Secretariat of the Pacific Community

FIELD REPORT No. 15

on

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS AND

CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING TRAINING

NEEDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TUNA

FISHING INDUSTRY AND SUPPORT

SERVICES IN FIJI

27 October to 17 November 2001

by

Lindsay ChapmanFisheries Development Adviser

Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityNoumea, New Caledonia

2002

ii

© Copyright Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2002

All rights for commercial / for profit reproduction or translation, in any form, reserved. The SPCauthorises the partial reproduction or translation of this material for scientific, educational or researchpurposes, provided the SPC and the source document are properly acknowledged. Permission toreproduce the document and/or translate in whole, in any form, whether for commercial / for profit ornon-profit purposes, must be requested in writing. Original SPC artwork may not be altered orseparately published without permission.

This field report forms part of a series compiled by the Fisheries Development Section of theSecretariat of the Pacific Community’s Coastal Fisheries Programme. These reports have beenproduced as a record of individual project activities and country assignments, from materials heldwithin the Section, with the aim of making this valuable information readily accessible. Each report inthis series has been compiled within the Fisheries Development Section to a technical standardacceptable for release into the public arena.

Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityBP D598848 Noumea CedexNew Caledonia

Tel: (687) 26 20 00Fax: (687) 26 38 18e-mail: fishdev@spc.inthttp://www.spc.int/coastfish

Prepared atSecretariat of the Pacific Community headquarters

Noumea, New Caledonia, 2002

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community would like to acknowledge the Fiji Islands Ministry ofFisheries and Forests, and in particular Mr Vue Buatoke, Permanent Secretary for Fisheries andForests; Mr Maciu Lugibalavu, Director of Fisheries; Mr Malakai Tuilao, Principal Fisheries Officerand Manager, Capture Fisheries; Mr Suresh Chand, Senior Fisheries Officer Western; and Mr AnareRaiwalui, Licensing Officer, Fiji Fisheries Division.

In the private sector there were many people who assisted in providing valuable information, and theSecretariat acknowledges with gratitude the assistance and cooperation provided. In particular, theSecretariat would like to acknowledge Captain David Lucas, Director, Solander (Pacific) Limited; MrIan Chute, Managing Director, and Mr Adrian Chute, Operations Manager, Celtrock HoldingsLimited; Mr Robert Stone and Ms Lisa Stone, Owners and Managers, Ocean Trader; Mr MitieliBaleivanualala, Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Fishing Company Limited (PAFCO); Mr GrahameSouthwick, Managing Director, and Mr Russell Dunham, Group Business Director, The Fiji FishMarketing Group Ltd; Mr Winston Sun, General Manager and Owner’s Representative, TaiFiFisheries Limited; Ms Betty Wang, Managing Director, Agape Fishing; Mr Colin Dunlop, ManagingDirector, Alloy Fabrications and Chairman of the Marine Board; Mr Kevueli Tavainavesi, Head ofSchool, School of Maritime Studies, Fiji Institute of Technology; and Mr John Hogan, MaritimeTraining Adviser, SPC Suva.

Finally, the Secretariat would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the others specialistsworking on this project, in particular, Mr Don Aldous, Canadian consultant and coordinator of theproject; Mr Esaroma Ledua, Consultant looking at the structure of Fiji Fisheries Division; Ms LynLambeth, Community Fisheries Officer, SPC Noumea; Ms Margaret Leniston, Gender IssuesAdviser, Forum Secretariat; Mr Douglas McMillan, Private Sector Adviser, Forum Secretariat; and C-SPOD II through the Forum Fisheries Agency for funding the travel of the fieldwork undertaken aspart of this project.

v

SUMMARY

The Fiji Fisheries Division, through the Fiji Government, and the Forum Fisheries Agency initiated ajoint project to develop a National Tuna Development and Management Plan for the country, withfunding provided under a C-SPOD II project. As part of the project, specialists in different fields wererequested to come to Fiji and provide input in their respective fields, so that this input could beincorporated into the overall Plan. This report contains the input provided on development options forthe tuna fishery, with a focus on small-scale development, as well as the training needs andinfrastructure requirements needed in support of the tuna fishery.

The medium-scale tuna longline fishery has passed the development stage, with around 90 vessels inthe fishery at present. This has been developed by the private sector, and the Fisheries Division islooking at managing this sector under the National Tuna Development and Management Plan for thecountry. There is scope for the development of small-scale tuna operations, although marketing thecatch, especially in outer island locations, will be a major constraint.

In support of the current and future tuna fishery, the government needs to look closely at theinfrastructure. This includes a new wharf complex in the Lami area, with land reclamation for theconstruction of a slipping facility, plus land being made available for the private sector to buildprocessing facilities or support services. The same is true for Lautoka, especially if the governmentwants to de-centralise the current tuna fishery, as Lautoka has a lot of positive aspects once the basicinfrastructure is in place.

Training is a main area where Fijians can benefit. At present, around two-thirds of the crew on boatsare Fijian, however, only one-third of the skippers and engineers are Fijian. There is a need for Fijiansto be trained as skippers and engineers, as they accrue the appropriate seatime, to replace the foreignskippers and engineers that are currently in the fishery. There is also the need for basic training forFijians as crew, and this could be addressed through the establishment of a Fisheries Training Schoolas part of the Maritime Training School. Specific courses could then be developed including sometime at sea, and the sitting for a basic sea safety certificate.

There are some immediate problem areas that need to be addressed. These include the need for allpeople working on fishing vessels to hold a current STCW-recognised sea safety certificate, and theneed for the appropriate training to be provided for this to happen as soon as possible. The MarineRegulations also need to be amended so that a minimum size applied to fishing vessels. Thegovernment as a matter of urgency needs to get legislation in place to allow the establishment of aCompetent Authority to meet EU requirements, and inspectors need to be trained. Data collection alsoneeds to be improved, with some observer coverage and a representative port sampling programmefurther developed to assist, with all data being provided to SPC for inclusion in the regional database.

The Fisheries Division now needs to re-assess it role and responsibility in fisheries, and come up witha new workable structure. There is no need for the current three vessels they own, with one beingadequate for FAD work and for sharing with the Maritime Training School for basic training ofFijians as crew for tuna longline vessels, both local and high seas. Fisheries staff will also needtraining in various areas, including surveillance and compliance and the effective implementation onthe National Tuna Development and Management Plan.

vii

RÉSUMÉ

Avec le concours du gouvernement fidjien et de l'Agence des pêches du Forum, le Service des pêchesdes Îles Fidji a lancé un projet visant à l'élaboration d'un plan national de développement et de gestionde la pêche thonière, financé au moyen de fonds alloués à un projet inscrit dans la deuxième phase duProgramme d'exploitation des océans Canada-Pacifique Sud (C-SPOD II). Des spécialistes dedifférentes disciplines ont été conviés à Fidji pour apporter leur pierre au plan d'ensemble. Le présentrapport reprend les informations qu'ils ont données sur les possibilités de développement de la pêchethonière, en particulier dans le secteur artisanal, ainsi que sur les besoins en matière de formation etd'infrastructure à satisfaire à cet effet.

La pêche thonière de moyenne envergure pratiquée par les palangriers a franchi le cap du démarrageet la pêcherie compte désormais 90 navires environ. Celle-ci relève du secteur privé et le Service despêches envisage de gérer ce secteur dans le cadre du plan national de développement et de gestion dela pêche thonière élaboré pour le pays. Il existe des possibilités de développement de la pêchethonière artisanale, bien que la commercialisation des prises, en particulier dans les îles périphériques,pose de grosses difficultés.

S'ils veulent soutenir la pêche thonière actuelle et future, les pouvoirs publics devront intervenir sur leplan des infrastructures : prévoir l'aménagement de quais dans la zone de Lami, impliquant larécupération de terres pour la construction d'une rampe de lancement et la mise à la disposition desociétés privées d'espaces pour la construction d'usines de transformation ou de services logistiques. Ilen ira de même à Lautoka, surtout si le gouvernement veut décentraliser la pêche thonière; ce portpossédera en effet beaucoup d'atouts, une fois l'infrastructure de base mise en place.

C'est surtout dans le domaine de la formation que les Fidjiens peuvent tirer profit de ces projets. Pourl'instant, les Fidjiens composant les équipages sont marins pour les deux-tiers, capitaines etmécaniciens pour un tiers seulement. Il faut que des Fidjiens suivent la formation requise pourdevenir capitaines et mécaniciens, dès qu'ils ont accumulé les jours de navigation requis, afin deremplacer à terme les capitaines et mécaniciens étrangers employés actuellement dans la pêcherie. Ilfaut également que les équipages fidjiens reçoivent une formation élémentaire, ce qui pourraitnécessiter la création d'une école de formation halieutique, dans le cadre de l'école de formation auxmétiers de la mer. Des cours spécifiques pourraient ensuite être mis au point, comprenant des sortiesen mer et débouchant sur l'obtention d'un brevet de sécurité en mer (niveau de base).

Dans l'immédiat, il y a certains problèmes à résoudre. Il faut, par exemple, que toute personnetravaillant à bord de bateaux de pêche possède un brevet de sécurité en mer conforme à la ConventionSTCW et qu'une formation appropriée soit dispensée à cet effet, dans les plus brefs délais possibles.Les règlements maritimes doivent également être modifiés de manière à imposer une taille minimaleaux bateaux de pêche. Le gouvernement devrait édicter d'urgence une loi portant création d'uneautorité compétente chargée de répondre aux exigences de l'UE, et assurer la formation d'inspecteurs.Il y a lieu aussi d'améliorer la collecte de données et la couverture des observations scientifiques pardes spécialistes, d'augmenter la représentabilité des échantillonnages au port et d'inclure toutes lesdonnées fournies à la CPS dans une base de données régionale.

Le Service des pêches devrait maintenant revoir son rôle et ses responsabilités dans la gestion despêches et se doter d'une nouvelle structure fonctionnelle. Il n'a pas besoin des trois navires qu'ilpossède actuellement. Un seul suffirait pour les activités concernant les dispositifs de concentrationdu poisson et pour la formation d'équipages de palangriers-thoniers, locaux et hauturiers dont l'Écolede formation aux métiers de la mer a la charge. Le personnel du Service des pêches devrait aussisuivre une formation dans divers domaines, notamment la surveillance, le respect et l'applicationeffective du plan national de développement et de gestion de la pêche thonière.

ix

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 2

2.1 History of offshore tuna fisheries in Fijian waters 2

2.1.1 Pole-and-line fishery 22.1.2 Purse seine fishery 42.1.3 Longline fishery 52.1.4 Small-scale tuna fishing around FADs 72.1.5 Sportfishing 8

2.2 Industrial tuna processing facilities in Fiji 9

2.2.1 The Pacific Fishing Company Limited (PAFCO) 92.2.2 Other industrial tuna processing/packing facilities 10

3. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 10

3.1 Goal 10

3.2 Objectives 11

3.3 Strategies 11

4. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 12

4.1 Shore facilities 12

4.1.1 Suva and Lami port area 124.1.2 Lautoka port and adjacent area 134.1.3 Levuka port area 144.1.4 Other locations around Fiji 14

4.2 Availability of land 15

4.3 Support services 16

4.3.1 Slipways 164.3.2 Carpenters, welders (steel and aluminium) and fibreglassers 184.3.3 Engineers (diesel, hydraulic, refrigeration and general) and electricians 184.3.4 Suppliers of fishing gear, safety equipment and vessel electronics 184.3.5 Suppliers of ice, bait and export packing materials 19

4.4 Local tuna fishing fleet and suitable vessels 19

4.5 Processing facilities 19

4.6 Airport facilities and cargo space availability 20

5. TRAINING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS 21

5.1 Maritime Training School 21

5.2 Fishing industry 22

5.2.1 Crew for offshore tuna vessels 23

x

5.2.2 Skippers for offshore tuna vessels 235.2.3 Engineers for offshore tuna vessels 245.2.4 Small-scale near-shore tuna fishermen 245.2.5 Managing a small fishing business 24

5.3 Processing sector 25

5.4 Support sector 26

5.5 Fisheries Division 26

5.5.1 Training needed for staff of the Fisheries Division 275.5.2 Using a Fisheries Division vessel for training 29

6. CONSTRAINTS AND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT 29

6.1 Encouraging private sector development 29

6.2 Government policies and the role of the Fisheries Division 30

6.2.1 Role of the Fisheries Division and the use of their vessels 316.2.2 Marine Department Regulations 326.2.3 EU requirements for a Competent Authority 326.2.4 Duty and taxes on gear and equipment used in the tuna fishery 336.2.5 Licensing 336.2.6 Export permits 346.2.7 Data collection and use of data 35

6.3 Financing for new fishing operations 35

6.4 Charter fishing operations 35

6.5 Development options 36

6.5.1 Transshipment of tuna catches and the possible use of Fijian stevedores 366.5.2 Fijian crewing on domestic, charter and foreign tuna fishing vessels 366.5.3 Observer Programme and port sampling 376.5.4 Promoting pole-and-line fishing 386.5.5 Fish aggregating devices (FADs) 396.5.6 Promotion of small-scale tuna fishing methods 406.5.7 Sea safety issues, especially for small-scale fishing operations 446.5.8 Collection vessel operation 446.5.9 Catching bait 45

6.6 Value-adding processes as development options 45

7. CONCLUSIONS 46

APPENDICES

A. People consulted during the study 47

B. Bibliography 49

C. Approximate composition of the crew in the Fiji tuna longline fishery and onforeign high seas vessels (15 November 2001) 53

D. Approximate composition of staff in tuna processing/packing facilities, officeand workshops (15 November 2001) 55

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The information contained in this report forms a specific component to develop a ‘National TunaDevelopment and Management Plan’ (NTDMP) for Fiji. The NTDMP will be drafted by a C-SPODII-funded Canadian consultant, Mr Don Aldous, in consultation with the Fiji Fisheries Division andthe Forum Fisheries Agency, and drawing on input from other sectors involved or interested in thetuna fishery. This report forms the basis of the development component of the NTDMP, whichincludes training needs and infrastructure requirements, with a focus on small-scale development inthe tuna fishery.

This component of the overall programme has the following specific Terms of Reference. Thefisheries development specialist shall:

(i) assess the feasible options that are available for tuna development in Fiji, focusing onthe scope for tuna longline development;

(ii) identify constraints to further development of the country’s tuna resources includingrelated interests such as marine tourism (sportfishing and diving);

(iii) identify potential infrastructure developments that would promote future tuna-relateddevelopment;

(iv) review the current availability of skilled fisheries-related personnel in-country (suchas vessel officers, crew, welders, electricians, refrigeration mechanics, vesselmanagers, and so on) and, for the different tuna development options available,identify those skills for which additional in-country and/or regional training isrequired;

(v) discuss these issues with relevant national stakeholders, the project manager, andother members of the project team;

(vi) produce a written report addressing these above issues; and

(vii) as part of the project team, assist the coordinator to prepare and review those sectionsof the draft national tuna development and management plan relating to these aboveissues.

The Fisheries Development Adviser of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Lindsay Chapman,travelled to Fiji to undertake this work from 27 October to 17 November 2001. Following initialmeetings with the Director of Fisheries, the Canadian consultant and others working on the project, itwas decided that the medium-scale tuna longline fishery was fully developed by the private sector, sothis did not need addressing in this report except for crewing and training needs for vessels in thiscategory, and infrastructure needs which would cover other sectors of the tuna fishery as well.Consultations were held with a large number of stakeholders, and many reports were reviewed togather the information compiled in this report. Appendix A provides a list of the people consulted,while Appendix B provides a bibliography of the reference materials.

The suggestions contained in this report are based on information collected during fieldwork in Fiji.The suggestions do not account for any changes that may have occurred to legislation or othercircumstances, since the time of this work. The report also focuses on the Suva and surrounding area,with reference to the outer islands when information was available. Therefore, some of theinformation and suggestions may not now be relevant based on changes that may have occurred sincethe time the field work was undertaken. It should also be noted that the terms Fijian or Fijians, whenused in this report, refers to citizens or passport holders of Fiji.

2

2. BACKGROUND

Fiji is situated between 15 and 22° S, and stretches across 500 km of the Pacific. Fiji claimed its 200-nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ—1,290,000 km2) in 1977. Fiji accepted responsibility for marineresources within its EEZ in 1981. Fiji shares its EEZ borders with several neighbouring Pacificcountries (Tonga, Wallis and Futuna, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and possibly NewCaledonia—Mathew and Hunter is a disputed area between Vanuatu and New Caledonia) with around40 per cent of the zone bordering on international waters. Fiji’s waters have an abundance of tuna on aseasonal basis as they pass through the EEZ.

2.1 History of offshore tuna fisheries in Fijian waters

Tuna fishing in the waters around Fiji goes back to the early 1950s, first with foreign fishing activityand later with Fijian participation. Fijian participation in offshore commercial tuna fishingcommenced in the mid-1970s. In the early stages the focus was on pole-and-line fishing, with anational fishing company established. To assist this fishing fleet, fish aggregation devices (FADs)were placed off the coast, which also assisted the small-scale commercial fishermen and thedeveloping sportfishing and gamefishing charter and recreational fishery. Purse seiners were broughtin for short periods, although this method did not expand in Fiji waters. Tuna longlining is currentlythe predominant tuna fishing method used, with the majority of the catch exported to either the high-priced sashimi market as fresh fish, or in the case of albacore tuna, frozen for use in tuna canneries inthe region.

