FFA TRADE AND INDUSTRY NEWS Volume 10: Issue 2 March - April 2017

FFA TRADE AND INDUSTRY NEWS  Volume 10: Issue 2March - April 2017

By Elizabeth Havice, Mike McCoy, Liam Campling[1]



Preferential & Fisheries Trade

EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement negotiations on track to resume

WTO Arbitrator rules in favour of Mexico in long-standing tuna-dolphin dispute

Fisheries Regulation

US marine mammal rule aims to reduce by-catch associated with imported seafood

New challenges to US Marine Monuments designations

Small fishing vessels now eligible for IMO numbers

Fisheries Management

PNA Officials support a ban on high seas bunkering and compulsory FAD tracking 

Tuna Industry

Eighty-three global firms appeal to RFMOs for action

NGOs push for ban on transhipment at sea

Labour standards gaining traction in seafood industry




EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement negotiations on track to resume

On 10 March 2017, trade leaders from the EU and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed to start preparations to potentially resume the negotiation of a region-to-region free trade agreement (FTA). Senior trade officials have been tasked by their Ministers to develop a framework encompassing the parameters of a future EU-ASEAN FTA for presentation at the next consultation between EU and ASEAN trade leaders. In the meantime, the EU will continue negotiations with individual ASEAN members to advance bilateral FTAs.[2]

The EU and ASEAN originally commenced negotiations on a regional FTA in 2007.  However, negotiations stalled in 2009 due to differing levels of economic development and openness of individual ASEAN members, as well as human rights violations by Myanmar under its ruling military regime at the time. The EU then turned its attention to negotiating bilaterally with individual ASEAN members and, to date, has concluded (but not yet ratified) FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam. Negotiations are also underway with Indonesia and the Philippines.[3] 

The EU is ASEAN’s second largest trading partner and the largest source of foreign direct investment (€ 23.3 billion in 2015).  Conversely, ASEAN is the EU’s third trading partner, with trade in goods between the two regions exceeding €200 billion per year.[4] 

Four ASEAN members – Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam – have significant tuna industries and the EU is an important market for each.  A high priority for these countries will be seeking favourable treatment for their tuna exports under a region-to-region FTA with the EU. However, as the EU has significant tuna fishing and processing interests, particularly in Spain, EU trade negotiators are likely to be heavily lobbied by the European tuna industry to limit tariff preferences for ASEAN tuna imports, particularly, canned tuna. It is possible that an EU-ASEAN FTA, as well as any future bilateral FTAs concluded, could follow suit from the EU-Vietnam FTA, where only partial tariff liberalisation will be applied to selected ‘sensitive’ processed tuna products (under HS Chapter heading 1604) through measures such as annual tariff quotas and phased tariff reduction over a series of years.[5] 

In any case, full or partial tariff preferences granted to ASEAN tuna processors stand to disadvantage high cost Pacific Island processors (particularly those in Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea which rely heavily on duty free access to the EU market) to be able to compete against SE Asian tuna processors who (except for Philippines) are currently subject to 21-24% import duty on canned tuna and frozen cooked tuna loins. Even a small tariff reduction granted to ASEAN processors will erode PIC processors’ ability to compete in the EU market. 


WTO Arbitrator rules in favour of Mexico in long-standing tuna-dolphin dispute

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has reached a decision on arbitration over the long-standing tuna-dolphin dispute between the US and Mexico, which has been adjudicated for many years through the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Since 2008, Mexico has challenged the US labelling policy as discriminatory. In 2012, the Appellate Body of the WTO found that the measure violated trade rules. The US made changes to its labelling regime in 2013, but Mexico again challenged the US rule at the WTO, arguing that the rule did not go far enough to address the issues identified by the WTO Appellate Body. 

