FFA FISHERIES TRADE NEWS Volume 5: Issue 5 September-October 2012

FFA FISHERIES TRADE NEWS   Volume 5: Issue 5 September-October 2012

By Liam Campling and Elizabeth Havice[1]


Preferential Trade Agreements

Reformed EU-GSP Scheme to impact global tuna industry

Update on PACP-EU Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations

European Parliament releases study on PNG’s Global Sourcing Rules of Origin

Future of EU Loin Quota still to be determined post-2012

Fisheries Management

Philippines purse seiners recommence fishing in closed high seas pocket

Fisheries Development

UN report on ‘ocean grabbing’ and small-scale fisheries

Working conditions in seafood industry in the spotlight

Tuna Markets 

Greenpeace clash with fishing industry in Taiwan

Preferential Trade Agreements

Reformed EU-GSP Scheme to impact global tuna industry  

On 31 October 2012, the European Commission published a revised regulation on the EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), a non-reciprocal preferential trade agreement first introduced in 1971, which provides reduced or duty free EU market access to developing countries as a means of promoting economic development. The revised regulation includes reforms to better focus on developing countries that are ‘most in need’, reducing the number of beneficiaries from 176 to 89. Developing countries that have achieved high or upper-middle income per capita income will no longer benefit from the GSP scheme post-31 December 2013.  The revised regulation will take effect for ten years from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2023.[2]

In an effort to further promote sustainable development and good governance, the reformed GSP will provide more opportunity for qualifying developing countries to attain GSP+ status, with loosened vulnerability criterion and the opportunity to apply for GSP+ anytime, rather than every 1.5 years.  Under GSP+, developing countries classified as ‘vulnerable’ are eligible for duty free access, subject to the ratification and implementation of 27 international conventions relating to human/labour rights, the environment and governance.        

The GSP provides significant coverage of all tuna products.  Countries eligible under the ‘Standard GSP’ regime receive a 3.5% duty reduction on canned tuna and cooked loins (from 24%). Tuna products from countries granted GSP+ status, as well as least-developed countries (LDCs) covered under the GSP’s ‘Everything But Arms’ Arrangement enter duty free, subject to strict rules of origin and sanitary measures.  

Revisions to the GSP scheme may significantly impact the global tuna industry, as the status of two major tuna processing countries will change. On the one hand, Ecuador, the largest exporter of tuna loins and second largest exporter of canned tuna to the EU, will lose duty free access as it will be down-graded from a GSP+ beneficiary to a standard GSP beneficiary. Philippines, on the other hand, now meets revised GSP+ vulnerability criterion, and provided it ratifies and implements the necessary 27 international conventions, can gain duty free access under GSP+.

The Philippines government has signalled an intention to pursue GSP+ status and is currently assessing its implementation status of the international conventions; all 27 of which have already been ratified.[3]  If Philippines gains GSP+ status, this will likely stimulate an expansion of its domestic tuna processing capacity.           

Given the significance of the EU market to Ecuador for tuna products (as well as other exports), the Ecuadorian government may seek a special exemption for continued duty free access, while it negotiates duty free market access through alternative means, including the potential negotiation of a bilateral agreement.  The option of duty free access through multilateral agreements is also being considered through an extension of the Multiparty Free Trade Agreement in place between the EU and Colombia and Peru to incorporate Ecuador, or through the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement currently under negotiation between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay (suspended), Uruguay and Venezuela.  Indications to date suggest that the Ecuadorian Government’s preference is to pursue a tailor-made ‘Bilateral Agreement for Development’.[4]    

Indirect impacts will also be felt as a result of the reformed GSP by other tuna processing countries.  Pacific Island canned tuna and loin processors (i.e. PNG, Solomon Islands) will be affected by increased competition from Philippines, due to tariff preference erosion.  Thailand and other Southeast Asian processors will also suffer from increased competition from Philippines, as they will still be subject to 21.5 – 24% duty.  In addition, raw material flows from the WCPO will also likely be impacted, with the potential diversion of excess catches from Philippines-flag vessels currently delivered to processing facilities in Thailand and PNG, back to Philippines-based canneries.[5]   

Update on PACP-EU Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations

Ten years after the EU and the ACP group launched Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations only 36 ACP countries have concluded some type of agreement, of these 8 are still to sign it and 15 have not started ratification.[6] Only the 15 Caribbean countries have concluded a full Agreement. 