2.1.1 Pole-and-line fishery

The first attempt to develop a fishery based on the harvesting of skipjack tuna in Fijian waters datesback to 1954, when Harold Gatty formed Island Packers Incorporated, with a cannery in AmericanSamoa and a fishing base in Lami. The Lami base operated as South Seas Marine Products. Thisventure surveyed fishing grounds in Fiji waters, and found skipjack schools to be common.Unfortunately, commercial quantities of skipjack were not taken and the venture failed. The reasonsfor this failure were listed as: the difficulty in finding adequate amounts of live bait; the wrong baitcatching methods being employed; and the unsuitable tuna fishing techniques and boat designs beingused. However, the project did prove that skipjack, yellowfin tuna and other associated species couldbe harvested in Fiji waters.

It took 15 years before another attempt was made to establish a small shore-based tuna fishery in Fiji.In 1968, at the Fisheries Technical Meeting held by the South Pacific Commission in Noumea, theidea was raised and discussed, with a favourable response from UNDP and FAO. Following internaldiscussions within UNDP, a feasibility study was undertaken, with the results indicating there wasadequate live bait and skipjack stocks in Fiji’s waters. This lead to the establishment of a two yearproject using two chartered pole-and-line vessels (one vessel foundered in August 1971) based inSuva, to establish a local tuna fishery using live bait and pole-and-line fishing.

The Fiji project was called the ‘Local Tuna Fishery project’, and commenced on 25 May 1971.Unfortunately, the results at the end of the two year period were considered inconclusive, so theproject was extended to the end of November 1973. The final report of this project was favourable,although cautious, for the establishment of a fishery based on using 8–10 medium sized pole-and-linevessels, landing 3000–5000 t of skipjack per year.

While the trial fishing was going on, companies from Japan, Canada, the USA and Australiaexpressed interest, and indicated they would be prepared to offer proposals to Fiji to exploit theskipjack resource when they wished to pursue this. The Government of Fiji called for submissions,and three were received (PAFCO (Pacific Fishing Company Limited), Taiyo and Bumble Bee). Initialnegotiations were with Taiyo, who had the preferred submission, however, Taiyo withdrew theirsubmission in May 1973. The government then negotiated with PAFCO, although these negotiationsturned more to the establishment of a tuna cannery by this company (see Section 2.2.1), with the Fiji

3

Government undertaking to provide skipjack to PAFCO at an increasing level from 400 mt in 1975, to4150 mt in 1980.

To meet the undertaking the Fiji Government made with PAFCO to provide skipjack tuna to theproposed cannery, the Cabinet decided on 16 October 1975 to establish a wholly government ownedfishing company, the Ika Corporation. The company was established under the Land DevelopmentAuthority Audinance, and was to be managed by the Fisheries Division. Part of the agreement was toallow the Ika Corporation to contract foreign vessels to fish for skipjack, so that the agreement withPAFCO could be fulfilled.

The Ika Corporation commenced its fishing operation in 1976, by chartering two pole-and-line vesselsfrom the Japanese Hokuku Fishing Company. Ika Corporation continued this charter arrangement,with up to six Japanese vessels fishing in any one season. The Ika Corporation purchased their firstpole-and-line vessel in 1978 (Ika No. 1). The company also became independent of the Ministry in1978, with UNDP assistance. In 1979, the Ika Corporation purchased another two vessels (Ika No. 2and Ika No. 3). These vessels were purchased with funding from government grants, New ZealandAid, and the Fiji Development Bank.

Also in 1979, the Fisheries Division transferred one of their vessels, the Tui-Ni-Wasaliwa to the IkaCorporation, which brought the Ika fleet to 4 vessels. In 1980, the Government of Japan donated IkaNo. 5 to Fiji as a training vessel, although the vessel was never really used for training, but usedcommercially by Ika. While the Ika Corporation was growing, the Fisheries Division was conductingsurveys of bait fishing grounds. This was to identify suitable sites for the pole-and-line fleet toconduct their baiting activities at night. Many suitable sites were located during the survey period.

Catches fluctuated over the years from the modest 700 t taken in 1976, to the almost 6000 t taken in1982 and 1989 (Figure 1). Vessel numbers also fluctuated over the years with a maximum of 14fishing in any one year (Figure 1), and a maximum of six coming from Japan under charter in any oneyear. Vessels from the US and Tuvalu were also involved in the fishery. To assist the pole-and-linevessels in locating tuna schools, and reducing search time and fuel costs, both the Fisheries Divisionand the Ika Corporation placed a series of anchored fish aggregating devices (FADs) around thecountry. The first FADs were deployed in 1981, and both fisheries and Ika maintained their respectiveFAD programmes during the 1980s and 1990s.

Figure 1: The Fiji pole-and-line fishery — catch and vessel numbers(source: Fisheries Division annual reports and other publications)

Part of the government’s development strategy for the pole-and-line fishery was to encourage privatesector participation. In 1981, the private company Wasawasa Fisheries entered the pole-and-linefishery, although it only fished for one season. In 1982, a study was undertaken by the IkaCorporation and a private company, to design and build vessels to suit the local conditions. Twovessels were built to this design the Ika No. 7 and the Independence. The Independence was owned byThe Stone Fish Company and commenced fishing in 1984. This company added a second vessel in

02468

10121416

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996

Num

ber o

f ves

sels

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000To

nnes

of c

atch

VesselsCatch

4

1987, Trapper, with this vessel being more suited to the fishing conditions in Fiji. The IkaCorporation added several other vessels to their fleet during the late 1980 and early 1990s, with someof the older vessels being retired.

The Ika Corporation vessels could not achieve the same catch rates as the Japanese charter vessels orthe local private vessels, and in some cases the Ika boats were catching around one half of what theother boats were taking annually. The age of the vessels was thought to be a problem, as there weremany breakdowns resulting in lost fishing time. However, when newer vessels were brought in, thecatch rates did not change much. The main problem turned out to be the way the skipper and crewwere being paid. Everyone on the Ika boats was on a salary, so there was no incentive to head to seaor to catch fish. The Japanese boats and private boats all paid the crew based on catch, so the greaterthe catch the higher their wages would be. Another problem was the low price that PAFCO waspaying for the catch. A further issue that effected all the pole-and-line vessels was the access tobaiting grounds, with one of the main grounds closed by the local chief because the villagers felttaking of live bait was effecting the reef fish stocks in the area.

The Ika Corporation experienced serious financial difficulty and inefficiencies from the beginning.Ika only made small profits in 1977–79, and in 1987, 1989, and in 1995. In all other years thecompany operated at a loss, and in the 1990s, the loss averaged over FJD 1 million. Continuous poorfinancial performance saw the Ika Corporation taken over by PAFCO in 1994. Low catches in thefollowing seasons saw the Ika Corporation cease operations in May 1997.

One local operator (Ocean Trader) continued pole-and-line fishing after the close of the IkaCorporation. The vessel Trapper continued with good catch rates, landing and selling the catch toPAFCO. This company purchased the remaining vessels from the Ika Corporation, with one vessel,the Ika No. 10, ready for fishing in late 1999. Unfortunately the fishing venture of Ocean Trader didnot go ahead, and this company’s pole-and-line fishing operations ceased in early 2001, when thecompany decided to convert their vessels to enter the tuna longline fishery.

In 2000, a new company, Tosa Bussan, set up a facility to process skipjack tuna into tataki. To get thesupply of fish they needed, the company purchased a pole-and-line vessel from the Solomon Islandsand started fishing. In November 2001, the company was expecting two other pole-and-line vessels toarrive from the Solomon Islands, pending their purchase from the Solomon Taiyo Company.

The future of the pole-and-line fishery in Fiji is uncertain, although the fish are there if the economicsof this style of fishing make any future ventures viable.

2.1.2 Purse seine fishery

Purse seining is a method that has been trialled in Fiji, however, it has not caught on or beendeveloped. Purse seining was first conducted by two New Zealand vessels, F/V Western Ranger andF/V Western Pacific, from 1980 to 1985, under an exploratory feasibility fishing trial. These vesselswere 34 m in length (470 GRT), with a carrying capacity of 150 to 200 t of tuna. The nets used weresmall and shallow compared to the nets used in other parts of the region, plus the New Zealand crewwere inexperienced in purse seining in the Fiji conditions. To increase their ability to catch tuna, thevessels focused their fishing on pre-dawn sets on FADs, using light attraction. The New Zealandvessels deployed and maintained a series of FADs in the sheltered waters north of Vanua Levu.

The New Zealand boats fished in the winter months in Fiji waters, as this was the off season in NewZealand. This was not the most productive season in Fiji waters though. Late in 1980, the first boatarrived in Fiji and the total catch for this vessel was 47 t. From 1981 to 1983, both vessels worked inFiji, reporting total catches of 772 t, 911 t, and 1006 t. Only the F/V Western Pacific returned to fishin Fiji waters in 1984 and 1985, reporting catches of 557 t and 694 t. The vessels did not return to Fijiafter the 1985 season.

5

A Philippine-flagged purse seiner conducted fishing trials in Fijian waters for 3–4 months in 1989.The vessel, F/V Heron, used a similar fishing pattern to the New Zealand vessels, setting on FADsjust before dawn. This vessel used a deeper net, and had higher catch rates compared to the NewZealand vessels. During their fishing operation they landed a catch of 237 t.

The only other purse seining activity that has been undertaken in the Fiji EEZ, has been with USvessels. Prior to the signing of the US Multi-lateral purse seining Treaty in 1987, US vessels had onlyreported 3 days of fishing in Fijian waters (1984). After the Treaty was signed, US vessels still onlyconducted the odd days fishing here and there, as the fish were generally more prolific in other areas.However, in 1993 and 1994, with the prolonged El Nino event, catches were increased substantially,with the US catch reported at 508 t and 6158 t respectively. Since then the only substantial catchesreported from Fiji waters by the US purse seine fleet were 415 t (1996), 795 t (1999), and 345 t(2000). The US catch was all based on setting on free-swimming tuna schools or logs.

2.1.3 Longline fishery

Tuna longlining activity in the waters around Fiji can be traced back to the early 1950s, whenJapanese longline vessels started to fish south of the equator. Part of this expansion saw the Japanesefleet establish supply bases. They also stationed longliners at these bases, one of which wasestablished in Fiji in 1953. The Japanese longline fleet continued to expand during the 1950 and1960s, with albacore tuna being the target species. The catch was landed at the bases, and freighted toAmerican Samoa, Hawaii and the US west coast for canning.

Taiwanese and Korean longline vessels entered the Pacific albacore fishery in the mid-1970s, alsoshipping their catch to canneries. Fiji also established a cannery (PAFCO) in 1976 (this is discussed indetail in Section 2.2.1). However, the declaration of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) by PacificIsland countries and territories, greatly reduced the fishing areas for the distant water fishing nations.In response to this, the Japanese modernised their longline operations and moved away from fishingfor albacore tuna for canning, and focused on the yellowfin and bigeye tuna resource, which washigher value for the sashimi trade. The introduction of super-cold freezers (–60° C), saw Japan closetheir shore bases (Fiji base closed in 1977) and cease using motherships.

The late 1970s saw Taiwanese and Korean vessels increase in the waters that are now the Fiji EEZ. In1978 there were 38 Taiwanese and 4 Korean longliners fishing this area, landing their fish undercontract to PAFCO in Levuka. In the 1980s and 1990s, the vessel numbers fluctuated between 10 and23, with most of the vessels being Taiwanese. These vessels also fishing for part of the time in theEEZs of neighbouring countries, like Vanuatu, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands.

Medium-scale tuna longliners using monofilament longline gear were introduced to the Pacific in themid to late 1980s. This saw a dramatic change occur in the types of vessels used for tuna longlining.Taiwan, Japan and China moved away from the traditional 200–500 GRT vessels, and started usingvessels of less than 60 GRT. These vessels mainly worked in the Micronesian area (Guam, Chuuk,Marshall Islands, Palau, Yap and Pohnpei), landing their catch fresh for air freighting to the sashimimarkets in Japan and the USA.

The introduction of medium-scale longliners provided a real opportunity for domestic tuna longliningoperations to be developed in Pacific Island countries and territories. Fiji was one of the first Pacificcounties to seize this opportunity. The economic climate was good with the devaluation of the Fijidollar by 35% in 1987, a direct flight from Fiji to Japan established in early 1988 by Fiji’s nationalairline, Air Pacific, and the strong government support for businesses, especially export industries,following the 1987 coup. One company in particular, Fiji Fish, geared up a vessel, F/V Sunbird, andhad it operational in June 1988.

Initial trial shipments of Fiji Fish’s fresh fish were successful, so several local companies started todevelop joint venture arrangements with Australian and US partners. The Fiji Government quicklystepped in, and a licensing system introduced to prevent over-capitalisation of the fishery. In 1990

6

there were 30 licensed tuna longliners in Fiji, however, only 8–10 actually fished. The problems thesevessels encountered included inadequate port facilities, a shortage of airfreight space to both Japanand the US, and heavy customs duty on vessels and gear. Some of these problems were overcome,with increased vessel numbers fishing in 1992 catching almost 900 t (Table 1).

Vessel numbers and catch increased steadily from 1992 to 1995, and it was reported that almost 80vessels had entered the fishery, although many only remained for a short period of time. Vesselnumbers declined from 1995 levels for a few years, with the numbers increasing again in 1999 and2000. Table 2 provides the landing data held by the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme. It should benoted that there could have been other landings, where the data has not been provided to the FisheriesDivision for inclusion in the Fiji statistics.

Table 1: Catch in metric tonnes for the Fiji domestic longline fishery (Source: SPC scientificinformation on the Fiji tuna stocks)

Year Activevessels

Albacorecatch

Bigeyecatch

Yellowfincatch

Othercatch

Totalcatch

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000*

4

6

9

18

22

37

48

42

34

39

43

55

3

68

208

243

463

842

702

1446

1842

2121

2279

4827

14

27

123

187

204

249

378

593

409

460

462

537

10

23

106

202

319

625

949

1376

970

862

725

1869

26

39

136

252

296

707

1040

1060

1035

1358

1589

1750

53

157

573

884

1282

2423

3069

4475

4256

4801

5055

8983* The figures for 2000 are raised to those estimated in the source report for the catch in the Fijian EEZ

In support of the tuna fishery, the Fishery Offshore Council of Fiji was established in 1997. The mainaim of this group, which brought government and industry representatives together, was to workthrough issues from all parties that affected the tuna fishing industry (baiting issues for pole-and-linefishing, shortage of wharf space, problems with air cargo space etc.), and to come up with workablesolutions. The end result of this process was to work towards the development of a tuna fishery planfor Fiji. This group continues to meet to further address issues as they arise.

Independent of the domestic tuna longline fishery in Fiji, the tuna cannery PAFCO had foreign tunalongline vessels fishing under contract to them for their catch. Some vessels from Taiwan and Koreafished within the Fijian EEZ under this arrangement until 1998. Since then, no foreign vessels havetaken up licences through PAFCO. Instead, foreign vessels fished on the high seas, still under contractto supply their catch to PAFCO. The arrangement still exists for foreign vessels to be licensed throughPAFCO, provided the catch is sold to PAFCO.

At the time the material for this report was being compiled (15 November 2001) there were 90 tunalongline vessels in Fiji (Appendix C), with around 80 of these vessels actively fishing. The remainingvessels were being repaired, converted to tuna longlining, or surveyed, and were expected to befishing by the end of the year. There were also an additional 28 vessels expected to arrive in Fiji by 1June 2002, although this number can not be confirmed. Appendix C provides a list of the fishing

7

companies in Fiji with longline vessels (21 companies) and the number of boats each company hasand the make up of the crew.

2.1.4 Small-scale tuna fishing around FADs

FADs were first deployed in the waters around Fiji in the second half of 1981, in order to render free-ranging tuna schools available for purse seining, and their use was then adopted by the industrial pole-and-line fleet. This then flowed on to commercial, artisanal and subsistence fisheries in the country.From 1984 to 1993, at least 210 FADs were deployed by the Fisheries Division, the purse seinecompanies and the Ika Corporation. As poor records were kept, the actual number of FADs deployedcould be much higher.

The first fisheries development project to introduce tuna fishing techniques for use around FADs tosmall-scale fishing operations, and to promote this type of fishing, was implemented in the secondhalf of 1982 over a four-month period. The project was funded by UNDP, and included theintroduction of fishing techniques proven to be successful in Western Samoa, for the catching of tunasaround FADs. An alia catamaran, the style of boat used in the Western Samoan fishery, was importedand fitted out under the supervision of and experienced Western Samoan fisherman, and consultanthired for the project, Mr U. O’Brien.

The objectives of this project were to: identify methods to exploit tunas and other surface schoolingpelagic species that were practical for small-boat fishermen, evaluate the effectiveness of FADs in thiscontext; identify methods of processing and/or presenting tunas to encourage local sale; and trainlocal fishermen in both areas, through demonstration and active participation. The fishing methods tobe trialled included trolling, small-scale pole-and-line using live bait, and poling using pearlshelllures. The first month of the project was spent fitting out and rigging the alia catamaran anddeploying two FADs, one of Beqa Island and the other off Vatulele Island.

Unfortunately no pole-and-line fishing was undertaken, as live bait was not available, even thoughseveral methods of bait catching were tried. The poling with pearlshell lures was only tried on one tripwithout success. Therefore, trolling was the main method used, and this was very successful, with acatch of 1566 fish weighing 4025 kg. On several occasions two types of still fishing were trialled. Thefirst was with a plastic longline float with a short line and baited hook, on which 3 yellowfin tunawere taken, 2 at 30 kg and the other at 57 kg. The second method was night handlining, which wastried of seven nights with only two mahi mahi and six barracuda being caught, as well as a lot ofsharks. In all, five fisheries staff and 21 local fishermen participated in the project and receivedtraining in the different fishing methods being used. Several local fishermen started trolling for tunasas a result of the project, however, the fishermen stopped soon after for no obvious reason.