In 2015, the Appellate Body ruled in favour of Mexico. In 2016, Mexico requested permission to suspend tariff concessions and related obligations on a list of products that Mexico valued at US$ 472.3 million annually, leading the case to go to arbitration. At the same time, the US made the revisions to its labelling law, and both the US and Mexico subsequently requested compliance panels to review those changes.[6] 

In late April 2017, an arbitrator appointed by the WTO ruled that Mexico can impose US$163 million in retaliatory trade restrictions against the United States for failing to comply with a WTO ruling that found American ‘dolphin safe’ labelling rules for tuna products inconsistent with WTO rules.[7] The sum is for 2014 losses, and is lower than what Mexico initially claimed because the arbitrator revised Mexico’s proposed concession model, which had assumed that all American retailers would be willing to sell only canned yellowfin imported from Mexico if the regulation at issue had been loosened. The arbitrator said evidence supports Mexico’s assertion that the 2013 tuna measure has improperly restricted the supply of yellowfin tuna to the American market and that Mexico would otherwise be a competitive supplier of canned yellowfin. For its part, the US responded that it passed new tuna labelling regulations in 2016 that are in compliance with the WTO’s rules[8] and that any concessions it must pay to Mexico would be unfairly punitive or retroactive. The arbitrator found that the 2014 concessions at issues aren’t punitive because the US’s 2016 tuna measure only recently went into effect. The compliance panel reviewing the US’s 2016 rule has not yet released its analysis that will determine if the new rule corrects the discriminatory effects of the prior rule.[9]



US marine mammal rule aims to reduce by-catch associated with imported seafood

In August 2016, the US published a final rule intended to reduce marine mammal by-catch associated with foreign (non-US) commercial fishing operations. The move extends the regulatory reach of by-catch provisions of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) outside of US waters. The rule went into effect 1 January 2017 and will be fully implemented by 2022.[10] 

The original MMPA regulates US fishing activities. It requires by-catch to be kept within the limits of what marine mammal populations can sustain – known as ‘potential biological removal’ (PBR). To ensure accountability, the MMPA mandates periodic estimation of marine mammal population sizes (and uncertainty) to set PBR, monitoring of by-catch rates and implementation of mitigation measures, such as gear modifications or fishery closures when PBR is exceeded. The new regulation requires that any enterprise exporting products to the US meets standards equivalent in effectiveness to those the MMPA requires of US fisheries, in terms of both monitoring and by-catch mitigation in all waters where harvest occurs.

To comply with the new standard, exporting nations must implement a regulatory programme that:[11]

* Prohibits the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in all fisheries; and

* Assesses marine mammal stocks, estimates by-catch, calculates by-catch limits and reduces total by-catch below the limit for fisheries that have interactions with marine mammals and export fish and fish products to the US (‘Export Fisheries’); or

* Implements alternative measures for those fisheries.

Non-compliant products, including those from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU), can neither be exported directly, nor re-exported to the US market. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that administers the programme reserves the right to require intermediary countries processing non-compliant products to certify the origins of similar compliant products to be allowed to export these to the US.

The rule includes a five-year exemption period in which foreign harvesting nations can assess their marine mammal stocks, estimate and lower their by-catch and develop regulatory programs in order to meet the new criteria on an ongoing basis. NOAA Fisheries will consult with harvesting nations and work with them, where possible, to build capacity to meet the rule’s standards. Procedurally, during the first year of the exemption period, NOAA will identify foreign fisheries and request information on marine mammal by-catch. NOAA will consult with nations to inform them of the regulatory requirements, when a nation might be denied a comparability finding and upon a comparability finding being denied or revoked. Nations may request a consultation with NOAA at any time. 

During the five-year exemption period, nations should develop regulatory programs comparable in effectiveness to the US marine mammal programs. By the end of the five-year exemption, each harvesting nation must apply for a comparability finding for its fisheries. If granted, the comparability finding will apply for four years, after which, the country will need to reapply to maintain market access. If denied, NOAA will provide the harvesting nation with rationale for the denial and the harvesting nation may re-apply at any time.

Compliance with the rule will be important for several Pacific Island countries and territories that export commercially significant quantities of products to the US market, including Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. However, the rule indicates that because RFMO regulatory programs are in place for purse seine fisheries, import prohibitions are unlikely. The rule does not make specific mention of longline fisheries under RFMO governance.[12] To date, NOAA does not have an indication of what the new US administration’s position will be on the rule.


