A recent publication by Ocean Nexus Research Fellow Angela Abolhassani examines the transboundary management of albacore tuna in the South Pacific. Inequities in current decision-making processes reveal that the management system, which includes scalar dynamics between regional and subregional institutions, needs significant reform.
South Pacific Albacore Tuna: What is “tuna-led’ economic development?”
Ocean Nexus Research Fellow Angela Abolhassani has been researching the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery for ten years. According to Dr. Abolhassani, South Pacific albacore “sources the only genuinely domestic industrial-scale tuna fishery in the Pacific.” In this fishery, Pacific Island countries not only sell fishing licenses but have also established their own domestic fishing operations. These operations expand their engagement in tuna production and distinguish the fishery from other fisheries in the region where Pacific Island countries primarily sell fishing licenses to foreign governments and fishing companies. By establishing their own tuna fisheries, Abolhassani says, “Pacific Island countries increase the range of economic benefits they receive from tuna and expand its role in the development of their national economies.”
Managing South Pacific albacore is complicated. As a highly migratory fish species, albacore traverse national and international maritime boundaries on migrations across the South Pacific. Due to this boundary-crossing behavior, international law mandates that countries cooperatively manage albacore. To address this responsibility, countries have negotiated to establish a range of international agreements at regional and subregional scales.
Mismanagement: A sign of deeper inequity issues
This complex web of different management scales has shaped the political and economic dynamics of tuna management in the South Pacific. Through careful analysis, we can see that the albacore fishery in the South Pacific has been mismanaged over the past decade, leading to lower catch rates and economic problems for domestic operators.
The actors most affected by the decline of the fishery–Pacific Island countries and territories–have been systemically disempowered due to scalar dynamics between regional and subregional management scales. Specifically, distant water fishing countries have manipulated the regional scale to obstruct management reform, exacerbating impacts on domestic operators. This case demonstrates the intersection of inequities in fisheries management and the chosen management scale. Scale is not neutral nor objective, and the scale of fisheries management matters. As Abolhassani emphasizes, “The scales at which we manage fisheries are entangled with conflicts over resource access and power dynamics among actors with divergent interests. Consequently from an equity perspective, empowering the appropriate stakeholders is crucial when determining management scales.”
Impact on communities and insights for consumers
Countries have manipulated regional and subregional management scales to advance their interests in the southern longline fishery that targets albacore in the South Pacific. It is evident that these dynamics present the need for management reform in the fishery–but how?
Abolhassani posits that there may not be one clear solution. Currently, the balance of power between management scales has worked against the reform efforts of Pacific Island countries that have been most impacted. Perhaps these countries would benefit from engaging voting procedures–an unprecedented action–to force management reform at the regional scale. Regardless, the burden of management reform should not fall on Pacific Island countries and territories alone. As the communities that have been simultaneously most affected and systemically disempowered by albacore fishery mismanagement, it is inequitable to leave the problem solving to them.
According to Abolhassani, the albacore fishery in the South Pacific is understudied; focus tends to be on tropical tuna fisheries, which represent a greater portion of the overall size and value of the tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. However, the South Pacific albacore fishery is important for Pacific Island countries, where it sources domestic fishing operations, onshore processing facilities, and artisanal fisheries and plays a critical role in their pursuit of “tuna-led” economic development.
Additionally, the albacore fishery in the South Pacific is particularly relevant for American consumers as the U.S. dominates the market for albacore canned tuna. Consumers need to know that there are inequitable dynamics that play a role in supplying the canned tuna on grocery market shelves. Therefore, when purchasing seafood like canned tuna it is critical to ask whether the source is not only environmentally sustainable, but socially equitable.
In the case of canned tuna, Abolhassani recommends American consumers search for tuna that is “pole and line caught” (information that is often on the label). This label means that the tuna has been caught using a method where several fishermen stand at the helm of a fishing boat and catch one tuna at a time. This form of tuna fishing not only prevents overharvesting, but also ensures that a greater number of fishermen are engaged in the fishing process and produces a greater distribution of economic benefits for coastal communities. For more information, Abolhassani recommends learning more through the International Pole and Line Foundation: https://ipnlf.org/.
Learn more about this topic: Scalar politics in transboundary fisheries management: The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission as an eco-scalar fix for South Pacific albacore tuna management