From 1984 to 1986, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) ran a series of fishing trials,which included pole-and-line fishing, trolling and surface gillnetting for tunas, sometimes inassociation with FADs. This was mainly to assess each of these techniques for their effectiveness atcatching tunas. If successful, these methods could be used by smaller vessels. The project vessel wasthe pole-and-line vessel F/V Te Tautai from Tuvalu, although the Ika No. 5 was used for a short time.

The pole-and-line fishing was the most successful method, with 215.8 t caught in Fijian waters.Surface trolling was conducted 64 times in Fijian waters, on free-swimming schools, over seamounts,and around FADs. A catch of 8.1 t of surface pelagics was taken, with the main species beingyellowfin tuna and skipjack. The gillnet consisted of 56 nets, 36 m long each. The nets were joinedtogether and set as one unit on 62 occasions. The catch amounted to 294 fish weighing 3673 kg.Unfortunately sharks made up 45% of the catch by weight. The catch during this survey was not splitbetween FAD and non-FAD associated catch, so it is not known how much FADs assisted in the catchtaken.

Also during 1984 and early 1985, the South Pacific Commission (SPC) was requested to providetechnical assistance, through some experimental fishing and gear development work on mid-water

8

fishing methods used in association with FADs. The main method trialled was vertical longlining,which resulted in the catching of some large individual yellowfin and bigeye tunas, from deep in thewater column around the FADs off Suva. However, the main catch was smaller yellowfin tuna,averaging around 15 kg, and a range of shark species. These initial trials were very encouraging.

The Fisheries Division has continued to put out FADs when it has funding, with these assisting boththe industrial pole-and-line vessels, and small-scale fishermen. In 1992 the Fisheries Divisionrequested assistance and training from SPC, with the conducting of site surveys, and rigging anddeploying two FADs off Suva. This was a refresher training for some Fisheries Division staff, withother new staff also being trained.

The Fisheries Division has also conducted training with local fishermen to further promote theharvesting of tunas by various fishing techniques around FADs. Again in 1998, SPC was requested torun a workshop in Suva to further introduce mid-water fishing techniques to local fishermen.Unfortunately, the two FADs located off Suva were lost just prior to the commencement of theworkshop. Therefore, the practical fishing trials were conducted outside the reef for demonstrationpurposes only.

The latest development project to promote tuna fishing around FADs was developed and implementedby the Fisheries Division under their Commodity Development Framework (CDF) funding. SinceSeptember 1999, 36 local fishermen from the area around Suva have been subsidised into thepurchase of a 7.2 m (23 feet) fibreglass skiff with 40 HP outboard and fishing equipment. Thisdevelopment project is aimed at encouraging small-scale development within the tuna fishery. Thelocal fishermen fish around FADs off Suva, landing their catch within 6 hours of it being caught.

The main fishing methods used are trolling, vertical longlining and mid-water handlining. The largeryellowfin and bigeye tunas are sold to the local processing facilities for fresh export. The rest of thecatch is sold to other markets or direct to the general public. The fishermen then pay off their loansthrough the sale of their catch. This project has had some success, although from the original 36fishermen, only 6–12 are still fishing tunas around the FADs. Others have moved their fishing effortto inshore resources, while some have chosen to sell their boats and outboards.

At the time of drafting this report, the government announced that they were going to establish threeshore facilities, at Lau, Lomaiviti and Vanua Levu. These would be under foreign aid, cost aroundFJD 1 million each, and include ice plants, freezers, chillers, processing facilities, slipway for smallcraft, small jetty, workshops etc. Once the facilities were established, the Fisheries Division wouldcommence a small-scale development project on catching tunas around FADs, along the same lines asthe project that was implemented in Suva. Subsidised skiffs, outboards and fishing equipment wouldbe provided to local fishermen as part of the project.

2.1.5 Sportfishing

There is little documented on sportfishing and charter gamefishing activity in Fiji. This activity hasmainly occurred as an offshoot of the tourism industry, with many of the 20–30 charter vesselsassociated with the main tourist hotels or tourist locations in Fiji. Billfish are the main speciestargeted, although mahi mahi and wahoo are more common in the catch. This sector seems to expandand contract, based on the number of tourists and charters they undertake, as Fijians do not tend tocharter vessels and be a part of this activity.

There are also several gamefishing clubs, the main ones being the Suva Yacht Club and the PacificHarbour Gamefishing Club. It is estimated that there are over 50 private sportfishing and gamefishingvessels in Fiji. The clubs are well organised, and regular competitions or tournaments are held.

9

2.2 Industrial tuna processing facilities in Fiji

The History of industrial tuna processing in Fiji dates back to the mid-1960s, with the establishmentof PAFCO. This was the only industrial tuna processing facility in Fiji until the development of thetuna longline fishery, which saw the establishment of several packing facilities, and thecommencement of some processing of tunas in value-added products.

2.2.1 The Pacific Fishing Company Limited (PAFCO)

PAFCO was established at Levuka on the island of Ovalau, following negotiations between theGovernment of Fiji and Japanese interests. In 1963, PAFCO was formed and granted a licence underthe Protected Industries Ordinance, with a joint venture established between C. Itoh and Company ofJapan, Daiwa Corporation of Japan, and the Government of Fiji. A freezing plant and 2400 t capacitycold store was built in 1964. This facility was used as a transshipment point for tuna longline vesselsfrom Taiwan, Japan and Korea.

In 1970, a pilot cannery was constructed to process 10 t/day of tuna. At this time, frozen loins wereproduced for export, and canned tuna flakes for the domestic market. A small fish meal plant was alsoestablished to process the offal from the canning process. The freezing plant bought, stored andexported frozen tuna, with a maximum throughput of 12,000 t in 1972. Over 60 tuna longliners, whichfished the western Pacific, supplied PAFCO at this time, most of the vessels being Korean orTaiwanese. Unfortunately, over half the longline fleet moved their operation to American Samoa in1973, and by the end of 1974, only 22 vessels were transshipping through PAFCO.

The pilot cannery proved to be successful, with preferential access to the EU market being gainedunder the Lome Convention for its canned tuna products. This lead to the establishment of a largercannery, 15,000 t/year capacity, with construction starting in 1974. Also at this time, the FijiGovernment discussed, and finally established in late 1975, a national fishing company, the IkaCorporation (discussed under Section 2.1.1). The Fiji Government negotiated an agreement withPAFCO at this time, where they held a 25% stake in PAFCO and committed the Ika Corporation tosupply PAFCO with skipjack tuna from its developing pole-and-line fleet at agreed levels. In 1976,the new cannery was completed and in operation.

In 1978, PAFCO established its own can manufacturing plant, to make the cans necessary for theirtuna cannery. Supplies of fresh fish were received from the Ika Corporation vessels, and frozenproduct was received from tuna longline vessels in the region fishing under contract to the cannery.Albacore remained the main product line at this time (1976 to 1980), with Canada being the mainmarket. Other markets were also tapped during the late 1970s, such as John West and Waitrose andPrincess in the United Kingdom for light meat tuna. In fact, John West in the UK became the mainbuyer of PAFCO products in 1980.

To meet the growing demand for its product, PAFCO increased its production from 15 t/day to 35t/day during the period 1980 to 1986. Also during this time (1984) Sainsbury in the UK started buyingPAFCO products. The Fiji Government increased its share holding in PAFCO to 98% in 1987, afterbuying out the Japanese interests in 1986. The remaining 2% of shares in PAFCO were held byprominent citizens and villages on Ovalau.

PAFCO branched out in its business ventures in 1989, with the establishment of a two-piece canmanufacturing company named Pacific Packaging Limited. The project was a joint venture withKingfisher of Thailand and Tanzada Pty Ltd of Australia. The company produced up to 60 milliontwo-piece cans a year for PAFCO.

By the end of the 1980s, the wharf and freezer complex were getting run down, and needed to be upgraded. A proposal was put to the Australian Government to fund the upgradings, including thereclamation of land for other structures. Several studies were undertaken. Agreement was reached and

10

the work undertaken with land reclaimed, a new cold storage facility constructed and a new officebuilding constructed. The work was completed by the end of 1992.

Maintaining a consistent supply of fish for the cannery was a major concern for PAFCO. Fluctuatingworld prices for cannery grade fish and the poor performance of the Ika Corporation added to this. In1994, the Fiji Government forced PAFCO to take over the Ika Corporation, in an attempt to make thismore financially viable. However, PAFCO had enough financial problems of their own, and the IkaCorporation went bankrupt in 1997. This cut off the main supply of high quality skipjack tuna, whichwas a major blow for the company, as the high priced markets in Europe required pole-and-linecaught fish. This lead to the shrinking of market participation for PAFCO.

PAFCO continued to experience difficult times in the late 1990s, having to lay off staff and re-assessits position. Inspectors from the EU came through to look at and assess the facility against thestandards required for processing and providing product to European markets. PAFCO was given alist of improvements it would need to make to meet the required standards, and retain its marketingability in Europe. The cannery closed for a while in 2000 for renovation work.

In 2000/2001, the Fiji Government injected around FJD 12 million to up grade the plant to make it EUcompliant. The government will put an additional 2.5 million into PAFCO in 2002. Currently PAFCOemploys around 830 staff, with the main production being frozen cooked albacore loins beingprocessed under contract to Bumble Bee in the US. This product is shipped to the US west coastwhere it is canned. PAFCO is still producing canned tuna, mainly skipjack, for the domestic market.Plans are to expand in the canning side, especially if pole-and-line caught skipjack can be purchased,so that some of their past markets in the UK can be re-established.

2.2.2 Other industrial tuna processing/packing facilities

Up until the late 1980s, PAFCO was the only company in Fiji handling and processing commercialquantities of tuna. This changed in 1988, with the development and expansion of the tuna longlinefishery in Fiji, which lead to the establishment of processing and packing facilities, to handle theincreasing volume of fresh fish being landed. Fiji Fish was the first packing and freezing facilityestablished in 1988/89. Albacore tuna were frozen down for shipment in container to either PAFCO,or the tuna canneries in American Samoa.

As tuna longlining started to expand, several other companies set up processing or packing facilitiesto handle fresh tuna for export. At the time of writing this report, there were seven processing/packingfacilities (excluding PAFCO) that were handling or packing tuna or bycatch species in Fiji. Theseincluded one processing facility in Pacific Harbour, two processing and packing facilities in theLautoka area (one very small), three processing and packing facilities in Suva, and one tataki plant inSuva. In addition, three of the other existing tuna longline companies were going to set up their ownprocessing and packing facilities by June 2002, plus two other host-harvest facilities in the Suva areawere looking to move into processing tuna, including a cannery.

3. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

The goal, objectives and strategies presented here are for the domestic development of the tuna fisherythroughout the Fiji Islands. However, when looking at development options, only some sections ofthis report cover areas relating to the medium-scale tuna longline fishery, as this fishery is regarded asfully developed by the private sector.

3.1 Goal

The overall goal for domestic development of the Fiji tuna fishery is:

11

To have a sustainable and profitable industry harvesting at or near the total allowable catch (TAC),fully owned by Fijians, employing the maximum number of Fijians, with maximum retained value inthe country.

3.2 Objectives

The objectives of developing a domestic tuna fishery in Fiji are to:

• Provide an enabling environment that will promote and encourage private sector developmentand expansion in the commercial fishing, charter/sport fishing, processing and support sectorsin the Fiji Islands;

• Promote sustainable and responsible domestic development and harvesting of the tunaresource in the Fiji Islands EEZ in an environmentally friendly way, to provide both food forlocal consumption and export-oriented income;

• Maximise the benefits and economic return to Fijians, local communities, and the Fiji Islandsas a whole;

• Create employment and income generating opportunities for Fijians, including those in theouter island and their specific needs;

• Ensure accurate data is collected from all tuna fishery activities in the Fiji Islands, ensuringthat all bycatch and any interactions with protected species are recorded; and

• Ensure that all development within the Fiji Islands’ tuna fishery is consistent and compatiblewith any obligations or requirements as set out in local legislation and/or internationalagreements that affect the Fiji Islands.

3.3 Strategies

The following are some examples of strategies that can be used to meet the objectives, and overallgoal, of the domestic tuna fishery development for the Fiji Islands.

• The identification of infrastructure needs in Suva and the outer islands, and the developmentof projects to address the identified needs;

• The development of specific proposals in identified areas for external funding that willaddress part or all of the development objectives;

• Specifically look at options for development in the outer islands, which could include post-harvest activities to increase the value of the landed catch;

• The continuation of an ongoing FAD programme in the Suva area, expanding to the outerislands as they start development projects;

• Develop and implement a long-term data collection system for all tuna fishing activities in theFiji Islands, with regular analysis of the aggregated data provided to industry for theirinformation and benefit;

• Review all government duties and taxes for materials used in the fishing and processingsectors, including fuel, bait, electricity, water, gear, machinery and spares, and assess if theseitems should be tax and duty free, to encourage domestic development in the tuna fishery;

12

• Provide training for small-scale operators in different fishing techniques and businessmanagement, to ensure they have the best chance of running a viable fishing business;

• Explore different options, including cooperatives and community group ownership, toestablish viable projects in the outer islands in the tuna fisheries, and explore ways to marketthe catch; and

• Develop the capacity of the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests to be able to conductsurveillance of the tuna fishery, including the collection of data, the implementation of anobserver programme and port sampling.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

Infrastructure is the main area where government can contribute to fisheries development in generalby creating the ‘enabling environment’ needed for private sector development or expansion. Basicinfrastructure can be provided or funded by government or through directed aid projects that thegovernment supports.

4.1 Shore facilities

There are three main areas where shore facilities exist that are or could be used by the expanding tunafishery in Fiji: Suva (including Lami), Lautoka and Levuka.

4.1.1 Suva and Lami port area

There are 4 wharf areas in the Suva and Lami port areas where almost all of the tuna longline vesselsoperate from. These are the Muai-I-Walu wharf and the Narayan Jetty in the Walu Bay area, plus thefisheries jetty at Lami and jetties at Fiji Fish. Of the 27 companies involved in the catching and/orprocessing of tuna in Fiji in November 2001, 21 companies were based in the Suva and Lami area.Eight of these companies had their office adjacent to the Muai-I-Walu wharf, 3 adjacent to theNarayan Jetty and 4 adjacent to the Fiji Fish complex. Several companies used the fisheries jetty,although their offices were not close by.

The overall comment from those in the industry was that there was insufficient wharf space for thevessels currently in the fishery, which was 90 at the time of writing this report. Congestion was aproblem, especially when vessels wanted to come alongside a wharf to load supplies for a fishing trip,to unload their catch. Vessels were up to 4-deep on the two Walu Bay wharves, while the congestionwas not as bad on the Lami wharves. Depending on the number of vessels that actually make up thefishery in the future, this congestion may compound unless additional wharf space is available.

There is an urgent need for additional wharf space to be available for the expanding tuna fishing fleet.The waterfront area in Suva is fully developed, although there could be scope for extending theexisting wharves. However, the vessels currently using this area would need to move to allow work tobe conducted, which would increase congestion in the short term while construction took place. Astudy should be undertaken to see if it is feasible and cost effective to extend the current wharves inthe Suva area. A decision can then be made by government on whether to proceed with this or not.

Suggestion 1: That the Fisheries Division, in consultation with the Ports Authority, arrange to have astudy undertaken to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of extending the existing wharves inthe Suva port (Walu Bay) area.

The Lami area has two wharf complexes. The fisheries jetty is close to a tourist hotel, and they havecomplained about the fishing vessels tying up there. The wharf is also in urgent need of repair. Giventhis situation, it would be best if the commercial tuna vessels could be moved out from this wharf toanother location, if one was available. However, this is not going to happen in the short term with the

13

current shortage of wharf space. The wharf itself does need repairing, and the Fisheries Divisionshould have an assessment made on the work needed and the cost, as it would be a shame to see thiswharf fall further into disrepair. Once the assessment is made, fisheries should have the work done assoon as the funding is identified. Once the wharf has been repaired or upgraded, the best use of thewharf could be decided, based on any other wharf improvements that may be implemented in thefuture.

Suggestion 2: That the Fisheries Division have an assessment made on the work needed and the cost,for getting the fisheries jetty repaired or upgraded, with this work undertaken as soon as funding isidentified and available.

The wharf complex at Fiji Fish seems adequate for the number of vessels that use it at present,although it can become congested in times of bad weather when most of the boats are in port. Possiblythis can be looked at separately in the future, based on the development of other wharf facilities thatmay be undertaken in the future.

An alternative to the extension of the Suva wharves is to build a separate port for the expandingfishing fleet. This has been suggested on several occasions, the first back in 1977. This would alsocompliment the existing wharves in the Lami area. The Fisheries Division, through the Governmentof Fiji, has recently (October 2001) put a funding proposal to the Government of Japan, to build asmall port area in Lami. This proposal looks at establishing a small facility that could service a smallnumber of fishing vessels, which would help. However, the plan is too small to greatly relieve thecurrent situation or cater to the expected future expansion in the tuna fishery.

There is scope for building a much larger wharf complex in the Lami area. This would need to becarefully planned so as to cause the minimum effect possible on the local environment, especially themangrove area along the waterfront. The wharf complex could be in the form of several fingerwharves, or one larger ‘L’ or ‘T’ wharf. The point is that it should have enough space for at least 20 to25 vessels (25 to 30 m long each) to tie alongside, and there should be access to fresh water andelectricity. Dredging may also be required, as the wharf should have a minimum depth of 4 to 5 m atlow tide. An area can be allocated for loading and unloading only, with this area also having fuellingfacilities. All areas of the wharf should have vehicle access, and be strong enough to take small andmedium size trucks. A separate smaller wharf could be constructed to accommodate 5 to 10 vesselsthat were under repair or refit, so that these vessels do not interfere with the operational fleet. The firststage of such a project would be to have a study undertaken along with an environmental impactassessment of the selected site. The suggested area would be that adjacent to, or close by, the currentFiji Fish jetty complex, which is also close to the Fisheries Division. If the results of the study andassessment are positive, then this project should be given the highest priority by government, andfunding should be sought for the project to go ahead as soon as possible.