New challenges to US Marine Monuments designations 

In January 2009, US President George W. Bush established the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to protect and preserve the marine environment around Wake, Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston and Palmyra Atolls and Kingman Reef. The Monument includes the lands, waters and submerged and emergent lands of the seven Pacific Remote Islands that lie approximately 50 nautical miles from the mean low water lines of those seven Pacific Remote Islands. In 2014, US President Barak Obama expanded the Monument to include the waters and submerged lands of Jarvis and Wake Islands and Johnston Atoll to the seaward limit of the US EEZ. In sum, the Monument comprises 308,315 square nautical miles. All commercial fishing within the boundaries of the Monument is prohibited.[13] At the time of the expansions, environmental organisations applauded the effort, though commercial fishing interests, including the American Tuna Boat Association, expressed concern about losing access to fishing grounds.[14] Both Bush and Obama used the 1906 Antiquities Act to create this and other Marine Monuments in US waters, as well as in terrestrial areas in the US.

With the change in administration in the US, several interest groups have recently endeavoured to reverse the Monuments designated by Obama and to dissuade future presidents from using the Antiquities Act to create marine protected areas. In mid-March, the US House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans held an oversight hearing ‘Examining the Creation and Management of Marine Monuments and Sanctuaries’ and published a press release summarizing testimonies that objected to the Monuments on grounds that they were formed without local input, scientific scrutiny and conflict with established producers under domestic fishery law (the Magnuson-Stevens Act).[15] Related, representatives from the eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils wrote to President Trump expressing concern with the designation of marine national monuments under the Antiquities Act. They argued that the monuments have adversely impacted commercial fishing activity and disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries throughout their range as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.[16] The American Samoa Representative to Congress, Amata Coleman Radewagen, also co-penned a letter with Utah Representative Rob Bishop to Trump requesting the Monuments be removed on account of deleterious effects that they might have on fishing access and US-based seafood industry in American Samoa. The letter references Tri-Marine’s closure of its cannery in American Samoa, arguing that it shut down due to a lack of access to fishing resources.[17] A coalition of fishers in New England has filed suit over one of the Monuments in the Atlantic Ocean, arguing that the creation of the Monuments exceeded the authority granted to presidents by the Antiquities Act.[18] More broadly, Obama used the Antiquities Act to protect more land and water than any president before him, with 26 new or expanded monuments. 

President Trump has issued an Executive Order that will require a review of all monument designations over the last two decades focusing on identifying improper use of the Antiquities Act. The implications of this review are unclear and will require interpretation of the intent of the Antiquities Act, which is used to protect areas of historic or scientific value, but which does not have provisions for rescinding monuments or reducing their size.[19] In late April, the Trump Administration released a list of 24 monuments that are being targeted for review, including the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa.[20]


Small fishing vessels now eligible for IMO numbers

In 1987, the United Nation’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) introduced its Ship Identification Number Scheme for the global merchant shipping fleet, as a means of preventing maritime fraud and enhancing security. Under the scheme, vessels are assigned a unique seven-digit vessel identification number preceded by the letters “IMO” which must be permanently displayed on the vessel’s exterior and remain with the vessel for the duration of its life, regardless of changes in name, flag or ownership. While IMO numbers are compulsory under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) for cargo ships over 300 gross tonnes (GT) and passenger vessels over 100 GT, fishing vessels are excluded from this requirement.[21] 

Tuna RFMOs, FAO and ISSF, amongst other organisations, have recognised the utility of IMO numbers for fishing vessels in helping to combat IUU fishing, as they assist in vessel identification, as well as tracing and verification of a vessel’s activity over time. Hence, in 2013, the IMO approved the voluntary application of IMO numbers to steel-hulled fishing vessels 100 GT or above. Tuna RFMOs, including WCPFC, have since introduced a requirement that vessels listed on their respective records of fishing vessels capable of obtaining an IMO number must do so.  However, large numbers of vessels less than 100 GT and/or with wooden or fibreglass hulls authorised to fish within RFMO convention areas were still unable to obtain an IMO number. For example, in April 2013, of the 5,866 fishing vessels registered on WCPFC’s Record of Fishing Vessels (RFV), only 2,671 (45%) were 100 GT or over.[22] 

To address the issue of smaller fishing vessels being able to acquire a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI), the IMO has recently extended its eligibility to allow fishing vessels of 12 or more meters in overall length (LOA) and of non-steel hull construction to obtain IMO numbers if they are authorised to operate outside waters of national jurisdiction.[23] This is a positive development for strengthened monitoring, control and surveillance, as a much larger proportion of the global tuna fishing fleet will now be eligible to obtain IMO numbers. Under WCPFC, the majority of vessels currently listed on the RFV are 12 meters and above in overall length. 

Further work still needs to be conducted to develop systems to assign UVI numbers to vessels less than 100 GT operating exclusively within national waters. ISSF, for example, requires all fish handled by ISSF members from purse seine vessels over 30 GT to carry a UVI number, regardless of fishing area. Where the vessels are not eligible to obtain an IMO number, even with the recent changes to accommodate smaller vessels, ISSF will issue a UVI number to the vessel in the interim, presumably until IMO, RFMOs or flag/coastal states introduce UVI systems to cater for these vessels.[24]



PNA Officials support a ban on high seas bunkering and compulsory FAD tracking 

From 10-14 April, the 36th Annual Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Officials meeting was held in Majuro. Tokelau fisheries officials also participated given Tokelau is a participant in PNA’s Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme (VDS). 

During the meeting, a number of PNA fisheries management initiatives were discussed including a potential measure to ban high seas bunkering of fishing vessels. Instead, refuelling would take place in port or in designated areas within PNA members’ EEZs. This move stems from calls from Pacific Island Forum Leaders and PNA Ministers for action to end IUU fishing and ‘associated activities’. PNA officials have tasked the PNA office to undertake a cost benefit analysis of shifting refuelling in-zone to present to PNA Ministers in June/July.[25] This initiative is likely to be met with some resistance by the fishing industry if duties are applied to fuel purchased in-zone, while fuel currently purchased from bunkering services in the high seas is duty free. 

In an ongoing effort to strengthen management of fish aggregation devices (FADs) officials also discussed a recommendation to PNA Ministers to make FAD registration and tracking a mandatory licencing condition for purse seine vessels seeking fishing access in PNA waters, effective 1 January 2018. While officials endorsed implementation of FAD registration and tracking, a decision on a start date was deferred for later consideration by PNA Ministers.[26] 

A report was also delivered on the status of PNA’s Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for free-school caught skipjack and yellowfin. In 2016, over 60,000 mt was processed into MSC-certified finished goods under Pacifical’s MSC scheme, which is a major increase on 7,500 mt processed between 2012-2015.27 This growth is largely attributed to a commitment by Simplot Australia in 2015 to use 100% MSC certified skipjack tuna for its John West range of tuna products, most of which is sourced under PNA’s MSC certification. 

PNA Officials also reviewed PNA’s key fisheries management arrangements, including the Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme, which has resulted in a significant increase in fishing access fees to PNA countries since its implementation in 2007 from reportedly about US $60 million to almost US $400 million in 2016.[28] Discussions were also held on PNA’s new Longline Vessel Day Scheme, including interest expressed by non-PNA member, Vanuatu, in joining the scheme. 

Recommendations endorsed by PNA Officials during the annual meeting will be presented to PNA Ministers for their action, when they gather in Majuro in June/July for their annual Ministerial meeting. 



Eighty-three global firms appeal to RFMOs for action

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) has coordinated an outreach letter to the four tuna RFMOs – WCPFC, IATTC, ICCAT and IOTC – calling for action on several key issues relating to sustainable tuna fisheries.  This letter has been co-signed by 82 other tuna processors, trading companies, fleet associations, retailers, importers, food service operators and NGOs.  

The 83 signatories are urging RFMOs at their upcoming 2017 meetings to develop precautionary, science-based harvest strategies for key tuna stocks/fisheries that include specific timelines for adoption of target reference points (i.e. optimal level of fishing mortality without compromising the health of the stock) and harvest control rules (i.e. pre-agreed management responses when a reference point is reached). They also call for strengthened monitoring, control and surveillance tools including 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels not already subject to this requirement and for all high seas transhipments, which are typically conducted by longliners. The signatories also call for sanctions to be applied to longline vessels not meeting the minimum 5% observer coverage requirement. In addition, they supported that vessel monitoring systems (VMS) be modernized and standards developed for electronic monitoring and reporting. On FADs, science-based recommendations should be developed and measures adopted for using non-entangling FAD designs to protect sharks and other non-target species. 

WCPFC is already taking steps towards addressing some of the issues raised in the letter to RFMOs. In 2015, an interim target reference point was adopted for skipjack, together with a work plan with indicative timeframes for the development of harvest strategies for WCPO’s four key tuna stocks. If the workplan is followed, target preference points will be agreed for three of the four key tuna stocks (skipjack, yellowfin and albacore) and candidate harvest control rules under development by the end of 2018.[29] WCPFC has required 100% observer coverage for all purse seine fishing trips since 2012. However, sanctions are yet to be applied for non-compliance with any WCPFC conservation and management measures, including observer requirements on fishing vessels. Electronic reporting and electronic monitoring trials have been conducted and an intersessional working group established in 2015 which is currently developing electronic reporting standards for operational catch and effort and observer data. Besides purse seine FAD closures, WCPFC is yet to adopt any further FAD-related measures but has established a FAD Management Options intersessional working group.


NGOs push for ban on transhipment at sea

Global efforts are increasing to address IUU fishing and human rights abuse in the tuna industry. Transhipment at sea has been identified as a high-risk activity and is receiving increasing attention, particularly from the NGO community and more recently, several major brands and retailers. 

Transhipment at sea is most prevalent in distant water longline fisheries, enabling fishing vessels to offload catch to a refrigerated carrier (reefer) or another fishing vessel at sea, either within EEZs or more commonly, the high seas. At the same time, the fishing vessel may swap crew and re-supply with bait, provisions etc. The rationale for doing so is to save fuel and maximise fishing time by not having to return to port for as long as around 18 months. With longline vessels fishing and transhipping largely in high seas, monitoring and law enforcement is challenging and rests largely with flag states, a number of which are ‘flags of convenience’ with limited connection or control over the vessels. Hence, opportunities arise for vessels to engage in illegal activities including laundering of IUU catch, human trafficking, abuse of crew and smuggling of illegal goods such as weapons and drugs.

As a means of better understanding transhipments and improving transparency, Global Fishing Watch, a partnership between Oceana, SkyTruth and Google, has analysed over 21 billion positional messages between 2012-2016 from ocean-going vessels’ Automatic Information Systems (AIS) (a transceiver capable of reporting a vessel’s location every few seconds). In doing so, they have identified and tracked 90 per cent of the world’s refrigerated cargo vessels (total 794) and mapped 86,490 ‘potential transhipment’ events and 5,065 ‘likely transhipments’. Their analysis found that 43 per cent of likely and potential transhipment events take place in the high seas and more often in regions with a higher percentage of IUU fishing. In addition, 48 per cent of reefers carry flags of convenience and 44 per cent of likely transhipments are carried out by reefers flying these flags. Data from this analysis is publicly available.[30]

A team of academic and environmental NGO researchers have recently published a paper outlining the potential ecological and social benefits of a moratorium on transhipment on the high seas. The study evaluates regulations for transhipment at sea across 17 RFMOs responsible for regulating high seas fisheries. While transhipment at sea regulations have become increasingly strict in most RFMOs since the 1990s, only five have mandated a partial ban (four of which are the tuna RFMOs – WCPFC, IOTC, IATTC and ICCAT) and one has mandated a total ban – non-tuna RFMO, South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO). The researchers highlight that a total ban on transhipment at sea across all RFMOs would strengthen monitoring and enforcement capabilities to detect and prevent IUU fishing and likely reduce human trafficking and forced labour on the high seas. However, this may prove challenging, particularly for RFMOs with consensus- based decision making, such as WCPFC. Some RFMO members are flag states of large distant water fishing fleets who strongly claim that their economic viability will be severely compromised if they are forced to tranship or unload in ports.[31] 

Following lobbying efforts from Greenpeace, global pet food giants, Nestlé and Mars and European retailer, Lidl (for its Italy, Denmark and Germany outlets) have made commitments as part of their sustainable seafood sourcing policies to not source seafood which has been transhipped at sea.[32] An industry source has indicated that Greenpeace is also turning its attention to US tuna buyers to follow suit and support a moratorium on transhipment at sea in tuna fisheries.  