In an attempt to generate impetus towards finalising ongoing negotiations, the European Commission has a set a new deadline of 1 January 2014, after which it threatens to withdraw the provisional market access afforded ACP states while EPA negotiations are ongoing. This includes Fiji and several other countries, which the EC says ‘have not taken the necessary steps towards ratification of their respective Agreements’.[7] There are, however, possible legal problems with this threat. Lorand Bartels, an international economic lawyer based at the University of Cambridge, points out that the legal terms of this threat do not comply with standard interpretations on provisional treaties of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[8]

In this context, the EU and Pacific ACP met in Brussels in October to move EPA negotiations forward. This was their first formal negotiation meeting in three years. A focus of discussions was on expanding ‘global sourcing’ rules of origin to fish products in addition to canned tuna and cooked loins (i.e. fish products falling under Harmonised System codes 0304 and 0305 such as frozen fish steaks, fresh chilled vacuum-packed loins, etc). For Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for Industry and Trade, Shaheen Ali, this would ‘provide the single major incentive for PACP states to enter into EPA’.[9] This is based on the possibility that existing duty free access combined with relaxed rules of origin will generate fisheries-related investment and employment based on exports to EU markets, especially in smaller PACP states which suffer from high cost structures. 

Yet relaxed trade rules alone may not serve as a sufficient foundation for increased exports of these types of fish products to the EU. The existing structure of industry based in the PACP must also be taken into account. For example, there are very few PACP vessels qualified under EU SPS regulations that engage in catching this product range, only three PACP countries have an EU-recognised competent authority in place (establishing an authority is a long and complicated process), and air and sea freight costs to EU markets are very high.[10] 

In terms of what steps are necessary to finalising the negotiations, reports indicate two concerns. First, the EU is entering or currently negotiating free trade agreements with several other third countries (e.g. the EU-Central America Association Agreement and the EU-Colombia-Peru Multi-Party Trade Agreement signed in June). This means that commercially viable trade preferences historically enjoyed by ACP countries are beginning to erode, including for canned tuna and cooked tuna loins.[11] Second, there are concerns, including among PACP negotiators, that the EU continues to push a high level of ambition in EPAs despite that this ambition has contributed to the enormous delays in completing negotiations. As a result, Fiji’s Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, stated that: ‘It may be necessary for the EU to lower its ambitions, moderate its expectations and perhaps reduce the scope of the EPAs to a scale that is attainable’.[12]  

European Parliament releases study on PNG’s Global Sourcing Rules of Origin[13]

The European Parliament (EP) has released an assessment of the impact of Papua New Guinea’s ‘global sourcing’ rules of origin (RoO) derogation for canned tuna and cooked loins under the EU Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (IEPA). The assessment was borne out of EP’s Committee on Fisheries’ concern about the potentially negative impacts of global sourcing on the tuna processing sectors of the EU and other ACP/GSP countries, as well as negative socio-economic and environmental impacts for PNG. 

The study concluded that global sourcing has had limited negative direct impact on the EU tuna processing industry, in terms of both trade and employment, since PNG is currently a very minor contributor to EU canned tuna supplies (currently around 4% of total EU imports). As PNG emerges as a more substantial and competitive producer of canned tuna and loins, EU processors with investments in Latin American processing facilities may be indirectly affected by increased competition from PNG.  However, it is Southeast Asian tuna producers that would likely be the major losers.

The study identifies an asymmetrical trading relationship between the EU and PNG for canned tuna, where PNG imports account for only a very small proportion of total EU imports; while the EU market is critical to PNG’s industry.  It also highlights the ‘schizophrenic situation’ of PNG being an increasingly important supplier of cooked loins to EU processors, while at the same time being considered to be a major competitive risk for canned tuna.  