Suggestion 3: That the Fisheries Division have a study and environmental impact assessmentundertaken on the area adjacent to, or close by, the current Fiji Fish jetty, for the construction of awharf complex to allow at least 20 to 25 commercial tuna fishing vessels to tie alongside, with accessto fuel, fresh water and electricity, and having a minimum depth of 4–5 m alongside the wharf at lowtide.

Suggestion 4: That if the results of the study and assessment are positive, that the Fisheries Divisionarrange to have this project implemented as soon as possible when funding is identified.

4.1.2 Lautoka port and adjacent area

Lautoka port had a new wharf complex constructed under Japanese aid in 1987. The complex is small,and specifically caters to the small-scale artisanal fishermen of the area. The Fisheries Division officeand ice plant is located on the wharf, and there is a ramp for launching small craft. The wharf is quitecongested in several ways. There are hundreds of small craft (5 m punts to 8.5 m dories) trying to tieup or use the wharf. On the wharf itself, there are lines of small craft being repaired and vehicles

14

trying to drive up and down. The construction of the wharf is such that only the inside is used, theoutside being more like a breakwall. There is also only one place on the wharf with a depth of over 3m at low tide, where larger vessels can come alongside.

The tuna fleet in Fiji rarely uses the Lautoka port facilities at this stage, although one operator isexpected to base 3 vessels there in the near future. This is strange because it is much closer to Nadi(only 25 km away) where the international airport is located. This would be a logical location for thegovernment to focus on if they want to encourage decentralisation of the tuna fleet. However, thecurrent wharf complex is not well suited to the tuna fleet’s needs, and is already well used by theartisanal fleet. There are two alternatives than can be considered, build a separate wharf complex tosuit the needs of the tuna fleet, or use part of the existing wharf complex, with an area dredged toallow larger vessels to come in and tie up. The latter approach would probably be the best in the firstinstance, although if successful and tuna vessels start to operate out of Lautoka, then as separate wharfcomplex would be needed in the future. The Fisheries Division should have an assessment of both ofthese options made, and depending on costs, at least have an area of the existing wharf dredged to adepth of 4 to 5 m at low tide.

Suggestion 5: That the Fisheries Division have an assessment made to have a section of the existingwharf dredged to a depth of 4–5 m at low tide, and have this undertaken as soon as funding isidentified.

Suggestion 6: That the Fisheries Division have a study undertaken to assess the future needs of thetuna fleet in Lautoka, including the identification of a site to construct a new wharf complex, thedesigning of the complex (possibly similar, but smaller, to the one suggested for the Lami port) withcostings, and an environmental impact assessment on the area selected.

Suggestion 7: That if a suitable site is identified in the Lautoka area, and the assessment is favourable,funding be identified and this project commenced as soon as possible.

4.1.3 Levuka port area

The PAFCO cannery is located at Levuka, and it has a finger wharf that runs out from the shore, andthen follows the shoreline. Vessels can tie up to either side of the wharf, although there is not a lot ofroom for manoeuvring vessels on the inshore side. The wharf is also getting old, and needs to berepaired and upgraded. The wharf is not used too much at present, although this could change in thefuture depending on developments with PAFCO and their fish buying practices. With Fiji’s focus onexpanding the tuna fishery and PAFCO’s plans to expand in the processing area, it would make senseto do the upgrading of the wharf complex now, before the wharf becomes heavily used. Again, theFisheries Division and PAFCO should have an assessment made to have the current wharf repairedand upgraded, including any extensions that may be felt necessary. The assessment and costing couldalso include dredging alongside the wharf, so that larger, deeper draft carrier vessels can comealongside to load and unload frozen product or even containers.

Suggestion 8: That the Fisheries Division and PAFCO have an assessment with costing undertaken tohave the current wharf repaired and upgraded, including any extensions that may be felt necessary anddredging alongside the wharf.

Suggestion 9: That once the assessment and costing is completed, the Fisheries Division seeksfunding for the work to be undertaken.

4.1.4 Other locations around Fiji

The expansion of the tuna fishery is unlikely to occur in other parts of Fiji, mainly because of thelogistics of infrastructure, support services, and most important, access to export markets. With Nadibeing the only international airport for exporting fresh product, most tuna operators will want to workclose to that exporting point. However, this could change in the future if frozen value-added tuna

15

products are developed, which can be exported by sea freight. This is probably a long way off though,and if and when developed, it will occur through the existing operators at their existing locations.Therefore there is no need at present to develop large wharf complexes in other locations around Fijifor the tuna fleet, although this can be revisited in the future when the need is identified.

Suggestion 10: That the Fisheries Division not consider the development of other large wharfcomplexes around Fiji for the tuna fishery at present, although the option should be kept open if aneed is identified in the future.

4.2 Availability of land

The land adjacent to the wharf complexes in Suva (Walu Bay) is fully occupied. And there is noavailable land to allow for expansion of shore facilities in this area. This includes the support servicesas well as the fishing companies themselves. Unfortunately there is no solution to this except forpeople to move their companies to other locations where land may be available. The most logicallocation would be associated with any new wharf complex that is developed for the tuna fishingindustry.

Both of the existing wharf complexes in Lami have vacant land adjacent to them, although theownership of this land was not clear. In this regard, there is the possibility of land being available,depending on what plans the owners have in the pipeline for the future. Given the situation with thefisheries jetty, and the push from the tourist hotel to remove the fishing vessels from that jetty,expansion of tuna fishery related shore facilities would not seem wise. The location at Fiji Fish holdspotential, and this is close to the suggested location for a new wharf complex for the tuna fishing fleet.

Given the current situation with land availability, and the need for a new wharf complex, it wouldmake sense to combine these two into a larger project, that would include the reclamation of land thatcould be purchased or leased by the private sector to develop shore facilities. Support services couldalso purchase or lease some of this reclaimed land to established workshops and facilities, to meet theneeds of maintaining the tuna fleet. The amount of land to be reclaimed should be considered in theproposed study of developing a new large wharf complex for the tuna fleet.

Suggestion 11: That the Fisheries Division include the reclamation of land, with an assessment on theamount of land to be reclaimed, in the proposed study for a new wharf complex for the tuna fleet inthe Lami area.

In Lautoka, a similar situation exists. Land is in short supply adjacent to the current wharf complex,although if some of the small craft were moved off the wharf, there is a small area of land (on theseaward side of the fisheries buildings) that could be leased to the private sector for development ofshore facilities in support of the tuna fishery. This could be the best short-term solution to start,however, if there is any large scale development, then land reclamation as part of the proposed newwharf complex would be the best long term solution.

Suggestion 12: That in the short term, the Fisheries Division move some of the boats off the existingwharf area, and lease this land out to the private sector for development of facilities in support of thetuna fishery.

Suggestion 13: That the Fisheries Department include the reclamation of land, with an assessment onthe amount of land to be reclaimed, in the suggested study for a new wharf complex for the tuna fleetin the Lautoka area.

In Levuka, PAFCO has a large area of land, which is not fully utilised at present. This land could beused for establishing shore facilities in support of the tuna fishery, although it would be up to theprivate sector to negotiate an agreement with PAFCO to use this land.

16

Suggestion 14: That any private sector company wishing set up shore facilities in Levuka, negotiatewith PAFCO to lease some land from them for this purpose.

If and when land is reclaimed as part of a wharf complex to assist the expanding tuna fleet, thegovernment should consider whether they sell or lease the reclaimed land to the private sector, andpossibly put a price on it or put different lots up for tender. The main point is for government to makethis land available to the private sector, with income to government coming through the sale or leaseof the land.

Suggestion 15: That the Fisheries Division facilitate the selling or leasing of reclaimed land to theprivate sector.

4.3 Support services

Operators in the tuna fishery require a range of support services to keep their operations functional.These support services include slipping facilities, having access to qualified trades people in areassuch as carpentry, welding, engineering and electrical, plus suppliers of necessary materials used inthe fishing and processing fields.

4.3.1 Slipways

A growing or expanding fleet of tuna vessels in Fiji will need access to slipping facilities to do repairson their vessels when needed. There is also a survey requirement for all vessels over 10 m in length tobe hauled out of the water annually for inspection by Marine Surveyors. Slipping is also required byvessels in adjacent countries, and Fiji could attract the fishing vessels from these countries for thisservice, providing the facilities are adequate to meet everyone’s needs, which is not the case atpresent.

Suva and Lami area

There are currently 3 companies in Suva with slipways. The largest is the government-owned andoperated Shipbuilding Fiji Limited (SFL), which had 3 slipways with capacity ratings of 1000 t, 500 tand 200 t. The other two companies have one slipway each, both of 100 t capacity. Several of theseslipways are being upgraded at present, which should increase capacity. These slipways service allthe vessels of Fiji (under 1000 t), plus vessels from neighbouring countries also come to Fiji forslipping.

The tuna fishing fleet has grown considerably in the last 10 years. In the early 1990s, the number oftuna fishing vessels, mainly pole-and-line vessels, was in the order of 12–15. Now in November 2001,the number of tuna fishing vessels, mostly tuna longliners, in Fiji is around 90, with more vesselsexpected to arrive in the coming months. The government would also like to see the revival of thepole-and-line fishery. With the current number of fishing and merchant vessels in Fiji, the currentslipways are fully booked, and considerable delays are experienced. The upgrading of two of thesefacilities will help but not alleviate the current situation. The only way to relieve the current shortage,which will only get worse as more vessels arrive, is to build at least one new slipway.

The Fisheries Division has a proposal in with the Government of Japan, for a small port facility inLami. A 100 t slipway is included in this project, and this will assist with the current situation,however, it will not really solve the growing problem as it is a single slip, which will cater for onevessel at a time. What is needed is at least one larger slipway that has side-slipping capability, so thata minimum of 5 vessels can be out of the water at any one time, using a single slipway. Theconfiguration would need to be that any of the 5 cradles could be moved to launch or haul out a vesselwithout interfering with those vessels already out of the water being worked on. The slip should alsohave a capacity to haul out a vessel weighing 250 t, so that vessels up to 45 m in length can be hauledout. The slip that the Japanese are considering to build under aid would be sufficient, if the plans

17

could be altered to include the side slipping capability, to increase the numbers of vessels that can beout of the water at one time.

Suggestion 16: That the Fisheries Division approach the Government of Japan and try to have theplans for the proposed slipway changed to include side slipping, so that at least 5 boats can be out ofthe water at the same time.

Given the current suggestion for a study to be undertaken on the construction of a new wharfcomplex, including the reclamation of land, it would seem feasible to include the construction of aslipway as part of the overall project, especially if the Government of Japan will not modify itscurrent plans for a single slipway. Such a slipping facility would require a large area of land, so thisshould be considered in the study design, so that sufficient land is reclaimed for the fishing sector,support sector and the slipway, plus any other facilities the government may want to add.

Suggestion 17: That the Fisheries Division include the construction of a 250 t carrying capacityslipway with side-slipping for at least 5 vessels, in the proposed study for a new wharf complex andland reclamation in the Lami area, if the proposed slipway Japan is planning to construct is notexpanded to this capacity.

Lautoka area

There is currently no established slipping facility in the Lautoka area, although there is a travel-liftthat can lift vessels to 40 t out of the water. The travel-lift is mainly designed for pleasure craft andyachts, however, it can lift out the smaller size tuna longline vessels. This could in part be why thereis little interest at present by the tuna fishery to work out of this port. If this is the case then having aslipway, and the support services to fully utilise it in Lautoka, may be a way of encouraging sometuna fishing operations to move to Lautoka. With the shortage of land and the lack of wharf space, itwould not appear appropriate to build a slipway in isolation of the other two necessities. Therefore,like the study in Lami, the proposed study for a wharf complex and reclaimed land for Lautoka couldinclude the provision for a slipway. This could be in addition to the slipway proposed for Lami, as thenumbers of fishing vessels in the Pacific is likely to increase in the coming years, as Pacific countriesdevelop their domestic tuna fishing fleets, just as Fiji is doing now.

A suitable sized slipway for Lautoka could be the same as that suggested for Lami (250 t carryingcapacity with side-slipping for at least 5 vessels), or slightly smaller with side-slipping for 3 or 4vessels. Again, the study should ensure that adequate land reclamation is considered so that the needsof the different sectors are taken into consideration.

Suggestion 18: That the Fisheries Division include the construction of a 250 t carrying capacityslipway with side-slipping for 3 or 4 vessels, in the proposed study for a new wharf complex and landreclamation in the Lautoka area.

Levuka area

There are currently no slipping facilities in Levuka, nor are there many vessels that are located orworking out of this area. With the current and expected level of vessel activity in the Levuka area,mainly in association with loading and unloading at PAFCO, and the possibility that slipways may beconstructed in Lami and/or Lautoka, there would seem to be no reason to consider the construction ofa slip in this area at this time.

Suggestion 19: That the Fisheries Division does not consider constructing a slipway in the Levukaarea, but rather focus on the Lami and/or Lautoka slipping suggestions.

It should be noted that if slipways are established at Lami and/or Lautoka, as part of a wharf complexand reclaimed land, that the government should lease these out to the private sector to operate and

18

maintain, so they can be operated as commercially viable businesses. The government would earn itsrevenue through the leasing of these facilities.

Suggestion 20: That the Fisheries Division lease out to the private sector to operate and maintain, anyslipping facilities that are constructed in either Lami or Lautoka, as part of a wharf complex andreclaimed land.

4.3.2 Carpenters, welders (steel and aluminium) and fibreglassers

There are currently a large number of people in the private sector working in the trades of carpentry,welding and fibreglassing, especially in the Suva area. The tuna fishing industry has no problems ingetting work done by trades people with these skills, and some companies have employed people withthese skills and keep them on staff.

Outside of Suva, the main areas where the tuna fleet may operate in future are Lautoka and Levuka. Inboth of these locations, most of these services are available with skilled trades people, although thewelding of aluminium is a bit harder to get done in these locations. However, if the tuna fleet starts towork out of these ports, there would be an increased need for trades people, and it is expected that theprivate sector would respond to this and new companies be set up. If the demand is created in thesecentres, there seems to be enough people in Fiji with the skills to fill the demand.

4.3.3 Engineers (diesel, hydraulic, refrigeration and general) and electricians

Trades people with engineering skills are harder to come by in Fiji, especially the engineering skillsneeded to work on fishing vessels. There are plenty of motor mechanics, some with experience ondiesel engines, but when it comes to marine diesel engines, hydraulics, and especially refrigeration,the numbers are greatly reduced. This is an issue for the fishing industry, as engineers are needed bothon the vessel to maintain the machinery and refrigeration while the vessel is at sea, and on land, doingrepairs to machinery, ready to be put in vessels as replacements. The area of engineers for the fishingvessels will be discussed more in Section 5.2.3.

Some of the tuna fishing companies are getting around the issue of shore-based engineers, byemploying motor mechanics and engineers and having them on staff, learning the skills they arelacking from others at the company. This is working well, and this shortage is now being rectified.There also does not appear to be any shortage of good electricians. This is all based on the tunafishing fleet being based in Suva. However, if companies start to set up in other locations, likeLautoka and Levuka, then they may run into trouble, unless they take some qualified people fromSuva in the first instance, until other local mechanics and engineers are trained in these locations. Thisshould not be a big problem, and should be easily overcome.

Suva has several engineering shops that are focused on supporting the fishing and shipping industry.Several of these are associated with the existing slipways. Engineering workshops are available inLautoka, including some limited facilities at the travel-lift. In Levuka, PAFCO has its own workshopsand engineers, however, little else is available in this location. If new slipways are established at Lamiand/or Lautoka, and land is made available, these engineering workshops may choose to move theiroperation, or new ones may be established on the reclaimed land. With the private sector doing thenecessary training of engineering skills at present, there appears to be no real shortage of facilities orskilled personnel at present for shore-based operations.

4.3.4 Suppliers of fishing gear, safety equipment and vessel electronics

The tuna fishery has greatly expanded in recent years in Fiji and several of the larger companies havebrought in the necessary fishing gear, sea safety equipment and electronics they need to keep theiroperation going and to meet all government requirements. In addition, one large fishing gear importerhas been in operation for the last couple of years, selling the required gear to the tuna longline

19

companies. However, for the small-scale fishermen who are being encouraged to enter the tunafishery, access to sea safety equipment is more limited as they rely on some of the local shipschandlery shops to bring this equipment in, and it is often in short supply in the Suva area.

Time did not allow for an assessment of the gear suppliers in locations outside Suva, however, it isexpected that they would be limited, especially for the purchase of sea safety equipment and vesselelectronics. These items can be accessed out of Suva, and if the demand were to increase in a certainlocation, then a local business could act as an agent to bring in the necessary items for sale to the localfishermen. Given the business structure in Fiji, this is not seen as a problem at present.

4.3.5 Suppliers of ice, bait and export packing materials

Ice is available in many parts of Fiji. In the Suva area, it is supplied mainly by the private sector.However, in most of the other locations where ice is available, it is provided by the FisheriesDivision. Bait and export packing materials are readily available in Suva, and can be transported toother locations around Fiji as and when needed. Again, these items seem to be in ready supply atpresent.

