POACHING IN SEYCHELLES WATERS !
On Wednesday January 24, 2007, the “Seychelles Nation” front-paged the Third Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission Conference with the theme “Mobilisation against illegal Fishing”. It is pertinent to note the following issues reported in our sister publication “Seychelles Review” of Christmas 2006/New Year 2007:
Numerous countries fish within Seychelles Exclusive Economic Zone including the EU, Japan and Taiwan to name a few. Spain at the time of the article had already imported 10,648 tonnes of frozen Yellow fin tuna from the Seychelles.
Yellow fin tuna is one of the most valuable fish species in the world. “A” grade yellow fin Tuna or Big-eye tuna the two species frequently found in Seychelles fetch between US$8 to US$25 per kilo at auction in USA or Japan. “B” Grade fresh tuna loin when processed for steak also has a stable year round price of US$10. Such fish when destined for a canning factory sell for only US$ 1.40 per kilo. Fish such as skipjack and Albacore are not of the right texture and quality for fresh steaks and are perfect for canning. Therefore putting Yellow fin and Big-eye in a can is not in Seychelles best economic interest. Nor is the act of transshipping tuna caught in Seychelles to other destinations for processing.
Scientific data from FAO has shown that out of 600 species monitored 52% are fully exploited while within another 25%; 17% are over-exploited, 7% are depleted and 1% recovering from depletion, of the remaining 20% are moderately exploited with just 3% ranked as under-exploited. Another study points out that at this rate100 percentage of fished species will collapse by the year 2048.
In an effort to maximise its resources and revenues from tuna fishing Seychelles has to take immediate action. This is by attracting vessels that offload higher value fish in Victoria. This is through levying a fee for each fish caught in Seychelles waters (similar to the per barrel charge levied on oil exported by oil exporting countries). Sri Lanka, one of Seychelles major competitors in the Fresh fish industry, charges US$0.15 per kilogramme on every fish landed in the country. Conversely, Seychelles charges a very low fee on each ton landed in the country.
Last year (2005), Seychelles transhipped 339,686 tonnes of fish to the EU. This would have earned a staggering US$50,000,000 in fees had a similar policy as that in Sri Lanka been followed. The worth of this tuna at current prices is approximately US$475 million. The Indian Ocean Tuna Factory processed over 40,000 tonnes of tuna in 2005. Only between 35 – 40% of the whole round weight makes it into the can. Therefore, one can assume that another 100,000 tonnes of whole tuna were landed at IOT for processing. This would have meant another US$15 million in landing fees.
How much did Seychelles receive for transshipping of this fish through Victoria? Currently there is a charge of US$3 per ton for 30,000 tonnes or less, and US$1 per tonne for transshipping above 60,000 tonnes. In the best case scenario, Seychelles earned less than US$ 1.1 million on direct transhipment fees. Adding the succeeding benefits arising still pales in comparison to the value of tuna removed from our waters and transshipped.
Despite knowledge of these benefits and value of fresh tuna, Seychelles Government is currently against foreign longline vessels being allowed to fish in Seychelles. The current boats exploiting tuna in Seychelles waters are purse-seiners. A tuna caught by a purse-seine fish vessel is of poor quality and cannot be sold on the higher value sashimi or fresh tuna steak market. This is because firstly the purse seine vessel uses a net that encloses like a drawstring. When the net encloses round the catch, it crushes everything inside due to the pressure and sheer weight of the catch itself. This damages the fish and the only primary use becomes canning. Furthermore, once the tuna is hauled aboard it is put in brine or salt to preserve it for transport. Just one high-tech EU vessel can catch and hold 2000 tonnes of tuna in a single fishing voyage. The European fleet is heavily subsidised by the EU government with EU taxpayer’s money and can afford modern high-tech vessels. The Los Angeles times recently reported that
“Despite plummeting fish stocks, over-fishing is accelerating around the globe, encouraging in part by $30 billion in annual subsidies for fishing boats, fuel and other assistance. Asian and European nations provide the heftiest subsidies in efforts to keep a beleaguered industry afloat.”
Of the 24 long liner vessels registered and flagged in the Seychelles, most are flying the Seychelles flag of convenience. In turn, Seychelles collects little revenue from this venture as license fees. No one really knows how-much tuna is being caught by these vessels as they land their catch in other countries. The owners are only “honour bound” to report catches to the Seychelles Fisheries Authorities (SFA). The Seychelles Coast Guard does not have the capacity in terms of sea and air power to effectively monitor the EEZ. Consequently it is believed that many vessels are under-reporting their catch.
Charging landing fees would mean better equipment for the Coast Guard to monitor and enforce the EEZ, build our own fishing fleets and lessen reliance on the EU fleet. The recent protocol should make provision to enforce a law that all vessels fishing within the EEZ would have to come to Seychelles to offload their catches. Any vessel not doing so would have their vessels seized. It should also legislate against transshipping at sea by requiring all vessels to transship in a port somewhere in the world to monitor illegal fishing. Does Seychelles remain the largest tuna transshipment port in the world because it does not charge landing fees? Charging a landing fee would hurt the canning processors a little more than it would the fresh fish processors. In the long run, it would decrease the supply. This would relieve pressure on the tuna stocks and increase the sustainability of the EEZ for years to come. It must be noted that prices for tuna in a can has been allowed to remain at the same low price for over 20 years.
Furthermore, the local longline fleet concentrates on shark fin fishing. The landing fees would assist Seyhellois processors and exporters to purchase tuna from foreign vessels. On the other hand, the EU discourages this by trying to keep foreign vessels from coming to Seychelles. This is done by influencing local authorities to be inhospitable and critical when these vessels arrive in port. By keeping the competition away, the EU ensures that tuna stocks are available for their heavily subsidised industry. The EU also actively discourages countries from going into competing arenas through the implementation of bureaucratic rules and regulations applicable to vessels, factories and exports – even for fish not destined for the European market. Conversely, the European Union has never assisted or encouraged Seychelles to develop its own longline or purse-seine fleet nor has it provided assistance to help local processors comply within their own EU regulations.
With the millions of Euros in lobbying power, the EU is exerting its influence on the world’s organizations in charge of fisheries. In this scenario, Seychelles is being exploited, as a puppet of the EU, to maintain the current status quo. The Seychelles government should take a stronger stance to ensure that tuna resource, as well as other fish found in Seychelles waters belong to the Seychelles and not the European Union.
( Source Seychelles Review)