It was concluded that global sourcing will generate largely positive economic and social impacts for PNG.  To date, the primary impetus for investment in tuna processing in PNG has been fishing access, followed by duty free access to the EU market. Global sourcing is considered an ‘important adjunct’ to the tariff preference and has been instrumental in attracting new investment; hence, delivering a ‘discernible and measureable economic development benefit to PNG’. 

The study largely refuted arguments posed by the EU industry that global sourcing has generated negative social impacts in PNG.  It was concluded that since global sourcing provides an opportunity for economic development, that it is ‘overall a good thing for the peoples of PNG’, albeit attached to a range of negative social impacts which could be improved.  The study found that employment conditions in PNG’s existing canneries are in line with national labour regulations and standards, and that the EU’s sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) and IUU fishing regulations are complied with.   

More substantial concerns were raised regarding the health of tuna stocks, given weaknesses in the management of the WCPO tuna fishery at both regional and national levels.  Specific issues highlighted included implementation of the Vessel Day Scheme, particularly enforcement of effort limits and its application (or lack thereof) to archipelagic waters, as well as PNG’s outdated legislative instruments.  These concerns were raised more generally though, rather than in direct association with the derogation, with the authors indicating that these issues are expected to be addressed within the next five years.  

The findings of the EP’s study are largely consistent with two previous comprehensive studies conducted on the impacts of PNG’s global sourcing derogation.  The first was commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) in 2010.[14]  The second was commissioned by the EC Directorate-General for Trade/EuropeAid in 2011, in line with the requirement for a review to be conducted of the derogation under the PACP-IEPA (Protocol II, Article 6).[15]  Still, the EU tuna processing industry continues to lobby for a level playing field (including removal of the global sourcing RoO derogation), citing concerns about the serious threat posed to the EU canned tuna industry by PNG.[16]

Future of EU Loin Quota still to be determined post-2012

Tuna processors globally are eagerly awaiting a decision from the European Commission on the future of the EU’s Single Duty Loin Quota after 31 December 2012.  The ‘Loin Quota’ was first introduced in 2004 as part of an autonomous trade measure for a number of fishery and aquaculture products, including pre-cooked tuna loins (HS 1604 1416), to guarantee cost effective raw material supplies to the EU fish processing industry.  Within the realm of the reform the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, a new proposal is currently being considered by the EC to continue the autonomous trade measure which would apply from 1 January 2013 – 31 December 2015.[17]  

The tariff quota for imported tuna loins for 2010-2012 has been 15,000 mt at 6% duty, which is offered on an ‘erga omnes’ basis (i.e. available to any third countries on a first-come, first-served basis).[18]  Under the new proposal, 20,000mt of tuna loins could enter the EC annually at zero duty for 2013-2015.  The most-favoured nation (MFN) tariff rate for pre-cooked tuna loins is 24 per cent.  

Since the introduction of the loin quota in 2004, each revision has seen the quota volume increase in response to calls from EU-based tuna processing industry, while the rate of duty has remained at 6% (i.e. 4,000 mt in 2004; up to 15,000mt in 2010-2012).[19] Reportedly, the EU processing industry has lobbied the EC to increase the quota to 30,000 mt at zero duty, to help canned tuna processors continue to maintain competitiveness in light of rising production costs and raw material sourcing constraints.[20]  

Since the early 2000s, imports of tuna loins into the EU have more than doubled, reaching 110,000 mt in 2011.[21] The major importers are high-cost canned tuna producers Spain and Italy, which account for 90% of EU loin imports. Currently, Ecuador is the leading exporter of cooked loins to the EC (32% in 2011), benefiting from duty free access under the EU’s GSP+ scheme (see story above).  Thailand is the second largest loin exporter (15% in 2011) and has historically been the most significant importer to utilise the loin quota.[22]

If the quota volume is increased and/or duty further reduced post-2012, Thailand, as well as other Southeast Asian suppliers (i.e. China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Philippines) will be able to take advantage of increased duty free supply opportunities to the EU.  This will result in increased competition for Pacific Island-based processors exporting loins to the EU (i.e. PNG, Solomon Islands) and other ACP and Latin American loin producers.  However, since the loin quota can be utilised by any country, it does provide an ongoing opportunity for ACP and Latin American suppliers with existing duty free access to export loins processed from non-originating raw materials at zero duty, rather than paying 24 per cent duty. 