4.4 Local tuna fishing fleet and suitable vessels

There is a wide range of vessels being used in the Fiji tuna fishery at present. The private sector isbringing in the types of vessels they need for tuna longlining and for pole-and-lining. The governmentdoes not need to assist in promoting any specific medium-scale tuna longline vessel design, as theprivate sector is expanding to meet their needs. Appendix C provides a breakdown of the vessel andemployee numbers by company on the tuna fishing vessels.

Regarding small-scale tuna fishing vessels, the government has been encouraging development withthe subsidising of local fishermen into outboard-powered skiffs, to fish around FADs located in thearea around Suva. This is an area that will be discussed in more detail in Section 6.5.6.

4.5 Processing facilities

There are currently three main tuna processing and packing plants in the Suva area, with another atPacific Harbour, one at Lautoka and PAFCO at Levuka. Three other tuna longline companies arelooking to establish processing or packing facilities within the next six months, all in the Suva area. Inaddition, the Voko cannery and other processors are looking to enter the processing side of the tunafishery, which include the processing and value-adding of bycatch species taken during tunalonglining. These companies employ over 1100 Fijians in the processing and packing area, withpossibly another 125 positions available in the next six months, as the proposed packing facilities areestablished. Appendix D provides staff numbers in the processing sectors, plus the numbers employedin offices and direct support areas.

All but PAFCO, and possibly one other company, have been or will be established fully by the privatesector. The rate of expansion seems to be in line with the expansion of the tuna fleet. The processingand value-adding they are looking at also seems to be following the market demands. The companiesare well aware of the health requirements of importing nations, and the processing facilities have thenecessary certification to meet these requirements. Based on the development so far, the private sectorshould be left to continue expansion in the processing field, and the government should not besubsidising or establishing any new processing facilities to work in opposition to the private sector.

Suggestion 21: That the Government of Fiji not subsidise or establish any new tuna processingfacilities to work in opposition to the private sector, but rather support the private sector in theirdevelopment and expansion in this field.

The main problem faced by the private sector though is finding suitable land on which to developprocessing facilities that is close to the wharves. If the previous suggestions in this report regarding

20

the development of a wharf complex with the reclamation of land goes ahead (in Lami and/orLautoka), then government should give the private processing sector preference in the allocation ofthis land for purchase or lease, so they can establish processing and packing facilities.

Suggestion 22: That if the development of a wharf complex with the reclamation of land goes ahead,Fisheries Division give the private processing sector preference in the allocation of this land forpurchase or lease, for establishing processing and packing facilities.

4.6 Airport facilities and cargo space availability

The main international airport for Fiji is located at Nadi. The tuna companies have been exportingfresh tuna from this airport for many years, and the facilities themselves seem adequate at present.The problem that the tuna industry is facing is the declining number of flights and destinations, as thetourist industry has declined. Also the events in the US on 11 September 2001 have added to thedecline in tourism within the US, which has greatly effected flight schedules as well as markets.

The tuna industry is currently working through three main packers for the fresh export of tunas.However, many of the companies do their own exporting, which has lead to some companiescompeting for the same air freight space, especially on the flights with the more desirabledestinations. Companies are going to need to work more closely together, possibly combiningconsignments, to ensure that each suitable flight with cargo space leaves Fiji full. This will becomemore important as more boats enter the fishery and the volume of fresh fish to be exported, increases.

Suggestion 23: That tuna exporting companies work closer together, possibly combiningconsignments, to ensure that each suitable flight with cargo space leaves Fiji full.

Possibly the tuna companies could consider the hiring of someone as an agent, that handles theorganising of freight for all companies. This would allow smaller consignments to the same locationto be combined for freight purposes, possibly reducing the overall freight bill as a cheaper rate mayapply to a larger consignment. This approach would also cut down on the work of each company, asthey try to locate and book freight space. If this approach is taken, then the companies need to allowthis person to treat everyone as equal, and the person should not be put under pressure by anycompany to have its fish put on a flight in preference to another company. Possibly this could beorganised through the Fishery Offshore Council of Fiji.

Suggestion 24: That the tuna exporting companies consider hiring someone as an agent for allcompanies to work through for allocating airfreight space, combining consignments for the samedestination, and ensuring that all flights leave Fiji with the maximum freight possible.

If the current trend of decreasing flights and increasing vessel numbers continues, then it is inevitablethat there will be too much fish to be exported using regular scheduled flights out of Fiji. The tunacompanies are going to need to look at charter flights as a way to overcome this situation. A cargocompany like Pacific Air Express has a 727 aircraft, and it can carry around 17 t of product.Companies in other parts of the region have used this approach with success, provided they can fillthe charter flight, as the full charter fee is payable regardless of whether the plane is full or half full.Therefore, industry is going to need to combine their efforts to ensure that any charter flight that isbrought into Fiji, leaves full. The tuna fishing industry really needs to start looking at this option, tosee how this could best work for them in the future.

Suggestion 25: That the tuna exporting companies look at the possibility of using charter flights to gettheir fresh fish out of Fiji, ensuring that if this approach is taken, that all charter flights leave Fiji withthe maximum load.

21

5. TRAINING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

The tuna fishing industry is expanding, and there is a growing demand for trained people to work inthe industry, both on the fishing vessels and in the processing and packing facilities. There are alsoMaritime Regulations in place in Fiji that apply to vessels operating in the tuna fishery, although thesehave not been fully enforced at this stage. Some training is available through the Maritime TrainingSchool, the University of the South Pacific’s Marine Studies Programme, and the Fisheries Division.

5.1 Maritime Training School

The Maritime Training School (MTS) provides a range of courses, mainly for the merchant marine,although they have started some fisheries training. The courses included cadets, nautical officers(Masters to a Class 4 level), deck ratings, plus they are doing bridging courses to convert certificatesto STCW requirements. They had run one Master Class 5 for the fishing industry, with 4 out of the 8participants passing the course. Some people in the fishing sector have gone through the ratingsprogramme. MTS also provides marine engineering for cadets to the rating level. With STCWrequirements taking effect on 1 February 2002, there was a lot of work to be done. There werehundreds of merchant seamen that needed to do bridging courses, plus there was the fishing industry— an impossible task to undertake in less than 3 months.

The courses they have are in a modular format, although competency based. Lecturers do someassessment, however, the examiner from FIMSA (Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration)assessed the competencies. For fishing, they have developed two modules, a basic fishing module anda seafood module. They use the processing lab at USP for the practical components of the seafoodmodule. The basic fishing module is run over 8 weeks, 5–10 hours/week. The course included vesselcleanliness, deck maintenance, personal safety (included a sea safety certificate), maintenance offishing gear and equipment, an overview of Pacific fisheries, and the rights and responsibilities offishing vessel crew. The fishing gears covered included longlining, trolling, purse seining and pole-and-lining. This course could be run full time over a two week period, although there was no practicalcomponent as they had no training vessel. They felt there was a need for a practical component, andthey were open to suggestions to include this in their course. The course should also have a focus ontuna longlining and correct handling of tunas and associated species, as this was the focus of thefishing industry at present.

Suggestion 26: That the MTS further refine their courses for the fishing industry, especially thefishing module, to include more on tuna longlining and handling and processing tunas, and less onother fishing techniques, and look at adding a practical at sea component to the course.

During discussions with the tuna industry, several companies suggested the need for a FisheriesTraining School, possibly linked to the MTS. This was already in the pipeline, and there were 3options available for land on which this could be built. Option 1 was to build on the existing spareland. Option 2 was to construct a wharf in front of the MTS, and dredge out and area, reclaimingsome land at the same time, with this land used for construction the FTS. Option 3 was a large landreclamation project, for which an environmental impact assessment had been done, with no negativeimpact identified. Regardless of the option chosen, Japan or JICA could be a good funding source toget this facility built and fitted out.

Providing training through this approach would allow maritime tutors to teach the common modulesneeded by both operators in the merchant and fishing sectors, such as the sea safety certificatecourses, and navigation etc for higher qualifications. Tutors with practical fishing experience couldthen be employed to teach the fishing modules, and possibly the seafood modules, although the lattermay best be taught by USP staff. This is a project that the Fisheries Division and fishing industryshould fully support, as it will provide people with skills for the fishing industry to employ.

Suggestion 27: That the Fisheries Division and fishing industry fully support the establishment of aFisheries Training School as a part of the MTS, to provide recognised training to the fishing industry.

22

Suggestion 28: That if this approach is followed, the Maritime Training School employ tutors withpractical fishing experience to teach the fishing modules.

Another area of training for the MTS and FTS to look to is the training of other Pacific nationals fromaround the region. The MTS once was the regional centre for maritime training, and with planning,upgrading of facilities, the upgrading of staff skills, and the development of STCW-accepted courses,MTS can retain that place in the region. There is a need for a regional centre for providing STCW-related training, as many Pacific countries do not have this sort of training available. This trainingcould apply equally to the fishing industry in neighbouring countries, as these develop.

Suggestion 29: That the MTS continue to upgrade facilities, upgrade staff skills, and develop STCWaccepted courses, so they can again become the regional centre for providing maritime and fishingtraining.

5.2 Fishing industry

The tuna fishing industry realises there is a need for Fijians to receive training, especially for thosethat want to gain qualifications to skipper a vessel or to become a marine engineer. There is also therecognition that crew need some basic training to assist them in gaining employment on tuna fishingvessels. The tuna longline fishery currently employs around 840 Fijians on the 90 vessels in thefishery. Most of these people are employed as crew. Around 35 of these vessels have a Fijian skipperwith another 45 Fijians holding marine engine driver qualifications, who work on the tuna boats. Theother tuna boats have foreign skippers and engineers, so there is scope for Fijians to replace thesepeople in the coming years as more Fijians become qualified. There is also a need for small-scale tunafishermen to be trained in fishing techniques that are appropriate for their size vessels.

The other important point is that all people heading to sea will require a STCW-recognised sea safetycertificate as of 1 February 2002. This point is very important as very few people in the fishingindustry at present hold this qualification. The Fisheries Division and the Marine Department need towork together to ensure that all fishing companies are made aware of this requirement. Courses willalso have to be set up to allow the estimated 600 Fijians in the tuna industry at present that do not holdan appropriate sea safety certificate, to attend and attain this qualification. The current course takesfrom 1–2 weeks to complete, so the Marine Department may need to look at whether they cancondense this course into a shorter time period (say 5 longer days).

Suggestion 30: That the Fisheries Division and Marine Department work together to ensure that allthe tuna fishing companies are aware of the requirement for all crew to hold a STCW-recognised seasafety certificate by 1 February 2002.

Suggestion 31: That the Marine Department and Maritime Training School see if they can condensethe current course for a sea safety certificate into a one week course (possibly 5 longer days), andoffer this to the fishing industry.

The other point is, who will pay for this training? Is it the responsibility of each crew person or theemployer? Given the frequent movement of crew from boat to boat, it would seem unfair to have acompany pay for the crew to be trained, then the crew go to another company and the first companyhas to pay for other people to be trained. Possibly all of the companies could be asked to contribute acertain amount of money based on the number of boats they have in the tuna fishery, and this moneycould be used to do the training of the current Fijians. Note that the company contribution should bebased on vessel numbers rather that number of Fijian crew, as some companies only employ smallnumbers of Fijians, and they should be paying equal to encourage the training of Fijians for the tunafishing industry. The only exception to this would be for companies where all of the crew hold acurrent recognised certificate.

23

Suggestion 32: That the tuna fishing companies get together and set up a fund to cover the cost oftraining all crew for their sea safety certificate, with each company contributing based on the numberof vessels they operate.

A final point that is not a training issue, however, does greatly effect training, is the need for allseafarers to document their seatime. Currently some crew in the fishing industry are not registeringwith the Marine Department through FIMSA, so they have not been issued with their seatime recordbook. This is an important document that anyone who wants to advance through to become a skipperor engineer will need to complete. Recognised seatime is needed for each level of advancement in themaritime area, whether merchant or fishing. The Fisheries Division, Marine Department and fishingcompanies all need to work together to get all fishermen in the tuna fishery registered with FIMSA, sothey can be issued with their seatime record book.

Suggestion 33: That the Fisheries Division, Marine Department and fishing companies all worktogether to get all fishermen in the tuna fishery registered with FIMSA, so they can be issued withtheir seatime record book.

5.2.1 Crew for offshore tuna vessels

The fishing industry is looking to employ more Fijians as crew on their vessels. The problems theyare facing are that new people have no training and may only do one trip and not like it. To overcomethis, Fijians wishing to enter the tuna fishery could undertake a training course through the MTS orFTS if it is established. The course could serve as a screening process, as well as providing the basicskills that a person needs to know in regard to tuna longlining, operation of the deck machinery, andhandling the catch. The course could also include all the elements that lead to the issuing of a STCW-recognised sea safety certificate. The course should include time at sea on a training vessel, so that thestudents get some hands-on training. Such a course should run for 3 to 4 weeks full time, preferablewith the students living in to simulate what it is like to be confined on a fishing vessel for two weeksat a time. The current fishing module being taught by the MTS could be used as the basis for thiscourse.

Suggestion 34: That the MTS, or FTS if it is established, create a 3–4 week induction course forpeople wishing to enter the tuna fishery as a crewman, so they can gain the basic skills needed for thiswork, plus gain the required sea safety certificate.

5.2.2 Skippers for offshore tuna vessels

Currently around 35 per cent of the tuna vessels working in the Fiji fishery have Fijian skippers. Thisis a good start and now more skippers need to be trained to take command of some of the othervessels. This is not an area that can be pushed, however, when Fijians have the seatime and arewilling to undertake the study, this should be encouraged. Therefore it is essential that all Fijiandeckhands be registered with the FIMSA, have their seatime record book, and get it filled out toensure their seatime is correctly documented.

Fishing company owners and managers should be supporting Fijians that work for them and want toundertake the necessary study to do a skippers course. This should especially be true for thosecompanies that do not have Fijian skippers at present. This support could be in allowing the persontime off to do one or two of the modules at a time, plus assisting with the payment of course fees.Possibly the company could look at entering into some sort of a contract arrangement, that if thecompany funds the person to do a skippers ticket, the person will work for the company for aspecified time before considering leaving. This could be a one or two year period.

Suggestion 35: That the owners and managers of tuna companies support Fijians who want to study tobe skippers, by allowing them time off and assisting with the payment of course fees.

24

Suggestion 36: That the companies that fund their Fijian staff to do skippers tickets, consider enteringinto a contractual arrangement, where the person who has received the training will not leave thecompany for a specified length of time.

If Fijians want to study for higher skippers tickets than those needed for the operation of companyvessels, then it is up to the person and the company to decide about time off to do the courses andpayment of the fees.

5.2.3 Engineers for offshore tuna vessels

The numbers of Fijian engineers onboard tuna vessels in Fiji at present is similar to the skippers, ataround 40 per cent. Again, owners and managers of tuna companies should support and encourageFijian to undertake the training necessary to get a marine engineers ticket. The same approach assuggested for skippers could be used, with time off and financial support for course fees beingprovided by the company, and a contract being entered into to ensure the person stays with thecompany for a specified length of time.

Suggestion 37: That owners and managers of tuna companies support Fijians who want to undertakeengineering studies, using the same approach as suggested above for skippers.

5.2.4 Small-scale near-shore tuna fishermen

The small-scale fishing sector will require different training to the medium-scale tuna fishery. Small-scale operators will need training in appropriate tuna fishing methods for their size vessels, such astrolling and mid-water fishing techniques, which are often used in association with FADs. Other areasof training are in the correct handling and chilling of the catch and possibly post-harvest activities,such as value-adding processes. The best approach to this style of training is hands-on workshops,both in the main centres and in village settings. Depending on the subject area, this could be done bythe Fisheries Division extension service (fishing techniques), or possibly through the USP MarineStudies Programme (post-harvest activities), or technical assistance can be requested from SPC. Themost important point though is that the Fisheries Division identifies the type of training needed, andthen organises the most appropriate trainers to undertake the training. It should also be noted thatoutside the main centres, it will be very difficult for small-scale fishermen to focus on fishing fortunas only. Therefore the training should be more general, especially in village settings, and not justcovering tuna-related topics, but also include topics like basic outboard maintenance and repair, andother fishing techniques (deep-water snappers etc).

Suggestion 38: That the Fisheries Division assess the needs of small-scale tuna fishermen on alocation by location basis, and identify the most appropriate training for each location.

Suggestion 39: That the Fisheries Division either organise, or identify the appropriate group toorganise, tailored training in the form of hands-on workshops, with the most appropriate people usedfor the training.

Suggestion 40: That training for small-scale operators be undertaken in their village setting, ratherthat bringing the people, especially those form remote areas, to be trained in a main centre.

5.2.5 Managing a small fishing business

As more people become involved in commercial fishing (not just tuna fishing), especially if exportmarkets are established, small fishing companies may be established. These will more than likely befamily businesses that may expand over time. To assist local fishermen develop their businesses, therewill be a need for specific training in running a small fishing business. There are probably severalorganisations, such as the USP, that undertake this sort of training, however, it may not be specific torunning a small fishing business. The Fisheries Division could either support existing training in

25

managing a small business, or seek assistance, possibly from SPC, in establishing a more specificcourse for training in managing a small fishing business.

Suggestion 41: That the Fisheries Division either support existing training in managing a smallbusiness, or seek assistance, possibly from SPC, in establishing a more specific course for training inmanaging a small fishing business.

SPC has specific training materials available for the financial management of a small fishing business.SPC can also assist in the running of the first workshop, which would normally run for one week.Fisheries staff can run such a workshop using the SPC materials, possibly with assistance from staffof the MTS, or USP, or local school teachers. Future courses can then be run by the staff of the mostappropriate organisation as required. This training could also be conducted in the outer islands toassist those wishing to set up fishing businesses in these locations.

