if anyone has been able to get their hands on Mr McLoughlin’s speech he made at an ANU seminar which was posted on the internet and then retracted. I work for a newspaper and am trying to write a story on this subject. If someone could email it to me or post the link on this website I will be eternaly grateful!
Hi Danielle,
I think you will have a problem getting hold of a copy of the speech now, it was withdrawn because the minister made his comments under the Chatham House Rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule