Overview
Title
International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government made a quick decision to protect certain types of fish in the ocean because they are running low. They decided when and where people can catch these fish to make sure there are enough for the future.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Commerce Department, has issued an interim final rule aiming to conserve tropical tuna species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021. This rule implements measures from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, continuing regulations similar to those from 2018-2020. Key provisions include limited catch for bigeye tuna by longline vessels, a 72-day fishing restriction period for large purse seine vessels, and restrictions on fishing locations from October 9 to November 8. The rule is effective immediately to comply with international obligations and ensure the conservation of tuna stocks.
Abstract
NMFS is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement Resolution C-20-05 (Conservation of Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 2021), which was adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC or Commission) on December 22, 2020. All of the provisions of Resolution C-20-05 are identical in content to the previous resolution on tropical tuna management that expired at the end of 2020. This interim final rule implements the C-20-05 fishing management measures for tropical tuna (i.e., bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)) in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). The fishing restrictions in this interim final rule are applicable in 2021 only and apply to purse seine vessels of class sizes 4-6 (carrying capacity of 182 metric tons (mt) or greater) and longline vessels greater than 24 meters (m) in overall length that fish for tropical tuna in the EPO. This interim final rule is necessary for the conservation of tropical tuna stocks in the EPO and for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent publication from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), details an interim final rule intended to conserve tropical tuna species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for the year 2021. This action was taken under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act and aligns with the measures established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The rule, effective immediately, replicates conservation efforts previously enforced from 2018 to 2020, outlining restrictions on the fishing practices of purse seine and longline vessels to prevent overfishing and ensure the sustainability of tuna stocks.
Summary of the Document
At its core, the rule mandates a 72-day fishing restriction for certain large purse seine vessels targeting tropical tuna, such as bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna. It also imposes limits on the catch of bigeye tuna for longline vessels exceeding 24 meters in length. Additionally, it delineates specific geographic areas and periods during which fishing activities are restricted to protect tuna populations. This interim rule intends to uphold the international obligations of the United States as a participant in the Antigua Convention under the auspices of the IATTC.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The issuance of this rule as an interim final rule means it bypasses the usual notice and comment period typically provided in federal rulemaking processes. This expedited approach raises concerns about limited public engagement and participation in decision-making, which are usually critical aspects of developing regulations that may significantly impact stakeholders.
Furthermore, the document uses technical and regulatory language that could be difficult for non-specialists to grasp, complicating public understanding. The lack of detailed explanation on the potential economic impacts of these fishing restrictions on the fishing industry is another area of concern. Additionally, there is ambiguity regarding enforcement, as the rule does not clearly specify how compliance will be monitored.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the public benefits from such conservation measures, as they aim to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks, critical for ecological balance and future fishing industries. However, these rules can have mixed impacts depending on the stakeholder.
For commercial fishing operators, especially those using large purse seine or longline vessels, these regulations may curb their operational capabilities and affect their economic returns due to enforced fishing limitations. There's also a potential risk of non-compliance with international standards being imposed if these operators do not adapt swiftly to the new rule, which could lead to penalties or other consequences.
On the positive side, environmental groups and future generations stand to benefit, as maintaining healthy tuna populations is vital for marine ecosystems and biodiversity. The timely implementation also aligns with the United States' international commitments, promoting environmental accountability on a global stage.
In conclusion, while the rule aims to strike a balance between sustaining marine resources and meeting international treaty commitments, its immediate implementation without prior public comment could lead to significant implications for the fishing industry due to its potential oversight of economic impacts and enforcement clarity. Addressing these concerns in future rule considerations would be beneficial to ensure comprehensive stakeholder engagement and transparent implementation measures.
Issues
• Limited Participation in Decision-Making: The interim final rule was issued with immediate effect, foregoing the typical notice and comment procedure, limiting public engagement in the rulemaking process.
• Urgency Justification: The justification for bypassing the usual rulemaking process due to 'impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest' could be viewed as an insufficient explanation for why normal procedures weren't followed.
• Complex Language: The document contains technical and regulatory language that may be difficult for non-specialists to understand, such as specific geographical coordinates and periods of closure.
• Insufficient Explanation of Impacts: The document does not fully explore the potential economic impacts on the fishing industry resulting from the restrictions imposed by the rule.
• Lack of Clarity on Enforcement: The rule does not specify how compliance with these rules will be monitored or enforced, leaving ambiguity in the implementation process.
• Potential Favoritism: There is a lack of detailed clarification on how the catch limit transfer requirements between IATTC members will be applied, potentially allowing favor towards certain countries if not managed transparently.
• Limited Alternatives: There is no mention of alternative measures considered before deciding on this interim rule, which could provide insights into whether less restrictive means could have been effective.
• Risk of Non-Compliance: The urgency claimed in implementing the rule immediately is based on preventing the U.S. from being non-compliant with international obligations, which suggests underlying compliance risks that are not fully explored or explained.