Suggestion 42: That if the Fisheries Division needs to develop training in small businessmanagement, they use the SPC materials and seek assistance from SPC in the running of the firstworkshop.

People or companies in Fiji wishing to run a larger fishing operation, may find the two-week regionalSPC and New Zealand School of Fisheries (NZSOF), ‘Enterprise Managers Course’ useful. Thiscourse covers business management on a larger scale including vessel management, joint ventures andcharter arrangements, an introduction to HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points)requirements for marketing seafood in the US, and a range of other topics specific to operating ormanaging a larger-scale fishing operation. As this is a regional course run each year, Fijians will needto apply to attend; normally, one or possibly two positions are available per country.

Suggestion 43: That the Fisheries Division support Fijians entering or expanding their fishingbusiness to a larger-scale, by nominating them to attend the annual SPC/NZSOF EnterpriseManagement Course, to develop better business management skills.

5.3 Processing sector

The processing sector is continuing to expand in Fiji. New processing and packing facilities are beingplanned for construction in the next six months. Some processors are looking to develop value-addedproducts, such as fresh tuna loins. With new facilities, these will need to be constructed and laid out inaccordance with health requirements and any requirements set by the anticipated importing country.For US markets, a HACCP plan will need to be developed for each facility, and staff will need to betrained. For the EU, similar requirements apply.

The USP Marine Studies Programme has trained staff in the HACCP area, and they can beapproached to set up specific training as required. The processing sector should take advantage of theUSP expertise, and set up HACCP trainings when needed. An alternative to this is to seek assistancefrom SPC, through the Fisheries Division and Foreign Affairs, in the running of HACCP training, ortraining in other fields. SPC can then contract suitable trainers with the expertise in the specific areasbeing requested, and have this provided in an in-country workshop.

Suggestion 44: That the processing sector seeks assistance from the USP in the running of HACCPand other training as needed.

Suggestion 45: That the processing sector also considers requesting technical assistance from SPC,through the Fisheries Division and Foreign Affairs, to provide training in any specific areas they need.

On the processing side, the USP has a well set up processing facility where students can be givenbasic training in post harvest activities (cleaning, filleting, steaking etc) for tunas and bycatch species.USP could offer this as a short course (1–2 weeks maximum) to allow school leavers the opportunityto get some basic skills before seeking employment in the processing sector. The short course could

26

also cover health standards and issues as they relate to handling and processing fish. Although there isonly a small demand at present, if the processing sector develops and expands, these skills will beneeded more and more.

Suggestion 46: That the USP consider putting together a short course on post-harvest activities andhealth issues to offer school leavers who want to gain employment in the fish processing sector.

Product development is an area the processing sector should be looking at. With the increase in tunaand associated species (bycatch) being landed, and the shrinking air freight space and higher airfreight costs, processors need to do more processing or value-adding in Fiji. There is a range ofknown products that processors are now moving into. However, there could be new products that canbe developed. USP has the facilities and students doing higher education. Possibly the processingsector could request that some students be encouraged to look at new value-added products that couldassist local product development. Even better, possibly the processing sector could provide a coupleof scholarships for Fijians at USP, with the requirement that their studies be in food technology andtheir thesis is on product development or another host-harvest activity. This would assist in therebeing experienced food technologists in Fiji to assist the processing sector in future.

Suggestion 47: That the processing sector approach USP and request that some students beencouraged to look at new value-added products for tunas and bycatch species, that could assist localproduct development.

Suggestion 48: That the processing sector provide several scholarships for Fijian students at USP inthe field of food technology, with their thesis to be on product development or another host-harvestactivity.

PAFCO has specific needs when it comes to training of staff in quality control, seaming inspectionand other processes specific to their tuna canning production. They are currently addressing theirneeds through specialised training overseas, and this should be encouraged by the Fiji Government.For other training that is the same as that required by the fresh fish processors, they should providestaff for training when national workshops are held.

Suggestion 49: That PAFCO continue with the training of specialised staff overseas, with theGovernment of Fiji supporting this.

Suggestion 50: That PAFCO send their staff to national trainings that are organised, when the trainingis suitable to their needs.

5.4 Support sector

The support sector seems to be well established in Fiji, with plenty of skilled and qualified tradespeople. The one area where this is lacking is in the engineering skills that are needed to work onvessel hydraulics and refrigeration. The tuna fishing sector appears to be addressing this throughhands-on training of engineers in the areas of expertise they are lacking. Given the current situation,there does not seem to be any specific training needs in this area at present.

5.5 Fisheries Division

The staff of the Fisheries Division will need a range of training to gain the necessary skills to managedifferent fisheries in general, and implement the National Tuna Development and Management Planfor Fiji. The Fisheries Division also has several vessels, one of which could be used for training.

27

5.5.1 Training needed for staff of the Fisheries Division

Under the current education and training system in Fiji, it would appear there is a growing focus onthe marine sector. This is good as there are a growing number of employment opportunities in themarine sector, including the Fisheries Division. Therefore, more Fijians should be looking to do adegree in marine sciences. The USP offers several courses in the marine sciences, included a Diplomain Tropical Fisheries, a Diploma in Ocean Resource Management and Policy, and a Diploma inFisheries Economics and Management. There are also overseas courses that can be undertaken.

The Fisheries Division is trying to raise the profile of marine science in Fiji, as there is an ongoingneed for fisheries and environmental scientists. The latter is an area the Fisheries Division needs tofocus on, as conservation issues and interactions of gears on non-target species may become anincreasing component of the Division’s work. Several people are nearing the completion of theirstudies in these areas at present. The Fisheries Division needs to identify these as priority areas, andseek government scholarships in these fields.

Suggestion 51: That the Fisheries Division identify environmental science and fisheries science asareas requiring qualified staff, and request the government to offer scholarships in these fields.

No staff at the Fisheries Division appear to hold qualifications in fisheries management. Those thatare becoming involved in management come from a more scientific background or have worked theirway into this with no formal qualification. The problem is that fisheries management is becomingmuch more complex, and there is a need for specific training in this area. A good example of this isthe implementation of the National Tuna Development and Management Plan — there may bot beanyone at the Fisheries Division qualified or able to implement it effectively.

The people involved in the implementation of the Plan need specific training in the areas of fisheriesmanagement, developing and implementing management plans, and developing and implementingsmall-scale tuna fisheries projects. Some training is available in Fiji at present through USP, althoughother choices are to send staff overseas for training or to bring someone into Fiji with the necessaryskills and experience to provide on-the-job training. These approaches could also be combinedthrough a job exchange programme with a recognised agency involved in fisheries management. Thisapproach would allow staff to be trained while they are working, both in Fiji and in the agencyinvolved in fisheries management or fisheries development.

Suggestion 52: That the Fisheries Division arrange for staff involved in the implementation of theNational Tuna Development and Management Plan to receive training, either through USP, bysending them overseas on recognised courses, bringing a person to Fiji with the necessary skills toprovide on-the-job training, or enter into a job exchange programme with a recognised agencyinvolved in fisheries management and/or fisheries development.

Surveillance and compliance will be required with the implementation of any management plan.However, it is particularly relevant with the National Tuna Development and Management Plan asthere are international implications for Fiji, if and when they allow foreign fishing vessels to workwithin its EEZ under agreements with specific terms and conditions. Also with domestic vesselsfishing outside the Fijian EEZ, especially in the zones of other countries, Fiji still has flag stateresponsibility over these vessels.

Currently there is only one bilateral access agreement in place, although no licences are being takenup. Foreign vessels can be chartered by Fijian companies, and this is occurring at present. Thereappears to be little or limited surveillance of the tuna fishing fleet in Fiji at present. The ForumFisheries Agency (FFA) has completed a vessel monitoring system (VMS) programme, which isbeing implemented regionally, and countries should require this under fishing access agreements. Fijishould work towards the implementation of VMS in any future access agreement, or re-negotiationsof current agreements, as part of the terms and conditions. VMS should also be a requirement forforeign charter and domestic tuna fishing vessels, as there are flag-state control issues that Fiji will

28

need to address if Fijian vessels happen to fish in the zone of a neighbouring country by mistake.VMS is also an additional piece of safety equipment for all vessels fishing offshore.

Suggestion 53: That the Fisheries Division fully implement the requirements of VMS in any future orre-negotiated fishing access agreement under the terms and conditions of access.

Suggestion 54: That the Fisheries Department implement VMS as a requirement for foreign charterand domestic tuna fishing vessels, as there are flag-state control issues that Fiji is responsible for.

There also appears to be a need for on-the-job training in some fields of surveillance and compliance,including prosecution workshops, evidence collecting, and verification of catch records. This type oftraining is necessary to ensure that officers know how to conduct their surveillance activitiesaccurately, as some of this work may lead to prosecution, with appeals from the defence side. On-the-job training is suggested for these officers as they need to know how to work in their ownenvironment with the equipment available to them. The Fisheries Division and other relevantgovernment departments should identify specific areas of training in surveillance and compliance, andapproach either Australia or New Zealand for assistance with the provision of a suitable trainer in theareas identified, if a suitable trainer is not available locally.

Suggestion 55: That the Fisheries Division and other relevant government departments, identifyspecific areas of training for surveillance and compliance officers, and approach Australia or NewZealand for assistance with the provision of a suitable trainer in the areas identified, if a suitabletrainer is not available locally.

Another way of conducting surveillance on fishing vessels is to have observers on board to monitorand verify catch (including bycatch and discards), to monitor fishing location, and to collect anysamples or specific data needed by scientists. Several Fijians have been trained as observers, althoughvery little observer work is undertaken. There is a need to increase the number of trained observers, tomeet any requirements and ensure accurate data is provided under the National Tuna Developmentand Management Plan. For maximum efficiency and to minimise long-term costs, it would be best ifthe people to be trained as observers were not government employees. This would allow observers tobe employed on a casual basis when there was work available, and would increase the skills in theprivate sector workforce. The Fiji Government may prefer to have the observers on staff, however, thecost of observers as government employees would be considerably higher (full time salary plusallowances when at sea), and there is less incentive for the people to head to sea.

Both SPC and FFA have been involved in training national observers in the region as observers ontuna fishing vessels. It is timely for a workshop to be held in Fiji to equip people with the skillsrequired for observing on tuna fishing vessels. Both SPC and FFA are in a position to assist in therunning of an observer workshop. This would create a pool of qualified observers to assist in themonitoring of catch and fishing location of tuna fishing vessels working in Fiji under the NationalTuna Development and Management Plan, or to work through FFA to observe on US purse seinersunder the Multilateral agreement.

Suggestion 56: That the Fisheries Division request both FFA and SPC to assist in the setting up andrunning of a workshop to train up Fijian observers to monitor tuna fishing vessels licensed under theNational Tuna Development and Management Plan, or to work through FFA to observe on US purseseiners under the Multilateral agreement.

Suggestion 57: That the Fisheries Division preferably select non-government employees for trainingas observers, to increase the skills of Fijians in the private sector workforce, with the FisheriesDivision employing these people on an as-needs basis.

There is some port sampling conducted in Fiji at present, although not all landings or processors aresampled. With the landed catch expected to increase, the amount of port sampling should also beincreased, so that data can be collected from a representative sample of the landed catch. Several more

29

port samplers need to be trained to measure the catch of domestic tuna landings (and bycatch) as wellas any fish that may be transshipped by foreign vessels in future. SPC can assistance in trainingadditional port samplers.

Suggestion 58: That the Fisheries Division request SPC to provide assistance in training additionalFijians as port samplers, and the port sampling project expanded.

The other area of training the Fisheries Division is involved in is engineering and refrigeration fortheir staff that manage the operation of ice plants in different parts of the country. Fisheries has a newworkshop under construction for their engineers and mechanics. This facility will also be used forrunning refresher courses for the ice plant operators.

5.5.2 Using a Fisheries Division vessel for training

The Fisheries Division currently has three 15 to 20 m vessels that are not used very often. In fact theirmain use is to deploy some FADs from time to time. One of these vessels could be fitted out as atraining vessel with tuna longlining equipment. The vessel could then be shared with the MaritimeTraining School (MTS) and Fishing Training School if and when it is established. This would servetwo purposes. First, it would overcome the problem that MTS has with not having a training vesseland it will allow a practical component to be added to the basic training proposed for the future crewfor tuna vessels. The second would be the better use of one of the fisheries vessels, which are underutilised at present. The longlining gear needed to fit out the fisheries vessel would only need to beminimal, for setting around 500 hooks per set, as training and not commercial fishing would be themain objective. Fisheries and the MTS would need to identify funding for the purchase andinstallation of the hydraulic gear needed (or approach industry for assistance), plus they would need towork out the shared funding of the vessel’s operation and maintenance.

Suggestion 59: That the Fisheries Division and the MTS get together and work out an arrangement tojointly use one of the fisheries vessels, with the MTS using the vessel for the practical part of theproposed training for crew.

Suggestion 60: That the Fisheries Division and the MTS work out a funding arrangement to purchasethe necessary tuna longlining equipment and its installation (or approach industry for assistance), andthe shared funding of the vessel’s operation and maintenance.

6. CONSTRAINTS AND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Development of the tuna fishery takes on a different meaning in Fiji, as the medium-scale tunalongline industry, with 90 vessels currently in the fishery and up to another 28 expected to arrivebefore June 2002, is well past the development phase. There are, however, other areas of the tunafishery that can be developed, including the processing sector and value-adding. Government policieswill play a big role in future development or support of the tuna fishery, especially the role that theFisheries Division plays in the future. Some of the topics mentioned in the following sections are thebasis of other studies that will be provided for the drafting of the national Tuna Development andManagement Plan for Fiji, and are only mentioned in this report briefly for completeness.

6.1 Encouraging private sector development

The Government of Fiji through the Fisheries Division and government have tried to develop fisheriesin the country since the 1950/60s. Fishing depots were set up in outer islands and a vessel collectionsystem established, all through the Fisheries Division. This commenced in the mid 1960s and wasabandoned in the mid 1970s. The Ika Corporation was established in the mid 1970s to develop thepole-and-line fishery, and was successful to a certain degree, however, was not viable and closed inthe late 1990s. Many other attempts have been made by government to promote development of the

30

marine resources, some more successful than others. These have mainly been focused on inshoreresources, which in some locations now are considered depleted.

The Fisheries Division has continued to be involved in the development of the tuna fishery. They havedeployed FADs around the country to assist the industrial sector (pole-and-line and purse seine) whenthey were operational, as well assisting the small-scale sector. Fisheries has promoted small-scale tunafishing activities, however, these have been slow to catch on and very few fishermen persist withthese methods. The Fisheries Division has had a boat building programme and subsidy in the 1980s,and again in the late 1990s/early 2000s, small-scale fishermen are being subsidised by governmentinto outboard-powered skiffs to try to promote small-scale tuna fishing. Given all these attempts withlimited success, the Fisheries Division needs to sit back and re-look at their approach to development.

When looking at the development of the tuna longline fishery, the Fisheries Division had basicallynothing to do with introducing this method to the private sector, however, they looked more at thegovernment policies and infrastructure that was needed to allow the private sector to develop andexpand this fishery. The main question here is what can the government learn from this private sectorsuccess story. The main answer is that if there is an enabling environment to allow the private sectorto development, the private sector has the financial backing or access to it, and if the private sectorcan see a way to make a profit, then development can occur. From the government’s perspective,providing the enabling environment for development to occur, which includes infrastructure andgovernment policies, is probably the most important ingredient. The next is to support thedevelopment that is occurring, and not set up any hurdles, or even worse, government companies, thatwill restrict development or create unfair opposition that will hinder progress. The bottom line is thatgovernment should not be involved in commercial activities that the private sector is capable ofestablishing, especially in or close to the main urban centres.

Suggestion 61: That the Fisheries Division (government) should not be involved in commercialactivities that the private sector is capable of establishing, especially in or close to the main urbancentres.

Suggestion 62: That the Fisheries Division (government) fully support private sector developmentand not set up any hurdles, or government companies, that will restrict development or create unfairopposition that will hinder progress.

The outer islands present a different set of problems, and logistics and transport play a major part inwhether development occurs. Private sector development is less likely to occur, and the governmentneeds to assess how much they are willing to subsidise development in these areas, and whether thiswill provide the long term benefits they want for the outer islands. For example, if an iceplant is set upin the outer islands and some people start using the plant, how long do you keep the plant running at aloss to support the few fishermen? Another example is if the iceplant breaks down when it has beenoperating at a loss, does the government fix it in support of the few fishermen that have been using itor leave it and the fishermen stop fishing? Only the government can put a price on this sort of‘temporary’ or ‘subsidised’ development, and while it continues to occur, the private sector is lesslikely to try to establish themselves. Why would the private sector invest in an iceplant when thegovernment will put one in free and run it?

Suggestion 63: That the Fisheries Division (government) assess the value they place on subsidisingdevelopment in the outer islands with iceplants and shore facilities and operating them, and considerif this is the most appropriate use of the funding provided.

6.2 Government policies and the role of the Fisheries Division

There are a range of government policies that can effect and/or assist the development of the tunafishing industry including: the maritime regulations, new legislation; duty on fuel, bait, fishingequipment and spare parts; licensing and export permits; and data collection and use.

31

6.2.1 Role of the Fisheries Division and the use of their vessels

The role and activities of the Fisheries Division is the subject of another study being conducted atpresent. It is essential that this be done as quickly as possible and implemented. During the course ofthis work, it was a common complaint from industry that they did not know who they should beworking with and the information and advice they were getting was inconsistent. There was alsoconcern that some operators were being shown preference over others, and this needs to stop if it ishappening. The Fisheries Division needs some clear guidelines as to their role and functions, not justin regard to the tuna fishery, but to all fisheries in Fiji.

