Regional fisheries management: COVID-19 calendars and decision making.

In 2020 the management of transboundary fisheries was severely impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Most annual meetings of regional fisheries and marine management organizations were held virtually, postponed, or cancelled. Even though most organizations managed to meet virtually in 2020, many important decisions were postponed to 2021. Consequently, regional secretariats and delegations face a difficult calendar with substantial agendas and complex decision-making challenges. This commentary provides a brief overview of the virtual meeting processes that have been implemented by regional organisations in response to COVID-19 and provides a calendar of their plans for 2021.

Introduction

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the operation of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) and regional marine organisations and continues to affect their operation and decision-making. These organisations typically operate through a regular schedule of scientific and compliance committee meetings, inter-sessional and ad-hoc meetings, culminating in annual Commission meetings at which decisions are formally negotiated and adopted. Prior to COVID-19, these meetings largely took place in-person, hosted by a member State. COVID-19 related travel disruptions and restrictions on public gatherings have forced all of these meetings to be either cancelled, postponed, or rescheduled in a modified and virtual format, supported by audio and videoconferencing technologies. Meeting modifications included, among other things, shorter agendas and the referral of important decisions to 2021.

As COVID-19 disruptions continue to carry over into 2021, RFMOs and marine regional organisations are now struggling to schedule delayed matters, on top of their already busy normal schedule. This is further complicated by the limitations of virtual meetings that tend to be less effective than physical meetings at achieving progressive outcomes, and often carry limited agendas. This is creating a scheduling crunch as international organisations try to schedule important meetings within an already crowded calendar, that now operates 24 h per day, and often includes member States who are party to multiple organisations.

This paper provides a brief overview of the virtual meeting processes that have been implemented by twelve RFMOs and regional marine organisations ( Fig. 1) in response to COVID-19 and provides a calendar of their plans for 2021. The aim of this summary is to assist these organisations, and their members and stakeholders, by providing an overview of current practices and meeting arrangements.

Fig. 1

Map of RFMOs and marine regional organisations [1].

Most of the information presented in this paper was gathered from organisational websites and meeting reports, guided by generous advice from secretariats. The authors have done their best to accurately report current processes and plans in a constantly changing context. We take responsibility for any errors and welcome any feedback to correct or update the information provided in this Short Commentary. Depending on further developments, we may provide a further update as meeting processes and schedules continue to evolve in the context of vaccine roll-outs.

Background

All of the RFMOs surveyed by Haas et al. [1] held virtual meetings in substitution for face-to-face meetings. This trend is continuing into 2021 in response to ongoing public health measures around the world. While there is some evidence to suggest that virtual meetings have been positive in terms of cost efficiency and accessibility for observers and smaller and/or less well-resourced delegations [3], in most circumstances the net impact on decision-making appears detrimental. For example, virtual meetings appear to exacerbate existing consensus-based decision-making challenges due to the lack of time to thoroughly discuss and negotiate items in a shortened agenda [3]. Compared to face-to-face meetings, virtual meetings were much shorter, mostly half the time of usual physical meetings (i.e. 2–4 h per day, compared to 8 h in a face-to-face meeting). Thus, most virtual meetings have run on compressed agendas with shorter discussions and have postponed decision-making on matters deemed important but less urgent. Holding such meetings virtually also raises significant questions of transparency and equity in decision-making. For example, concerns have been raised about how decisions regarding shortened agendas are made [3], and how observer organisations are included in virtual decision-making [4]. Effective participation in virtual meeting decision-making processes also depends in part on the availability and accessibility of necessary information and communication technologies and supporting telecommunication infrastructures like videoconferencing systems and a reliable internet connection. The impact of the loss of face-to-face meetings on the success of marine resource negotiations, including on levels of interpersonal trust and cooperation that are necessary to reach an agreement on difficult issues has yet to be quantified, but research is emerging in this new topical space (e.g., [5]). Existing research in broader online negotiation environments finds that effects on interpersonal trust can be negative [6]. While many RFMOs succeeded in negotiating important conservation and management measures (CMMs) and amendments in 2020, some RFMOs were only able to negotiate a roll-over of existing CMMs (e.g. CMM 2018–01“Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Tuna” in the WCPFC). In the most extreme case, an important CMM was at risk for a brief period, with potentially significant stock sustainability implications (see IATTC below).