Fisheries Management

Philippines purse seiners recommence fishing in previously closed high seas pocket

On 1 October 2012, Philippines purse seine vessels recommenced fishing in the western-most high seas pocket bordered by Palau, FSM, PNG and Indonesia (referred to as High Seas Pocket No. 1). 

In 2008, WCPFC endorsed the closure of two western high seas pockets to purse seine fishing, effective from 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2011, under the conservation and management measure for bigeye and yellowfin (CMM 2008-01).  This closure was removed in March 2012, when WCPFC8 failed to reach a decision on a revised CMM for bigeye and yellowfin. While this area is temporarily open under WCPFC rules, any purse seine vessel that is licensed to fish in the waters of one of the 8 Parties to the Nauru Agreement is restricted from fishing there.  Given that almost all other purse seine vessels are licensed to one or more PNA member, the decision of WCPFC to remove the closure is in effect an exemption granted to these Philippines vessels.  The new measure that gives effect to these decisions (CMM 2011-01) contains specific provisions for up to 36 traditional fresh/ice-chilled group purse seiners (< 250 GT) to fish in the western-most high seas pocket.  Philippines sought this special treatment on the grounds that closure of high seas pockets has resulted in excessive fishing pressure within Philippines’ waters, which it claims to be an important spawning ground for tuna.[23]  Other Commission members have noted that given the role of water temperature in determining spawning grounds for tropical tunas, it is highly unlikely that the Philippines EEZ is any more significant to spawning than any other tropical area, such as the high seas pockets.

At least 50 Philippines operators applied for the 36 high seas fishing opportunities offered by WCPFC, leading the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) to raffle the fishing slots.  The 36 successful vessels must comply with a series of conditions – the vessel must be internationally registered, carry a regional observer and vessel monitoring system, offload all catch in General Santos and submit detailed catch reports.[24]  In addition, each vessel is limited to deploying 40 FADs and can catch a maximum of 24 mt/day.  This exclusive access for Philippines is valid until 28 February 2013.  Philippines are seeking an extension at the upcoming annual session of WCPFC in December (WCPFC9), but several other Commission members, including those who border the high seas area and hold grave concerns over the potential for illegal fishing have already questioned the implementation of the conditions set.[25] 

The extension of high seas areas closures in currently under review by WCPFC within a broader review of conservation and management measures for bigeye and yellow (to replace CMM 2008-01 and CMM 2011-01).  Scientists report that the high seas area closures have been largely complied with, with very little purse seine fishing effort recorded since 2010.[26]  However, the effectiveness of the closures in reducing bigeye and yellowfin catches is under question, since fishing effort has been transferred from high seas areas to EEZs, rather than being removed from the fishery altogether. Alternative options are being considered including the introduction of a limit on fishing effort in the high seas to 10,000 days per year.[27]

Fisheries Development

United Nations report on ‘ocean grabbing’ and small-scale fisheries

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, made his first major intervention in the realm of fisheries with a report to the UN General Assembly in late October.[28] The Special Rapporteur’s role is as an independent expert and his focus had previously been on the ‘right to food’ in agriculture and nutrition. His new report outlines the centrality of fish to many peoples’ diets and the role of fisheries in sustaining livelihoods. He highlights well documented problem areas with the environmental sustainability of fisheries and reviews the relative importance of industrial and small scale fisheries to economies and societies across the planet. In parallel with the popularly-framed ‘land grab’ where countries and large firms appear to be intensifying their investment in agricultural land in recent years, the Special Rapporteur identifies the threat of ‘ocean grabbing’ as the increased competition for marine resources, illegal and unreported catch, the sometimes negative implications of industrial fleets for small-scale fishers and local availability of fish, and the incursions of industrial fleets into protected waters.