Suggestion 64: That when the findings of the study on the structure, role and functions of theFisheries Division is complete and agreed to, it be implemented as quickly as possible.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in the Fisheries Division is what to do with the currentvessels owned and operated by the division? In 2000, the three vessels, which are all between 15 and20 m in length, spent 50, 20 and zero days at sea. The operational budget for the fleet was reported ataround FJD 200,000 for the year, plus there were around 22 staff including fleet supervisors, fleetengineers, skippers, engineers and crew. This would appear to be a huge drain on finances forbasically no return. This is an area that the Fisheries Division has to seriously consider in the futurestructure of the division.

In Section 5.5.2, it was suggested that one of these vessels have tuna longline gear fitted and thevessel be shared with the Maritime Training School, to the benefit of training up crew for employmentin the tuna fishery. The Fisheries Division could use the same vessel part time to do their FADdeployment programme, as suggested in Section 6.5.5. The Fisheries Division should ensure theykeep the best of their three vessels for the training vessel. The important part here is that the crew ofthis vessel be experienced in tuna longlining and to a lesser degree, FAD deployment, as there is nouse using this vessel for training in tuna longlining if the skipper and crew are not proficient. Thismay mean that the skipper and crew will need to be changed, some let go and others employed, tomake sure they have the necessary skills for the work to be undertaken.

Suggestion 65: That if one of the Fisheries Division’s vessels is used as a training vessel, shared withthe Maritime Training School, that an experienced skipper and crew in tuna longlining, and to a lesserdegree, FAD deployment be put onboard, even if this means letting some existing crew go andemploying new crew.

The next question is what to do with the other two vessels? In reality, the Fisheries Division has nouse for them and they are an expense they can not afford. The vessels would be best sold off to theprivate sector, either through putting a price on them individually, or through putting them up fortender. This may not be possible if they were granted under Japanese aid, as Japan does not like itsgifts being sold off. If this is the case, then the Fisheries Division could look at leasing the vessels outto the private sector for a nominal fee plus the company they go to would be responsible for anyfishing conversion costs and all maintenance costs. Unfortunately, there will be no need for theskippers, engineers and crew for these vessels, or the fleet superintendents and fleet engineers, if theygo to the private sector, so the Fisheries Division may need to look at redundancy measures for thesestaff.

Suggestion 66: That the Fisheries Division dispose of two of their vessels by either direct sale, sale bytender of lease arrangement.

Suggestion 67: That if the Fisheries Division leases out the two vessels, the lease arrangementstipulates that the lease holder is responsible for any fishing conversion costs and all maintenancecosts.

32

Suggestion 68: That if the Fisheries Division divests itself of the two vessels, they look at redundancymeasures for the skippers, engineers and crew for these vessels, and the fleet superintendents and fleetengineers.

6.2.2 Marine Department Regulations

The Marine (STCW Convention) Regulations 2001 covers all fishing vessels as well as merchantvessels. In the Regulations, qualifications are required on all fishing vessels, even those on inshorevoyages (which includes sheltered waters) and there is no minimum size that this applies to. Thiscould create a problem for the fishing industry, especially small-scale fishermen in small vessels, as aminimum length should apply as a cut-off. In other countries in the region the minimum size of vesselis set at around 7 m in length. That is, a vessel has to be 7 m or longer to fall under the jurisdiction ofMarine Regulations 2001.

Suggestion 69: That the Fisheries Division contact the Marine Department and either have the currentMarine (STCW Convention) Regulations 2001, amended, or exemptions be granted, so that theseRegulations only apply to fishing vessels of 7 m in length or longer.

Also in the Marine Regulations, it states that in sheltered waters, the minimum certification for themaster of a vessel under 15 m in length is a ‘Boat Master’s Licence’. To qualify for such a licence aperson has to be 16 years old, hold a basic sea safety certificate, have 6 months approved seatimewhile holding a basic sea safety certificate and have a certificate of medical fitness for service in thedeck department. It is unclear if this applies to fishing vessels or not, or whether the minimumqualification for a fishing vessel is the Restricted Master/Engineer Class 6 for inshore voyages. TheFisheries Division should clarify this with the Marine Department and if it does apply, let allfishermen know they are affected by this. If it does apply, then hopefully the proposed 7 m minimumboat length would apply, to lessen the number of fishermen this would affect.

Suggestion 70: That the Fisheries Division clarify with the Marine Department if the master of afishing vessel under 15 m in length in sheltered waters is required to hold a ‘Boat Master’s Licence’or a Restricted Master/Engineer Class 6, and if so, all fishermen that are affected by this should benotified.

6.2.3 EU requirements for a Competent Authority

Under the EU certification system for countries to export fish product to the EU, certain guidelinesmust be followed. First, a company can gain ‘satellite’ status, which means that the EU inspectorsdeal direct with the company, and this is outside any local government legislation. PAFCO enjoys thisstatus after meeting all of the EU requirements for their canned tuna.

For other companies wishing to export product to the EU, especially fresh fish, they need to have theirprocessing facilities up to EU standards and be inspected by an EU inspector. Each consignment sentfrom the processing facility also needs to be inspected and certified by a recognised inspector under aCompetent Authority, which is set up under government legislation. Several processing facilities inFiji have been inspected by the EU, and are now exporting small quantities of fresh product to EUmarkets. The Fisheries Division is acting as the Competent Authority, and signing the appropriatecertification to allow the exports to take place.

The problem is that there is no actual Competent Authority in Fiji, nor is there any legislation in placeat present to support the establishment of a Competent Authority. This means that the inspections andcertifications that are currently taking place are very dubious. In fact, if an EU inspector camethrough, they may stop any further exports of product to the EU until everything is in place. As amatter of urgency, the Fisheries Division and the Health Department need to get together to first workout whether the Competent Authority best fits under the health or fisheries legislation. Once decided,the legislation needs to be amended and the Competent Authority established.

33

Suggestion 71: That the Fisheries Division and the Health Department get together to work outwhether the Competent Authority best fits under the health or fisheries legislation.

Suggestion 72: That once a decision is made under which legislation the Competent Authority shouldbe established, the legislation be amended to allow this to happen as soon as possible.

Once the Competent Authority is established, then staff will need to be trained as inspectors to meetthe requirements as set out by the EU and a laboratory identified for doing random testing of fishproducts. All of this needs to happen as soon as possible, so that there is no interruption to the currentexporting of Fijian fish to the EU, which could affect some of the processing facilities and potentiallong term markets.

Suggestion 73: That once the Competent Authority is established, inspectors are trained and alaboratory identified, so that all of the EU requirements can be fulfilled.

6.2.4 Duty and taxes on gear and equipment used in the tuna fishery

This will be covered by another of the team members in their input to the process. This is just to notethe concerns expressed by industry at the increasing price of fuel for their fishing operations. Theywould like to see the duty dropped on fuel, as this is one of their main expenses and it keeps going up.

6.2.5 Licensing

The issue of licensing will be covered by another of the team members, as the issue of licencenumbers, fees, and the criteria for eligibility is an issue that needs resolution sooner rather than later.The input here is more to do with observer coverage and possible funding of observers and trying tocreate a development fund using part of the licence fee.

Having observer coverage on tuna fishing vessels is an important monitoring tool, for validating theactual catch and position, as well as providing additional information on species composition andbycatch. The latter information is becoming very important as conservation groups look closely atbycatch species and the interaction of fishing techniques on non-target species. Fiji may also haveinternational obligations to validate catches from vessels, which it flags. Therefore, it is essential thatthe Fisheries Division implement a meaningful observer programme to validate the catch of tunavessels working in its EEZ. The easiest way to do this is to make this a licensing requirement underthe National Tuna Development and Management Plan for all chartered fishing vessels and domesticvessels over a specified length working in Fiji’s EEZ.

Suggestion 74: That the Fisheries Division make it a licensing requirement under the National TunaDevelopment and Management Plan, for all charter fishing vessels, and domestic vessels over aspecified length working in the Fiji EEZ, to carry an observer from time to time.

The idea of having a separate fee to cover the wages and allowances of observers should beconsidered by government. Such a fee could be included in the licence fee or added to it. The ideawould be to have the ‘observer fee’ placed into a separate account, a ‘trust fund’, for the FisheriesDivision to use primarily to cover the wages and allowances of observers on tuna fishing vessels.Such a fee could also be used for funding port sampling of tuna catches either landed in, ortransshipped through, Fiji. The fee could be set at around USD 1000 per licence for charter vessels,with possibly around USD 500 per licence for domestic vessels. The Fisheries Division will need tobe able to set up such an account with the support of government for this to work. The FisheriesDivision will also need to make the workings of such an account fully transparent to ensure there is nomisuse of the funds.

34

Suggestion 75: That the Fisheries Division seek government approval to establish a ‘trust fund’ wherethe ‘observer fee’ charge or portion of a licence is deposited, with these funds used specifically forcovering the cost of wages and allowances for observers on tuna fishing vessels or port samplingactivities.

Suggestion 76: That the ‘observer fee’ be set at around USD $1,000 per licence for charter vessels,and around USD 500 per licence for domestic vessels.

Suggestion 77: That when the ‘trust fund’ is established, the workings of the account are fullytransparent to ensure there is no misuse of the funds.

When looking at the perceived benefits to the small-scale fishing sector and charter/sportfishing sectorfrom having tuna longliners fishing in the Fiji EEZ, there are few. In fact, some groups within thesmall-scale fishing sector would argue that having tuna longline vessels working in the Fiji EEZ is anegative benefit, as the catch from these vessels may be perceived as effecting the catch rates ofsmall-scale and charter vessels. Setting up a trust fund to deposit an observer fee to cover the cost ofobservers is a good first step in increasing the perceived benefits from tuna longline fishing activityby the small-scale domestic fishing sector. However, observers are used to monitor and verify thefishing activities occurring in the Fijian EEZ, so there is only a small perceived benefit to the small-scale fisheries sector from this activity. What would be perceived as a benefit or even a boost to thissector, would be if some of the licence fee was set aside for fisheries development or research work.

A similar approach could be used to the observer fee, except it could be called a ‘development fee’,which is specifically used for development work or possibly some research. The same trust fund couldbe used with a separate account for development work. The fee could be set at around USD 1000 perlicence for charter vessel. For local vessels, the amount could be around one half (USD 500 perlicence), paid into the development fund. As this would be considered part of the overall trust fund,the same workings and reporting to government would apply.

Suggestion 78: That the Fisheries Division collect a ‘development fee’ as an additional charge orportion of a licence under the Plan, and deposited these funds in the trust fund for specific work infisheries development or possibly research.

Suggestion 79: That the ‘development fee’ be set at around USD 1000 per licence for charter vessels,and around USD 500 per licence for local vessels.

In collecting the development fee, it would be wise to use all or at least 75 per cent of the fund onsmall-scale tuna fishing development projects. Such a project would be the funding of an ongoingFAD programme in locations were they will benefit local fishing communities. Some of the fundcould be used for research purposes, although this should be minimised.

Suggestion 80: That the Fisheries Division use all or at least 75 per cent of the development fund onsmall-scale tuna fishing development projects, such as an ongoing FAD programme.

6.2.6 Export permits

Export permits are issued by the Fisheries Division on a monthly basis. There is no charge for thepermit, however, exporters need to provide data on all exports by consignment, box number, and typeof fish and weight. Health certificates are also issued by the Fisheries Division, as with certification ifthe export is to the EU. No one in industry had a problem with the current system of issuing exportpermits, and the system seemed to be working well. The only real issue appears to be the EUcertification, and this is discussed under Section 6.2.3.

Suggestion 81: That the Fisheries Division continue with the current export permit and data collectionsystem.

35

6.2.7 Data collection and use of data

There is a data collection system in place for the tuna fishery in Fiji. Each fishing vessel completes alogbook with their fishing activities. Data is also collected as a requirement of the export permit, onwhat fish is exported. There is a problem in the system though, as when the last assessment wasconducted for Fiji by SPC, different figures on catch were discovered. The official figure from Fiji forthe tuna longline catch in 2000 was around one half of the figure that SPC came up with afterchecking with industry on their actual catches. Industry claims that all of the catch figures from theirlogbooks have been provided to the Fisheries Division, however, not all of these have flowed on toSPC for inclusion on the regional database. One problem may be that not all vessels are completinglogbooks and passing the data on to the Fisheries Division. The main point here is that more careneeds to be taken with the data so that all data is collected and passed to SPC for inclusion on theregional database.

Suggestion 82: That the Fisheries Division and the fishing industry work together to ensure that allvessels complete their logbook accurately and pass the information on to the Fisheries Division, so itcan be forwarded to SPC for entering onto the regional database.

A good cross check for the catch data would be the use of observers in the tuna fishery. This has beendiscussed under Section 6.2.5, which looks at the need for observers and a way of at least partiallyfunding this activity.

Some data is also collected from the small-scale tuna development project being implemented in theSuva area. The sale of fish from this project that is sold to export processors is monitored, however,this is only part of the catch. Possibly a simple logbook could be developed for this fishery so thatbetter records are provided on the total catch from this project. This could also be split by fishingmethod, to see which are the more productive fishing techniques.

Suggestion 83: That the Fisheries Division look at developing a simple logbook for the small-scaletuna development project, with the catch split by fishing method, and have fishermen complete it andprovide a copy to fisheries each month.

6.3 Financing for new fishing operations

The financing options for Fijians to get their own vessel and enter the tuna fishery are being coveredby another of the team working on this project. This is a difficult area to address, given the amount ofmoney needed to purchase a suitable tuna longline vessel.

6.4 Charter fishing operations

There are several charter fishing operations spread around Fiji. They are mainly located in the touristareas, and some work in association with the tourist hotels. The number of operators seems tofluctuate with the demand, which comes from the tourist sector. This seems to be self regulating, andif the demand increases, then the private sector will expand to fill the need. The Fisheries Divisionshould continue to support this sector, and make sure there are no obstacles in the way that will affectfurther development of these commercial ventures.

Suggestion 84: That the Fisheries Division continue to support the charter and sportfishing sector, andmake sure there are no obstacles in the way that will affect further development of these commercialventures.

The Fisheries Division also needs to take on board concerns raised by this sector, as they are a part ofthe tuna fishery. In this regard, as early as November 1994, the Fiji International Game FishingAssociation expressed their concern at the increase in tuna longlining activity, and made publicstatements that they would like a 20 nm buffer zone around all perimeter reefs. That is, they would

36

like tuna longlining excluded from within 20 nm of the reef. This was to protect an area for the charterand sportfishers, and also the small-scale fishing operators.

A possible approach could be to look at keeping larger vessels further offshore, while allowingsmaller operations based on vessel length and number of hooks set to work in closer, but still areasonable distance offshore. For example, vessels over say 12 m in length, and smaller vesselssetting more than 100 hooks on one line, would need to fish outside 12 nm, while larger longliners(over 15 m in length) and charter or foreign longliners would stay outside 25 nm.

Suggestion 85: That the Fisheries Division consider the implementation of an exclusion zone toprotect local charter and sportfishing interests, including small-scale tuna fishing operations, throughrequiring vessels over 12 m in length, and smaller vessels setting more than 100 hooks on one line, tofish outside 12 nm, while larger longliners (over 15 m in length) and charter or foreign longlinerswould stay outside 25 nm.

6.5 Development options

A range of development options are possible for Fiji in relation to the tuna resource that passesthrough its EEZ. These options cover potential areas of employment in the tuna fishery and possiblesupport to the fishery. This section explores these different options as to their viability and practicalityin Fiji based on the current situation and the information available.

6.5.1 Transshipment of tuna catches and the possible use of Fijian stevedores

The ports of Fiji are well away from the main purse seine fishing grounds, and vessels would need tosteam out of their way to come to Fiji to transship their catch. On the other hand, foreign tunalongliners do come to Suva to transship their catch. Most of this catch is offloaded from the freezervessels into containers, for shipment to different destinations. Some of this fish goes to PAFCO, someof the bycatch is purchased in Suva by the Forum Fish Traders Association, and the rest goes tovarious destinations, mainly in the region.

The current method of transshipping uses a mixture of Fijian stevedores, and the crew of theunloading vessel, to do the unloading and packing into containers. Fijian stevedores operate all themachinery used in the operation, including any winch gear on the foreign vessel. This method appearsto be working well, with 6 to 8 Fijian stevedores used per transshipment. There is a small chance thatmore of the vessel crew could be replaced with Fijian stevedores, and this could be explored by thePorts Authority in future.

Suggestion 86: That the Ports Authority try to replace some of the foreign crew with Fijianstevedores, to increase the number of Fijians employed during the transshipment of fish in Suva.

There are no other obvious ways to increase employment of Fijian stevedores at present in the fishingindustry, unless there is an increase in the number of foreign longliners coming to Suva to transship,or some purse seiners come to transship.

6.5.2 Fijian crewing on domestic, charter and foreign tuna fishing vessels

Around two-thirds of the crew on tuna longline vessels working out of Fiji at present are Fijians.Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 cover the training needs to increase the qualifications for Fijians totake on higher positions, or for new entrants to get some basic training. The reality is that somecompanies have their vessels almost 100 per cent Fijian crewed, while others prefer to keep asignificant number of foreign crew on board, even on the deck. The Fisheries Division could look atmaking it a requirement (possibly as a licensing condition) that the number of foreign crew needs todecrease each year, with at least all deck crew being Fijian within a specified period of time, say 2 or3 years. Replacing foreign skippers and engineers will be more difficult, as it will take time for Fijiansto be trained up and gain their qualifications in these areas. However, it should be a requirement that

37

all vessels will work towards this goal. In 3 to 4 years time, the Fisheries Division can re-assess thesituation regarding qualified Fijian skippers and engineers, and if there are enough available, theyshould be phased in to replace their foreign counterparts over a specified period of time.