Labour standards gaining traction in seafood industry

Given widespread concern regarding labour abuse in the global fishing industry and supply chain, key actors are starting to expand their sustainability commitments to encompass social/labour issues in addition to environmental issues. Several examples of recent developments regarding social/labour issues follow. 

As reported previously in FFA Trade & Industry News, in July 2016, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) announced its intention to introduce a requirement that MSC certified fisheries and supply chains are free of forced and child labour. This builds on MSC’s 2014 requirement prohibiting organisations convicted of forced labour violations from obtaining MSC certification. MSC is an environmental sustainability standard for fisheries and has no plans to become a social standard.  However, its Board has committed to include forced and child labour requirements into the certification to ‘reduce reputational risk, offer some assurance to the public and most importantly, give the MSC a way to disassociate itself from entities with forced labour violations.’ From 15 March-14 May 2017, MSC is seeking stakeholder feedback on a draft forced and child labour self-declaration policy. MSC fisheries and chain of custody (CoC) certificate holders and those seeking to enter into assessment would be required to submit a self-declaration form they that are free from unacceptable labour practices, together with evidence to support this claim. The self-declaration would be posted on MSC’s website as part of the client’s certification scope. If substantiated complaints are lodged about existence of forced or child labour in the entity, MSC would defer to an independent labour panel and possibly require an audit against a third-party labour standard. Following stakeholder and public consultation, MSC is aiming to formally release these labour requirements in mid-2018.[33] 

Bumble Bee subsidiary Anova Food, a fresh and frozen yellowfin tuna supplier, has recently obtained SA8000 social accountability certification for its Vietnam-based processing facility. The SA8000 standard requires the company’s labour practices to meet eight key international human rights requirements relating to child labour, forced and compulsory labour, health and safety, freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, discrimination, disciplinary practices, working hours and remuneration. Anova Food’s SA8000 certification compliments its existing Fair Trade Certification for yellowfin tuna sourced from small-scale handline fisheries in Indonesia under its ‘Fishing and Living’ initiative comprised of sustainability and social responsibility programs.[34]  

Major Canadian seafood company, Ocean Brands, has recently announced its latest sustainability commitment for its canned tuna range, which includes both environmental and social requirements. In addition to sourcing only pole and line and FAD-free caught tuna, Ocean Brands will require its suppliers to comply with a new Supplier Code of Conduct relating to social responsibility.  All Ocean Brands’ supply chains will be third-party audited against the company’s social responsibility standards.[35]


1 Prepared for the FFA Fisheries Development Division by Dr Liam Campling, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, Dr Elizabeth Havice, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Mike McCoy, independent consultant, all Consultant Fisheries Trade and Market Intelligence Analysts, Fisheries Development Division, FFA. Desktop publishing by Antony Price. The authors would like to thank Mike Batty for his input on an earlier draft of this briefing. The contents of this briefing (including all analysis and opinions) are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or thinking of the FFA Secretariat or its Members.

2 EU & ASEAN, The Fifteenth AEM-EU Trade Commissioner Consultations, 10 March 2017, Manila, Philippines. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu

3 ‘EU and ASEAN gear up for possible re-launch of trade talks’, European Commission, 10 March 2017.  Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu

4 ibid.

5 Author’s own analysis

6 ‘DS Roundup: Tuna-Dolphin Public Hearing, WTO Panel Establishments’, Bridges, 21(11): 30 March 2017. Available at http://www.ictsd.org 

7 WT/DS381/ARB, ‘United States – measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products: Recourse to Article 22.6 of the DSU by the United States – Decision by the Arbitrator’, 25 April. Available at: http://www.wto.org 

8 For an overview of these rules, see: Elizabeth Havice, Mike McCoy and Liam Campling 2016. ‘US-Mexico tuna-dolphin debate continues’, FFA Trade and Industry News, 9(2): March-April. Available at: http://www.ffa.int 

9 Dorothy Atkins, 2017. ‘US on the hook for $163M over tuna labeling rules’, Law360. 26 April. Available at: http://www.law360.com 