The report makes several interventions and recommendations of resonance to tuna industries in the Pacific island countries, including:

* Ensuring coexistence between industrial fishing and the rights of small-scale fishers and coastal communities, including by creating exclusive fishing zones for artisanal and small-scale fishers and ending incursions by industrial fleets.

* Assessing trade agreements and fisheries access arrangements against human rights obligations, including the right to food.[29]

* Providing effective support to small-scale fishers' cooperatives and helping them to rise up the value chain under conditions that provide decent employment, including accessing global markets.

Given that governments have an obligation to fulfil the right to food,[30] the Special Rapporteur calls on governments to engage in adequate inter-ministerial coordination to develop national strategies on the right to food that incorporate small-scale fisheries as local sources of adequate nutrition and/or livelihoods. While recognising that this ‘is a difficult balance to strike’, he argues that ‘without swift and bold action by States, the contribution made by fisheries to securing the right to food will diminish, with considerable consequences, in particular for poorer rural communities’.

Working conditions in seafood industry in the spotlight

The conditions of fishing crew living and working on boats rarely captures the headlines, especially compared to concerns around the sustainability of the stocks they are fishing. However, a number of recent stories indicate that concern about the exploitation of crew on fishing vessels is growing. 

The Maritime Union of New Zealand has engaged in a long standing campaign on the exploitation of crew working on foreign vessels, which was highlighted starkly by the deaths of crew after the sinking of two old Korean vessels in 2010. In May 2012 the New Zealand government made the surprise announcement that it would ban fishing in its waters by foreign-flagged boats.[31] Foreign charter vessels fishing in national waters will have to fly the New Zealand flag meaning that crew fall under the country's labour standards. The policy comes into force after a four year transition period designed to reduce economic impacts on fishing firms, but which will see measures deployed to protect crew during the transition, including tougher independent audits and safety monitoring on vessels.[32]

In the US, the giant retailer Wal-Mart recently suspended a US-based seafood supplier for the appalling treatment of its workforce.33 This action was based on a number of investigations into seafood processors,[34] including one that found migrant workers doing excessive mandatory overtime without sufficient breaks and paid below the minimum wage.[35] Another recent investigation has looked outside of the US to examine working conditions for Burmese and Cambodian crew on Thai boats whose catch may supply the US market. The report alleges slave-like contracts and even the murder of crew.[36]

Tuna Markets 

Greenpeace clash with fishing industry in Taiwan

Greenpeace International’s vessel Esperanza arrived in Taiwan in early October for a two week visit with port calls to Keelung, Xiaoliuqiu Island and Kaohsiung. This culminated with Greenpeace activists engaging in a public demonstration at a major Kaohsiung shipyard, unfurling a banner stating ‘Overfishing starts here’. Greenpeace accuses Taiwan of approving the domestic shipbuilding industry to build 22 new purse seiners in the 5 years since 2007, putting out to sea a total tonnage of new seiners 5 times that of Japan, 14 times more than China and 38 times that of South Korea.[37] In total, Greenpeace estimates that Taiwan firms control a purse seine fleet of 72 boats.

However, the Taiwan Fisheries Agency points out that it dedicates a considerable portion of its budget to controlling distant water fishing, that the right to build a vessel is only granted when an old boat is replaced with a new one of the same tonnage, and that Greenpeace got its facts wrong: the purse seiners allowed to be flagged by Taiwan has long been limited to 34 boats.[38] Greenpeace activists argue that replacement boats are more efficient and have much larger holds, resulting in effort and technology creep.[39]