Following a year of COVID-19, a number of short to long-term recommendations have emerged on how to improve RFMO decision-making processes in virtual fora for going forward. For example, OECD [3] notes that increased utilisation of intersessional decision-making processes and the development of voting and objection procedures as an alternative to consensus-based decisions could facilitate more effective decision-making. PEW [4] made a number of recommendations designed to assist RFMOs to reach consensus regardless of meeting format. These recommendations related to clarifying meeting expectations prior to beginning the meeting, progressing as much work as possible inter-sessionally, creating meeting formats that are more conducive to reaching consensus and empowering Chairs to facilitate negotiations more efficiently.

Living marine resource management decision making during COVID-19 pandemic in 2020

While COVID-19 impacted all the organizations, each of them had to deal with specific circumstances related to their organizational settings. This section provides a brief overview of some of the issues each of these organizations faced, and which arrangements have been put in place for their meetings in 2020.

CCAMLR

The four target species in the CCAMLR convention area are Patagonian toothfish, Antarctic toothfish, mackerel icefish and Antarctic krill. CCAMLR has a comprehensive suite of Conservation Measures for managing these fisheries and associated activities in the Antarctic, such as catch limits for target and by catch species, environmental measures, and requirements on licensing and fisheries management.

The Commission held its formal meeting by videoconference in 2020. Due to the specific circumstances, the Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance and the Standing Committee on Administration and Finance had informal videoconference meetings and did not adopt a report. The Chairs of these committees instead presented a summary of the e-group discussions to the Commission for consideration [7]. The Scientific Committee working groups held informal virtual meetings during the course of the year and did not adopt formal reports. The Scientific Committee met informally and then formally, but for a shorter time than usual. Scientific Committee working groups held informal videoconference meetings and did not adopt a report. The Commission was able to adopt revisions of existing measures for the management of toothfish and icefish and had discussions of other issues, such as Marine Protected Areas and climate change [7].

CCSBT

Unlike most RFMOs, the CCSBT is not restricted to a Convention Area and only manages Southern bluefin tuna. In the year 2020, all meetings were conducted online with full agendas. During the Extended Commission meeting, the respective Committees presented their reports and the Extended Commission then provided recommendations.

IATTC

The main target species of the IATTC are tropical tunas (i.e. yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna), which are managed by Resolution C-17–02 Resolution on Conservation and Management Measures for Tropical Tunas. The IATTC convened all meetings by videoconference, following the procedures laid down in Resolution C-20–01 to establish ad hoc procedures for the 95th annual meeting of the Commission by videoconference [8]. This resolution, inter alia, stated that the agenda for the Commission meeting shall only contain priority issues that require immediate decision [8]. During the 95th Commission meeting, members were not able to agree on a roll-over of Res C-17–02 on tropical tuna measures. Due to the importance of this measure to the sustainable management of these stocks, members agreed to urgently meet again in December 2020, where they subsequently reached an agreement and adopted Resolution C-20–05 on the Conservation and Management Measures for Tropical Tunas in 2021 [9] and Resolution C-20–06 on the Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean during 2021 pursuant to resolution C-20–05 [10].

ICCAT

While ICCAT manages all tuna and tuna-like species, bluefin tuna is one of the key species in this organization. In 2020 the scientific working groups met by videoconference, while the standing committee on research and statistics (SCRS) and the annual commission were cancelled, with essential business instead discussed via email correspondence. It is important to note, however, that the ICCAT convention allows for the cancelation of an annual meeting, as it states that the members only have to meet every second year [11]. Stated reasons for this decision included difficulties with stable access to the internet, security, and time schedule of meetings [12]. ICCAT decided instead to roll-over existing CMMs unless advice from the scientific committee recommended action. The scientific committee only provided advice on species that have undergone a stock assessment in 2020 (i.e. Atlantic albacore, porbeagle, Mediterranean swordfish and bluefin tuna) [13]. The decisions in the panels, which worked on new proposals, were made by consensus according to the following guidelines: “if, after three iterations of this process, the relevant Chair determines that consensus will not be possible on a proposal, the Panel Chair will close debate on the specific proposal and, where the proposal relates to a management measure that is expiring, initiate a discussion on possible next steps” ([12], pp. 2).