10 ‘NOAA Fisheries establishes international marine mammal bycatch criteria for US imports’, NOAA Fisheries Press Release, 11 August 2016. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov; ‘Fish and fish product import provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act’ Federal Register, 81 (157): August 15, 2016/ Rules and Regulations. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov  

11 Seafood import provisions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act’, NOAA Fisheries: International Affairs and Seafood Inspection. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

12  ‘Fish and fish product import provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act’ Federal Register, 81 (157): August 15, 2016/ Rules and Regulations, pg 54410. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov  

13 Proclamation 9173 – Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_1/Pacific_Remote_Is...

14 Liam Campling and Elizabeth Havice, 2014. ‘Obama compromises on US Pacific Marine National Monuments’, FFA Trade and Industry News, 7(5): September-October. Available at: http://www.ffa.int 

15 ‘Marine Monument designations sideline communities and the domestic fishing industry’, House Committee on Natural Resource Press Release, 15 March 2017. Available at: http://naturalresources.house.gov/newsroom 

16 ‘Fisheries Councils express concern over marine monuments in letter to President Trump’, Saving Seafood, 28 March 2017. Available at: http://savingseafood.org 

17 ‘US house reps to Trump: Remove US marine monument protections’, Undercurrent News, 8 March 2017. Available at: http://www.undercurrentnews.com; ‘Congresswoman appeals for removal of fishing limits’, Talanei: News and More from American Samoa, 29 March 2017. Available at: http://www.talanei.com  

18 ‘New England fishermen file suit over Obama’s marine national monument’, Undercurrent News, 8 March 2017. Available at: http://www.undercurrentnews.com 

19 Timothy Cama, 2017. ‘Trump takes aim at Obama monuments’, The Hill, 25 April. Available at: http://www.thehill.com 

20 ‘Presidential Executive Order on the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act’. 26 April, 2017. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov 

21 TMT & HIS Maritime & Trade, The IMO Number for Fishing Vessels – Application Guidelines for Companies and Flag States, 20 January 2017.  Available at: http://www.tm-trading.org

22 WCPFC, Conservation and Management Measure for WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04).  Available at http://www.wcpfc.int

23 op.cit. TMT & HIS Maritime & Trade 2017. 

24 ISSF, ISSF Conservation Measures 4.1 – Unique Vessel Identifiers; 4.2 – Purse Seine Unique Vessel Identifiers; 8.1 – Exemption for Very Small Purse Seiners.  Available at http://www.iss-foundation.org

25 ‘PNA focuses on organizational strengthening, reviewing fishery initiatives’, PNA, 19 April 2017. Available at: http://www.pnatuna.com

26 ibid. 

27 ‘Tuna resource owners meet in Majuro’, PNA, 7 April 2017.  Available at: http://www.pnatuna.org

28 ‘PNA theme: Cooperation, adding value to the tuna fishery’, PNA, 10 April 2017. Available at: http://www.pnatuna.org

29 WCPFC, Thirteenth Regular Session of the Commission – Summary Report, 5-9 December 2017, Fiji. Available at http://www.wcpfc.int

30 SkyTruth & Global Fishing Watch, The Global View of Transshipment – Preliminary Findings’, February 2017.  Available at: http://www.globalfishingwatch.org

31 Ewell, Cullis-Suzuki, Ediger, Hocevar, Miller & Jacquet 2017, ‘Potential ecological and social benefits of a mortatorium on transshipment on the high seas’, Marine Policy 81: 2017 (293-300). 

32 ‘Lidl Italy takes steps to provide responsibly caught tuna’, Undercurrent News, 6 April 2017.  Available at: http://www.undercurrentnews.com

33 MSC, Labour requirements for fisheries and supply chains – Frequently asked questions.  Available at: http://www.improvements.msc.org

34 Madelyn Kearns, ‘Bumble Bee subsidiary earns rare certification’, Seafood Source, 24 March 2017. Available at: http://www.seafoodsource.com

35 ‘Towards #justtuna: How a big Canadian brand is working to clean up its sourcing’, Greenpeace, 23 May 2017.  Available at http://www.greenpeace.org