Insights into the 29th Annual Meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

Generally, the 29 proposals were divided into seven main themes: transhipment; catch limits for tropical tunas, such as bigeye and skipjack; shark conservation measures; illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing; vessel monitoring system (VMS); record of authorised vessels; and other governance-related issues. Given the high number of proposals tabled, we will concentrate on the key issues and decisions that have the biggest impact on tuna fisheries management and its sustainability, and what still needs work.

Conservation and Management of Sharks in the Indian Ocean

After 11 years, the IOTC members adopted a new shark measure. With four proposals on sharks, this year’s Commission meeting was referred to as the “Year of the Sharks” by some of the members. Proposals on sharks, including a separate proposal on the conservation of shortfin mako, were submitted by Japan, the EU, and the Maldives, Pakistan, and South Africa. For the overall shark measure, merging five existing shark measures, the discussions centred on the issue of fins naturally attached[1] (FNA) and the use of wire traces[2]. The proposal by the Maldives, Pakistan, and South Africa served as the foundation for discussions and elements of the EU’s and Japan’s proposals were negotiated and included in the final version. One of the contentious issues was to agree on a strong FNA policy, while shark finning is broadly prohibited (see for example Worm et al., 2024), members were divided on whether fins need to be naturally attached (EU proposal) or whether alternative measures, such as binding fins to the shark carcass with a rope or wire, can be used as an option (Japan proposal). The proposal by Japan was based on the alternative measure provisions in the shark measure of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (i.e., CMM 2024-05). In the adopted measure, a compromise was achieved, with fins naturally attached being the default. It was however agreed that members are allowed to use one of the two listed alternative measures, to facilitate on-board storage: each individual shark carcass is bound to the corresponding fins using rope or wire; or identical and uniquely numbered tags are attached to each shark carcass and its corresponding fins to ensure species can be identified on point of landing. The use of the alternative measures is linked to enhanced monitoring efforts and reporting requirements, which are critical and a matter of urgency for enabling the Commission to make robust, adequate and informed decisions. The Commission will now review the effectiveness of these alternative measures no later than 2028 at its annual session, which gives time to members to implement the alternative measures and report back on their effectiveness.

Globally, sharks (including rays) have been declining due to high bycatch in industrial and small-scale fisheries. Sharks are often caught as bycatch in the longline fleets, and one way to reduce shark bycatch is to ban wire traces. Similarly to the fins naturally attached discussion, some members were in favour of this ban, while some members opposed such a ban, noting, inter alia, that there is not enough scientific information available to support the claim that wire traces lead to increased bycatch. Independently, in the new measure, not using wire traces is the default. However, if members want to continue to use wire traces, at least one member has to undertake scientific fishing trials to assess the effects of leader materials on the mortality of vulnerable shark species (such as oceanic whitetip shark, silky shark, shortfin mako and thresher shark). The results of this trial will then be assessed and reviewed by the Scientific Committee.

Even though this new shark measure is an important step towards increased protection of sharks and reducing shark bycatch, some members expressed their disappointment that the measure does not go far enough on the fins naturally attached element and the wire trace ban.

Besides the overall shark measure, the EU submitted a proposal specifically for shortfin mako sharks. The Scientific Committee conducted their first successful stock assessment for shortfin mako and found that this species is overfished, and overfishing is ongoing (see here). This measure focuses on the release of mako sharks, and retention is only allowed when the shark is dead when coming on board, and its condition has been verified through an onboard observer or an electronic monitoring system. Furthermore, this measure enhances the reporting of mako sharks, and by 2028, the Commission will develop a mechanism to constrain total mortality, including dead discards and post-release mortality of shortfin and longfin mako sharks in the Indian Ocean.

Transhipment

Another topic that received considerable attention during the Commission meeting was transhipment, with proposals submitted by Korea, Indonesia, and the EU. To support the negotiations, these three proposals were merged into a new proposal. Based on the EU’s proposal, no additional and/or new authorisation will be granted to carry out transhipment for carrier vessels not flagged to members or cooperating non-members. The original idea, as per the EU’s proposal, was to prohibit the transhipment for carrier vessels not flagged to a member state or a cooperating non-member state. This is specifically relevant to Panama and Singapore. While Panama has applied for and received cooperating non-member status this year, Singapore has not yet made this step. Hence, the agreement to a compromised version of not allowing new authorisations was adopted.

Furthermore, based on the proposal by Korea, information regarding prior authorisation for large-scale tuna vessels will be made publicly available. Last, Indonesia was seeking approval for the use of national observers for their wooden carrier vessels. This aspect was also included in the new transhipment vessel for large-scale tuna vessels, and detailed provisions were laid out in Annex VI.