This public battle over fishing fleet size raises a familiar problem of defining the ‘nationality’ of boats. Under international law it is defined by the vessel registry (the ‘flag’), but in commercial practice it is often more logical to look to the country of beneficial ownership. Following the latter logic, in 2010 there were an estimated 58 Taiwan-owned and/or managed distant water tuna purse seiners, all of which operate in the WCPO: 33 used the Taiwan flag, 18 were registered in Vanuatu, 4 in the Marshall Islands and 3 operated under joint venture arrangements with Marshall Islands (2) and Tuvalu (1). In addition, three Taiwan fishing companies made substantial investments in another 18 purse seiners that operate as US flagged vessels under the US Multilateral Tuna Treaty with the Pacific Islands. All 18 vessels were built in Taiwan.[40] Therefore, in terms of total investment in purse seiners, Taiwan firms had a full or partial stake in around 76 boats, but, contrary to Greenpeace estimates, this does not mean that these firms necessarily have full commercial control of the 18 US flagged boats.

1 Prepared for the FFA Fisheries Development Division by Liam Campling, Consultant Fisheries Trade Analyst, FFA and School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London and Elizabeth Havice, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Desktop publishing by Antony Price. The authors would like to thank Hugh Walton 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 EC 2012, Regulation (EU) No. 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences and repealing council regulation (EC) No. 732/2008.  Official Journal of European Union, 31 October 2012. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu 

33 Business Mirror 2012, ‘Philippine Canned Tuna ‘Good Chance’ of Getting Zero Duty in EU’, Atuna, 2 October 2012.  Available at: http://www.atuna.com

4 Pers. comm., Ecuador industry representative, October 2012. 

5 Authors’ analysis.

6 San Bilal, ‘EPAs’ 10th anniversary: The Never Ending Story’, ECDPM Talking Points, 27 September 2012. Available at: http://www.ecdpm-talkingpoints.org/epa-anniversary-the-never-ending-story/

7 Commission Proposal to amend Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 COM(2011) 598 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0598:FIN:...

8 Lorand Bartels, 2012, ‘Withdrawing Provisional Application of Treaties: Has the EU Made a Mistake?’,

Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1(1): 112–118. Available at: http://www.cjicl.org.uk/journal/issue/1/1 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (entered into force on 27 January 1980). Available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_196...

9 Rachna Lal, ‘EU, Pacific meet in Brussels to seal deal’, Fiji Sun, 7 October 2012. Available at:  http://www.fijisun.com.fj/2012/10/07/eu-pacific-meet-in-brussels-to-seal...

10 Robert Gillett and Garry Preston, 2012, Feasibility Assessment of Exporting Products of HS Headings 0304/ 0305 to the European Union (February), Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

11 ACP, ‘ACP preferences to erode as EU trade with third countries thrive’, press release, 30 October 2012. Available at: http://www.acp.int/fr/node/1684

12 ACP, ‘Mixed progress for ACP-EU trade agreements’, press release, 31 October 2012. Available at: http://www.acp.int/content/mixed-progress-acp-eu-trade-agreements

13 Blomeyer & Sanz, University of Algarve, University of Vigo and University of Wageningen 2012, Application of the System of Derogation to the Rules of Origin of Fisheries Products in Papua New Guinea and Fiji, report prepared for European Parliament. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies  

14 DG MARE 2010, Study on Preferential Rules of Origin for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products – PNG Case Study, European Commission. 

15 Hamilton, A., Lewis, A. and Campling, L. 2011. Report on the implementation of the derogation to the standard rules of origin granted in the Pacific ACP States in the framework of the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement, report prepared for EC-DG Trade, December 2011.  Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/february/tradoc_149137.pdf

16 For example: FIS 2012, ‘Spanish Canners Want 30,000 M/T of Tuna Loins Duty Free to Survive’, Atuna, 19 September 2012.  Available at: www.atuna.com

17 EC 2012, Proposal for a Council Regulation on trade related measures to guarantee the supply of certain fishery products to Union processors from 2013 to 2015 amending Regulations (EC) No 104/2000 and (EU) No 1344/2011 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1062/2009.