IOTC

The main target species in the IOTC are skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin tuna, albacore and swordfish. Due to the status of the stock, the management of yellowfin tuna is currently of most concern. Yellowfin tuna is managed under Resolution 19/01 - an interim plan for rebuilding the Indian Ocean Yellowfin Tuna Stock in the IOTC Area of Competence. Another key concern in the IOTC is the management of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) (Resolution 19/02 – Procedures on a Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) Management Plan). During COVID, in 2020, IOTC conducted all meetings by videoconference. In a Heads of Delegation meeting, members decided to ‘avoid matters which are typically complex and time-consuming’ and thus did not discuss new CMMs. Any CMMs with provisions that ended in 2020 were extended [14]. During the Commission meeting, which was held via videoconference, one member disagreed with extending some of the dates in Resolution 19/01 (i.e. measure on yellowfin tuna) and it was decided to host a Special Session in March 2021 to discuss this issue [15]. During the Commission meeting, the chairs of the respective committees presented their reports and recommendations to the Commission, which then discussed these [15].

NAFO

NAFO mainly manages groundfish, but also shrimp and pelagic redfish. All the existing CMMs are in place to sustainably manage these fisheries. Currently, there is a moratorium in place on some groundfish and shrimp stocks and on the pelagic redfish fishery [16]. The annual meeting was held by videoconference and no extraordinary measures concerning the format of the meeting had been noted [17], [18].

NEAFC

NEAFC manages very diverse fishing areas and has management measures in place for most of these species, such as redfish, herring, blue ling, or basking sharks. Due to COVID-19, all the meetings were held by videoconference.

NPFC

The NPFC manages deep-sea fisheries on the north Pacific, with key species such as Chub Mackerel, Pacific Saury, Sablefish, Japanese Sardine and Japanese Flying Squid. For each of these mentioned species, a CMM is in place. Except for the Scientific Committee Meetings and its respective working groups, no meetings took place in 2020 but were postponed to January and February 2021. These meetings were held by videoconference. During the Commission meeting members were able to adopt three new CMMs (i.e. CMM 2021–01 On Information Requirements for Vessel Registration; CMM 2021–09 For High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures for the NPFC; and CMM 2021–12 On the Vessel Monitoring System). Due to time constraints, topics, such as the selection of the Finance and Administration Committee Chair and the Vice Chair, were not discussed during the Commission meeting, but will be discussed intersessionally.

SEAFO

The main species targeted by members of this organization are deep-sea red crab, alfonsino, Patagonian toothfish and pelagic amour head/ southern boarfish. The annual commission meeting took place through videoconference. The scientific committee advised to extend all TACs and management measures for 2021 and this recommendation was approved at the Commission meeting [19].

SIOFA

SIOFA manages a variety of demersal stocks, with Patagonian Toothfish as one of the key target species. This species is managed under CMM 2019/15 for the Management of Demersal Stocks in the Agreement Area. The annual meeting was held via a mix of correspondence and videoconference, however, decisions such as the one relating to observer coverage (which had been suspended until 31 January 2021) were made intersessionally [20]. One member of SIOFA remarked that taking intersessional decisions is less transparent and requested that the secretariat publishes all the related documents on a secure website [20].

SPRFMO

The three key fisheries currently managed under the SPRFMO Convention are jack mackerel, jumbo flying squid and bottom fishing for various deepwater species. SPRFMO conducted its Commission meeting by videoconference in January/February 2021. Pre-meeting discussions resulted in the meeting period being extended, sessions were held at different times to ‘share the burden’ and the meeting avoided working on weekends. The meetings were originally planned for 3 h per day (although some of the later meetings extended to 6 h). The agenda was similar to a normal meeting, however, the videoconference format did limit the opportunity for consensus-building discussions to occur out of session. The move to a videoconference meeting significantly increased attendance, but also impacted the ability of certain members to participate equally in discussions. Nevertheless, the meeting managed to amend nine CMMs and adopt two new CMMs as well as conducting all of its standing business. A new process for adopting this year’s meeting report was developed and agreed to which meant that prior to the close of the meeting a Record of Decisions taken was adopted and an agreed process will be used to adopt the final report intersessionally.