Catch limits for tropical tunas

The IOTC Members also negotiated catch limits for bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna. The discussion for bigeye tuna was based on a proposal submitted by Japan and the EU, which aimed to update the current bigeye measure based on the results of the management procedure. The outcome from the management procedure recommended a total allowable catch of 93,000 tonnes for 2026 – 2028, a 15% increase, although a total allowable catch (TAC) of 170,000 tonnes was determined by the Scientific Committee, indicating that even though the stocks are overfished and subject to overfishing, the pie continues to increase. While this seemed like a plausible way to increase the TAC, the temptation was resisted by the management procedure itself, which had defined a pre-limit to either decrease or increase by 15% of the 2022 baseline. Among others, one of the key issues during the negotiations was the increase in catch for large harvesters, while the limit for small harvesters did not increase. Additionally, some members sought an exemption for small-scale vessels. The final proposal sets a soft catch limit of 2,300 tonnes for small harvesters. If members catch more than that, they will be subject to binding catch limits. Although not all members were happy with the final measure, they did not stand in the way of consensus and reserved the right to object in the future.

While science paved the way for managing bigeye tuna, it was not so straightforward with skipjack. A lot of attention was paid towards catch limits for skipjack tuna. The interim measure proposed by South Africa, Indonesia, the Maldives, and Pakistan aimed to implement a total allowable catch of 628,606 tonnes as per the scientific advice. This proposal divided members into Category A and Category B depending on their annual catch. Similar to the bigeye catch limit discussions, members were concerned about the soft limit for Category B members and the treatment of small-scale fisheries. Concepts such as transfer of catch or having a reserve pool were removed due to strong opposition from some members. Despite long discussions and negotiations, members were unable to reach consensus, and a vote was called for in the final hours of the Commission meeting. In the end, the measure was adopted by a vote with 19 members in favour, five members against, and 2 members who abstained. This was a win for the Commission, resisting the temptation to further increase the TAC to MSY levels.

Two proposals on yellowfin tuna were submitted, one by the EU and one by Pakistan. However, due to the uncertainties concerning the current stock assessment, initial strong oppositions, and the lack of time for substantive negotiations, these proposals were withdrawn, resulting in maintaining the interim measure agreed in 2021 (i.e., Resolution 21/01), which puts a TAC of 400,000 tonnes.

Other governance-related issues

Besides the aforementioned topics, the members of the IOTC made important progress in many other areas. For example, Mauritius, co-sponsored by Seychelles, submitted a proposal on climate change, which aimed to make climate change a standing agenda item in the IOTC. In the final measure, climate change was added as a standing agenda item for all IOTC Working Parties. Furthermore, the Working Party on Socio-Economics has been tasked to assess the socio-economic impacts of climate change on IOTC fisheries. Last, the Commission has to take into account information provided by the Scientific Committee on climate change when, for example, developing measures.

The members of the IOTC also made an important step towards cooperating with the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdictions (hereinafter BBNJ Agreement). Submitted by the Maldives, this proposal described in detail the role of the Commission, the Secretariat, and the Scientific Commission and its working parties when it comes to the BBNJ Agreement. For example, the Commission should discuss and take positions on relevant BBNJ proposals on Area-Based Management Tools. The Executive Secretary has been tasked to, inter alia, establish formal communication channels with the BBNJ Secretariat. While members generally supported this proposal, some members expressed difficulties in agreeing to it as a resolution (i.e., legally binding) and recommended it to be a recommendation (i.e., non-legally binding). In the end, the proposal was adopted as a recommendation. Nonetheless, compared to other RFMOs, having adopted this proposal, the IOTC is at the forefront when it comes to developing mechanisms to engage with the BBNJ Agreement.

For the first time in the IOTC, a proposal on crew labour standards was submitted. The proposal by the EU sought to task the Working Group on Socio-Economics to develop minimum crew labour standards on board fishing vessels and a proposal for a draft resolution. Due to initial opposition and the lack of time to comprehensively engage with this topic, this proposal was withdrawn. However, the EU submitted report language on undertaking a study on this important issue.

Other issues also included proposals on overcapacity and to ban driftnet use in the high seas were tabled by Japan and the EU, respectively. Both proposals were received with caution and opposition, which led Japan to revise the resolution to a non-binding recommendation. The issue of overcapacity is not limited only to the number of vessels, but also has to take into account the issue of reflagging vessels to coastal states. Similarly, the ban on driftnets was opposed by many coastal states, which demanded to conduct a socio-economic study to consider the repercussions of a driftnet ban on the livelihoods of small-scale fishers. In the end, this proposal was withdrawn by the EU.  

Wrap up

Overall, the meeting was productive and important issues were addressed, such as sharks, transhipment, and catch limits for skipjack and bigeye tuna. Proposals on catch limits remain a difficult task, and the need for the development of an allocation framework has been frequently highlighted. Important topics such as developing a high-sea boarding and inspection scheme continue to be blocked. Furthermore, an increasing divide between members relying on artisanal and small-scale fisheries and members with industrial or semi-industrial fleets can be observed. Given the importance of small-scale and artisanal fisheries for food security, it is important to ensure access to resources. However, on the other hand, these fisheries are often poorly monitored and lack important data. Hence, management of small-scale and artisanal fisheries needs to be strengthened to ensure the sustainable use of tuna in the Indian Ocean.

[1] “Fins naturally attached” refers to a conservation practice that requires sharks to be landed with their fins still physically attached to their bodies. This prevents illegal finning at sea and ensures accurate species identification and data collection

[2] “Wire traces” are strong wire leaders used in fishing gear that make it easier to catch sharks, often unintentionally. Phasing them out helps reduce shark bycatch by making it easier for sharks to escape without injury.