18 Council Regulation (EC) No 1062/2009. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu

19 4,000 mt (2004-2006); 8,000 mt (2007); 9,000mt (2008); 10,000 mt (2009); 15,000 mt (2012-2012)

20 op.cit. FIS 2012. 

21 Eurostat 2012.  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

22 ibid.

23 Hamilton, Havice and Campling 2012, ‘WCPFC8 disappoints on enhanced management of bigeye and yellowfin stocks’, FFA Fisheries Trade News, March-April 2012.  Available at: http://www.ffa.int

24 FIS 2012, ‘Tuna fishers venture out to pocket 1 of the Pacific’, FIS, 31 August 2012. Available at: http://www.fis.com

25 Minada News 2012, ‘Closure High Seas Pockets Not Helping Bigeye Recovery Enough’, Atuna, 11 September 2012. Available at: http://www.atuna.com

26 WCPFC 2012, Review of the Implementation and Effectiveness of CMM 2008-01, paper to Scientific Committee, Eighth Regular Session (SC8-WCPFC8-01), 7-15 August 2012, Korea. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int

27 WCPFC 2012, ‘Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in Western and Central Pacific Ocean, paper to Technical and Compliance Committee, Eighth Regular Session, 27 September – 2 October, FSM.  Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int

28 ‘Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food’, Sixty-seventh session of the United Nation’s General Assembly, A/67/268. Available at: http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20121030_fish_e...

29 See, for example, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements’, Human Rights Council Nineteenth session, 19 December 2011, A/HRC/19/59/Add.5. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session...

30 See for example Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, ‘Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development’, Human Rights Council Seventh Session, 10 January 2008, A/HRC/7/5. Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/100/98/PDF/G0810098.pdf?O...

31 Tracy Watkins, Danya Levy and Michael Field, ‘Foreign flagged fishing boats to be banned’, stuff.co.nz,  22 May 2012. Available at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6965223/Foreign-flagged-fishi...

32 ‘Foreign Fishing Boats to be Reflagged as New Zealand Vessels’, China Daily, 22 May 2012. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2012-05-22/content_5979267.html  International Transport Workers’ Federation, ‘New Zealand flags foreign-owned fishing vessels’, press release, 24 May 2012. Available at: http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/7418

33 Steven Greenhouse, ‘Wal-Mart Suspends Supplier of Seafood’, New York Times, 29 June 2012. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/business/wal-mart-suspends-seafood-sup...

34 ‘Workers’ rights group targets four U.S. suppliers’, SeafoodSource.com, 29 June 2012. Available at: http://www.seafoodsource.com/newsarticledetail.aspx?id=16638

35 Worker Rights Consortium 2012, Assessment C.J.’S Seafood/Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Breaux Bridge, La)

Findings and Recommendations, June 20. Available at: http://workersrights.org/freports/WRC%20Assessment%20re%20CJ%27s%20Seafo...

36 Patrick Winn, ‘Did these ex-slaves catch your lunch?’, The Global Post, 21 May 2012. Available at: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/thailand/12... Patrick Winn, ‘Desperate life at sea’, The Global Post, 21 May 2012. Available at:  http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/thailand/12...

37 Lee I-chia, ‘Fisheries Agency denies Greenpeace accusations’, Taipei Times, 15 October 2012. Available at: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/10/15/2003545246 and Jens Kastner, ‘Taiwan's Oversize Tuna Fleet’, Asia Sentinel, 18 October 2012. Available at: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49... Taiwan News, ‘Kaohsiung Police Questions Greenpeace Activists Over Occupation Tuna Shipyard’, Atuna, 12 October 2012. Available at: http://www.atuna.com/news.html

38 Lee I-chia (2012); June Tsai. ‘ROC Fisheries Agency promotes sustainability’, Taiwan Today, 3 October 2012. Available at: http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=196958&ctNode=413

39 Kastner (2012).

40 Amanda Hamilton, Antony Lewis, Mike A. McCoy, Elizabeth Havice and Liam Campling (2011), Market and Industry Dynamics in the Global Tuna Supply Chain, Honiara: Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. Available at: http://www.ffa.int/node/567