WCPFC

The key target species in the WPCFC are tropical tunas (i.e. yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack), albacore and pacific bluefin tuna. The respective measures are CMM 2018–01 Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Tuna; CMM 2015 – 02 for South Pacific Albacore and CMM 2019 – 03 for North Pacific Albacore; and CMM 2019 – 02 for Pacific Bluefin.

The annual commission meeting was conducted by videoconference, where the commission decided to roll over the CMMs for tropical tunas, and for Pacific bluefin [21]. The Commission meeting followed the same procedures as a physical meeting, although with a shorter agenda. Committees and Working Groups presented their work, and the Commission had the opportunity to discuss important issues and adopt decisions. Three decisions were made intersessionally in response to COVID impacts on fisheries operations and travel restrictions. These included the suspension of the 100% observer requirements on purse seine vessels, and changes to the transhipment measures for purse seiners due to difficulties to tranship in port, and the suspension for observer requirements for transshipping [21]. Similar decisions have also made by other RFMOs, such as the IOTC for example.

Conclusion

Most of the meetings in 2020 were held by videoconference and the secretariats of these management organizations faced numerous challenges, such as the choice of a mutually acceptable meeting platform and maintaining connectivity for all participants. One positive aspect was the increased attendance of normally small national delegations and observer organizations. However, due to time constraints, most of the agendas focused on time-critical and administrative issues and some important decisions were postponed until 2021. This not only increases the pressure on national delegations to reach consensus on future management and conservation measures but also increases the number of meetings. See Appendix for a summary of confirmed meeting arrangements in 2021 (as known on the 26th of February 2021). However, it is important to note that due to the nature of the pandemic, meeting arrangements could be subject to change. 2021 is going to be a stressful year for the secretariats and the members of the regional fisheries organizations, highlighting once more the importance of equitable and effective decision-making in resource management.

Declaration of interest

None.

MARCH
Organization	Commission and Committee meetings	Working Groups
ICCAT	11thMeeting (Extraordinary) of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission	Intersessional Meeting of Panel 2
	29 Mar – 30 Mar; Zoom webinar	2 Mar – 5 Mar; Zoom
	Chair: David Hogan (USA)	2 Mar – 3 Mar: 09:00 – 13:30 (Madrid time)
	No intersessional decision-making process	4 Mar – 5 Mar: 13:00 – 15:00 (Madrid time)
	Observer participation allowed	Intersessional Meeting of the Billfish Species Group
	Status of advice: formal	8 Mar – 12 Mar; videoconference
		ICCAT Swordfish Biology Workshop
		22 Mar – 26 Mar; videoconference
IOTC	Special Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (SS4)	Management Strategy Evaluation Task Force of the Working Party on Methods Meeting
	8 Mar- 12 Mar; Zoom	1 Mar – 5 Mar; Microsoft Teams
	11:00 – 15:00 (Seychelles time)	12:00 – 16:00 (Seychelle times)
	Chair: Ms Susan Imende	Chair: Dr. Hilario Murua
	Observer participation allowed	Observer participation allowed
	Status of advice: formal	Status of advice: formal
	Technical Committee on Allocation Criteria (TCAC07)
	22 Mar – 25 Mar; videoconference
	Start time: 14:00 pm (Seychelles time)
	Chair: Nadia Bouffard
	Observer participation allowed
	Status of advice: formal
NAFO		Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment
		10 Mar – 11 Mar; WebEx
		Co-Chairs: Andrew Kenny and Pierre Pepin
		Observer participation allowed
		Status of advice: formal; Recommendations presented at Annual Meeting
NEAFC		JAGDM (02): Joint Advisory Group for Data Management 2021
		17 Mar – 18 Mar; videoconference
		Observer participation not allowed
SIOFA	6thMeeting of the Scientific Committee	3rdProtected Areas and Ecosystems Working Group
	22 Mar – 26 Mar; videoconference	1 Mar – 5Mar; videoconference
	06:00 – 09:00 (UTC)	06:00 – 09:00 (UTC)
	Chair: Mr Alistair Dunn	Chair: Dr Patrice Pruvost
	Observer participation allowed	Virtual platform: TBC
		Observer participation allowed
		3rdStock and Ecological Risk Assessment Working Group
		8 Mar – 12 Mar; videoconference
		06:00 – 09:00 (UTC)
		Co-Chairs:
		Dr Tom Nishida
		Mr Lee Georgeson
		Virtual platform: TBC
		Observer participation allowed