Suggestion 87: That the Fisheries Division make it a requirement, possibly as a licensing condition,that all foreign deck crew be phased out and replaced with Fijian crew over a specified period, say 2to 3 years.

Suggestion 88: That the Fisheries Division re-assess the situation regarding the numbers of qualifiedFijian skippers and engineers in several years time, and if there are enough available, they should bephased in to replace their foreign counterparts over a specified period.

There are also opportunities for Fijians to gain employment as deck crew on foreign fishing vessels.There are roughly 100 Fijians doing this at present on a rotation basis on Korean longline vessels. Asmore Fijians gain experience, the numbers could increase. This is certainly a potential growth area forFijians who want to head to sea for extended periods of time, and the Fisheries Division shouldencourage and support this. However, it is important that anyone heading to sea for extended periodsof time has a current sea safety certificate, and the FIMSA and the Fisheries Division should clarifythis with the agent who contracts and places them on foreign vessels, and make this a requirement ofemployment.

Suggestion 89: That the Fisheries Division encourage and support Fijians who want to undertakeemployment of foreign fishing vessels.

Suggestion 90: That the Fisheries Division and the FIMSA work with agents who contract and placeFijians on foreign vessels, and make it a requirement of employment that they hold a current seasafety certificate.

It was unclear what contractual arrangements were in place for Fijians working of foreign fishingvessels. To assist Fijians, the Fisheries Division could work with the local agents, and develop acommon contract for terms and conditions of employment. This would ensure that all Fijians wouldbe under the same terms and conditions and be treated fairly. Each Fijian would then sign thecommon or standard contract before taking up their position at sea.

Suggestion 91: That the Fisheries Division work with the local agents to develop a common contractfor terms and conditions of employment for Fijians to work on foreign fishing vessels, with all futurecrew signing this contract before starting.

6.5.3 Observer Programme and port sampling

Funding for observers and port samplers is an issue that the Fisheries Division will need to address aspart of the National Tuna Development and Management Plan. The need for an observer programmeand port sampling programme, and a possible funding source, in part at least, is discussed underSection 6.2.5, while Section 5.5.1 discusses the need for training in this area. Hopefully the proposedapproach for partial funding of these programmes will be supported by government. Regardless ofwhether of not this approach is accepted, the Fisheries Division will need to have some fundingavailable to undertake these services, and this should be built into the annual fisheries budget.

Suggestion 92: That the Fisheries Division build some funding for observers and port samplers intotheir annual budget allocation from government to undertake these activities.

Fiji needs a pool of observers and port samplers, and they do not need to be employed by government(refer Section 5.5.1). Once trained, these people can be hired on a casual basis when there is the needfor their services. This could be for work locally on domestic vessels, or for work on US purse seinersthrough FFA.

38

Suggestion 93: That the Fisheries Department ensure there is a pool of trained observers and portsamplers in Fiji, so they can be employed on a casual bases when needed.

With the establishment of a new regional tuna management commission as a result of the MHLCprocess, there is the chance that observer coverage under this commission may increase. Currentlyunder the US Treaty, FFA fully funds Pacific Islanders working as observers on US purse seiners.This concept could be applied to all vessels in the coming years under the commission, which couldincrease employment opportunities for Fijians trained as observers. It is anticipated that observersworking through the commission would be funded by or through the commission.

6.5.4 Promoting pole-and-line fishing

The PAFCO cannery is keen to get pole-caught skipjack tuna, so they can re-establish their markets inthe United Kingdom. They have been approached by companies like Sainsbury, to supply this highquality, high priced product. The problem is, how do you get the private sector interested in pole-and-line fishing in the current economic climate, especially when almost everyone is focused on tunalonglining in Fiji. Ocean Trader, which operated at least one pole-and-line vessel for around 15 years,and was in operation until early 2001, has now converted the company vessels to longline for tuna.

One company in Fiji is pole-and-line fishing, but it is for their own processing facility, where thecatch is value-added and tataki is produced. This company is bringing in two other pole-and-linevessels to increase the production of fish for their facility. There is the possibility that they may catchmore fish than they need for their processing, however, this is unlikely.

Past problems in the pole-and-line fishery have included fluctuating prices paid for the fish at thecannery, access to suitable baitfishing grounds, and seasonal variations in catch rates. The canneryprice for skipjack is based on a ‘world price’, which fluctuates in regard to supply and demand.Unfortunately, there is no difference in the price paid for pole-and-line caught fish over purse seinecaught fish. Seasonal variations in abundance and catch rates are also an unknown factor that cannotbe controlled. Access to bait is an area that can be addressed, although this should be done through theFisheries Division, so that a standard approach and fee is charged. This is one area that the FisheriesDivision can address and sort out now.

Suggestion 94: That the Fisheries Division negotiate with all the baitfish resource holders to settle onterms and fees for pole-and-line vessels to be able to bait freely at night in recognised areas close tothe fishing grounds.

The problem of price paid by the PAFCO cannery has been mentioned in past reports, with PAFCOpaying below world price, which effects the viability of pole-and-line operations. If PAFCO is seriousabout their need for pole-and-line caught skipjack, then they will need to gain the confidence of theprivate sector, agree on a pricing structure for the purchase of the fish, and stick to the agreementmade.

Suggestion 95: That PAFCO approach the private sector with a pricing structure for the purchase ofpole-and-line caught skipjack tuna, and if a company accepts this and commences operation, PAFCOstick to the agreement reached.

Another approach could be for a Fijian company, even PAFCO, to either enter into a joint venturearrangement or charter some of the pole-and-line vessels from the Solomon Taiyo Company in theSolomon Islands, possibly with crew in the first instance, and have them come to Fiji to fish andsupply PAFCO. The charter arrangements would be up to negotiation between the Fijian companyand Solomon Taiyo, although the issue of access to baiting grounds would need to be resolved aspreviously suggested. Agreement would also need to be reached up front on the pricing structure thatPAFCO would use to purchase the catch.

39

Suggestion 96: That a Fijian company look at either entering into a joint venture arrangement orcharter some of the pole-and-line vessels from the Solomon Taiyo Company in the Solomon Islands,and have them come to Fiji to fish and supply PAFCO, provided the issue of purchase price for thecatch and access to baiting grounds can be satisfactorily settled.

The final point is that any restrictions that may be introduced by the Government of Fiji on thenumber of tuna longlining licences should not affect the number of pole-and-line vessels allowed tofish in Fiji’s EEZ. This is a different fishing method, and the numbers of boats will be small, so thereshould be no restrictions placed on pole-and-line vessel numbers, provided these vessel stick to pole-and-line fishing.

Suggestion 97: That the Fisheries Division not restrict the number of pole-and-line vessels allowed tooperate in Fijian waters, provided they are pole-and-line fishing.

6.5.5 Fish aggregating devices (FADs)

Fiji is one country that has continued a FAD programme, in one form or another, for around 20 years.The Fisheries Division now needs to look to the future and what form an ongoing FAD programmeshould take. The FADs that have been maintained for the local skipjack project off Suva have workedwell, however, it is not known how much these are fished. FADs have also been placed in otherlocations around the country, but with only one pole-and-line vessel fishing, with two more expectedbefore the end of 2001, there would not appear to be any real need to continue deploying FADs inpast locations, unless they are benefiting coastal communities as well. The Fisheries Division also hasto decide if they should continue putting FADs out for the larger pole-and-line vessels, which areowned and operated by the private sector, or whether this is the responsibility of the company. Thebottom line is that there is a need for an ongoing FAD programme, however, the scope of theprogramme needs to be assessed. Once a decision is made on the future scope of the FAD programme,the Extension Section of the Fisheries Division should establish a five-year plan for Suva and otherselected sites in the outer islands.

Suggestion 98: That the Fisheries Division re-assess their current FAD programme and decidewhether they are to continue deploying FADs for private sector pole-and-line fishing operations, orwhether they focus their support on small-scale fishing operations in selected areas.

Suggestion 99: That the Fisheries Division, through their Extension Section, consider implementing afive-year plan for their ongoing FAD programme under the National Tuna Development andManagement Plan, for the country.

A FAD programme should include the bulk purchase of materials to maintain a set number of FADsat the selected fishing locations around the country. The number of FADs could be based on thenumber of main fishing locations and markets for the catch. Spare materials will need to be kept onhand to replace lost FADs in a reasonable timeframe. A set maintenance programme needs to beimplemented by the Extension Section to try to maximise the lifespan of each FAD, thus reducing theoverall cost of the programme. Data collection should also be implemented as a requirement offishing around FADs, so that a cost benefit analysis can be undertaken periodically through the life ofthe FAD programme, monitoring the success and the dependence of fishing operations on FADs.

Suggestion 100: That if the Fisheries Division implements a FAD programme under the NationalTuna development and Management Plan, the following requirements be included:

• Bulk ordering of materials to reduce costs;• Spare materials be kept on hand to replace lost FADs in a reasonable timeframe;• A set maintenance programme be implemented to increase the lifespan of FADs in the water;• Data collection system implemented for all operators fishing around the FADs; and• A cost benefit analysis be undertaken periodically through the 5-year programme to monitor the

programmes’ success.

40

The Fisheries Division has a suitable vessel for deploying FADs with GPS and plotter, although it wasnot clear if they have a suitable deep-water echo sounder (to work in 2500–3000 m). This vessel couldbe used to deploy FADs in all locations, although a deep-water echo sounder may be needed to ensureaccurate deployment. Therefore, funding for an ongoing FAD programme should have provision forthe purchase of a deep-water echo sounder for the fisheries vessel. The FAD work would only keepthe fisheries vessel busy for part of the year, so the vessel could also be used jointly with the MaritimeTraining School for training longline crew, as suggested in Section 5.5.2.

Suggestion 101: That the Fisheries Division include funding in any ongoing FAD programme budgetto purchase a deep-water echo sounder (rated to 2500–3000 m).

Several of the current fisheries staff have been involved in the construction and deployment of FADs,although the level of their skills was unclear. The lifespan of the FADs have been short in many cases,so it would seem opportune for the government to seek assistance and training from the SPC in FADwork, if a FAD programme is continued under the National Tuna Development and ManagementPlan. This would allow the transfer of technical information and skills from SPC staff to staff of theFisheries Division, and other fishermen that want to participate.

Suggestion 102: That the Fisheries Division officially request technical assistance from SPC in theconducting of site surveys, and the construction and deployment of FADs if a 5-year FAD programmeis implemented under the National Tuna Development and Management Plan.

6.5.6 Promotion of small-scale tuna fishing methods

There are two main areas that can be considered for development of a small-scale tuna fishery. Theseare in the use of FADs, small day-boats and the use of mid-water fishing techniques in selected areas,and the development of a multi-purpose fishing vessel that can stay at sea for 3–5 days at a time andlongline for tuna when in season.

Fishing around FADs with small day-boats

The Fisheries Division implemented a small-scale ‘Skipjack Project’ in 1999, where selectedfishermen were subsidised by government into outboard-powered skiffs and fishing equipment, to fisharound FADs that were stationed off Suva. Around 36 skiffs and outboards were given out under theprogramme over a two-year period. At the end of this period, around 6–12 of these boats were stillinvolved in small-scale tuna fishing, although only 3 or 4 were consistently fishing and landingproduct. The concept can work in Suva, and possibly other centres like Lautoka, where there is aready market for the tuna, especially the larger yellowfin and bigeye tuna that can be exported. Forthis to work in other locations, there needs to be good, regular, reliable, and cheap transport to get theproduct from the site of capture to the export processing and packing establishments. This will limitthe locations that are suitable for this sort of operation to be established.

Suggestion 103: That the Fisheries Division carefully consider where future tuna-related developmentprojects are to be implemented, and ensure that the chosen locations have good, regular, reliable, andcheap transport to get the product from the site of capture to the export processing and packingestablishments for sale.

There is also the question of subsidising local fishermen into boats, and given the limited success ofthe Suva project, it would be best if the fishermen were made to pay the full amount for the boat andequipment, with government assisting with the arranging of loans, as most people would not have thedeposit to start a fishing operation on their own. This would also assist in the selection of peopleserious at getting into fishing, especially small-scale tuna fishing.

41

Suggestion 104: That the Fisheries Division look at having fishermen pay for the full value of boats,outboards and fishing equipment in future small-scale tuna development schemes, with thegovernment assisting with the arranging of loans.

The Fisheries Division has already announced that three new fishing centres will be established, inLau, Lomaiviti and Vanua Levu. These will be established under foreign aid, with the main focusbeing on developing tuna fisheries in these locations. However, no assessment has been made of themarketing of the product, or the transportation service to get fresh tuna to export facilities formarketing. This needs to be undertaken as a matter of urgency, as these location may not be the mostsuitable once transport and marketing is taken into consideration.

Suggestion 105: That the Fisheries Division re-assess the locations of the three new fishing centres,and decide if these are the best locations, based on an assessment of the transport and marketingmechanisms in place, and possibly choose more suitable locations or areas.

The other point that needs to be made is that skipjack and juvenile yellowfin tuna, which may makeup a large portion of the catch a lot of the time, has a set market value regardless of where it is caught.If the market value is FJD 2.00/kg in Suva, the cost of catching it around Suva is say FJD 1.00/kg, itcan be sold and a profit of FJD 1.00/kg made. However, if the fish is caught in the outer islands andthere are added fuel costs, added storage costs in ice or freezing, and added transportation costs(freight), then the fish may cost FJD 2.00/kg to catch, so there is no profit. In this context, fishermenmay be more inclined to fish for more valuable inshore species and actually increase the fishingpressure on stocks that are already over fished. The Fisheries Division will need to take care that thisdoes not happen.

Suggestion 106: That the Fisheries Division take care that any tuna-related development project in theouter islands does not lead to fishermen dropping out of tuna fishing, and converting to fishing morevaluable inshore species that may be already overfished.

If the outer island projects go ahead, the Fisheries Department should promote small-scale mid-waterfishing methods around FADs. Such fishing techniques would include vertical longlining (both withrope and monofilament gear), mid-water handlining (both drop-stone and palu-ahi methods) andsingle-hook driftlining (light and heavy gear). These methods could be introduced through a series ofworkshops at each location, to make up the gear, and then use the vessels of workshop participants todo practical fishing trials around the FADs. SPC could be approached to provide technical assistanceto run the first couple of workshops and to train up fisheries staff at the same time to run futureworkshops. The Fisheries Department would need to identify funds for purchasing materials to makeup the mid-water fishing gears needed at the workshops, and possibly fund the operation of thepractical fishing trials.

Suggestion 107: That the Fisheries Division look at introducing mid-water fishing techniques inassociation with FADs, through a series of workshops at the identified locations, using participantsvessels to conduct practical fishing trials using the new gear.

Suggestion 108: That the Fisheries Division identify funding to purchase materials for making upmid-water fishing gears and to cover operating costs of practical fishing trials.

Suggestion 109: That if the workshops on mid-water fishing techniques are to go ahead, the FisheriesDivision approach SPC for technical assistance in running the first couple of workshops to train upfisheries staff, with these staff conducting future workshops in other locations.

The mid-water fishing techniques proposed for fishing around FADs will require fishermen topurchase specific gear that may not be readily available in Fiji. It is hoped that a supplier of fishinggear in Fiji, will bring in the appropriate materials once these methods are introduced to localfishermen. The Fisheries Division could assist local suppliers of fishing gear by providing them withthe contact details of potential overseas suppliers and the specifics of the actual gear.

42

Suggestion 110: That the Fisheries Division provide a list of specific gear needed for mid-waterfishing techniques and possible overseas suppliers to local stores in Fiji who may want to sell thegear, so that this gear can be purchased and made available for sale to local fishermen after themethods are introduced.

The final component required for mid-water fishing is suitable bait, as multiple-hook rigs like avertical longline require 15–20 baits per line per set, depending on the number of hooks used. Localbait such as bigeye scad (Selar sp.) and small mackerels (Decapterus sp.) would be the best, althoughthey may be difficult to purchase on a year-round basis. To overcome this, imported frozen tunalongline bait may be the best alternative, as it can be purchased when needed.

Multi-purpose tuna longline vessel that can stay at sea for 3–5 days

The next level of tuna fishing development, which is higher than the small-scale fishing activitiessuggested above, is small-scale tuna longlining. It is a very expensive step up from a small-scalevessel conducting small-scale fishing methods to tuna longlining, even to a small vessel of 11–14 m inlength. The medium-scale tuna longline fishery is well past the development stage, so will not bediscussed here at all, as the private sector has developed and continues to expand.

There is one tuna longline fishery in the Pacific at present that uses small tuna longline vesselssuccessfully, that is Samoa. They have established a fishery using 9–11 m aluminium catamarans withoutboard power. The mainline reel used is hand-crank, and generally around 300 hooks are used perset. The catch rates have been high although the handling of the catch has been marginal in somecases. Albacore tuna is the target species, and it is generally landed fresh to the processors, frozen andthen shipped to the canneries in American Samoa. The whole situation in Samoa works and isprofitable using these small longline vessels. However, fish quality is low as many vessels can notcarry ice, there have been many sea safety problems with many fishermen lost at sea, and there is noreal consideration of the general comfort of those onboard the small vessels.

The Fisheries Division in Samoa has tried to rectify the current problems of the smaller aluminiumcatamaran vessels called alias. The Fisheries Division has had a new super alia built, which is 12.2 mlong, powered by twin inboard diesel engines and has two built-in insulated fish holds, one in eachhull. The vessel has a cabin with bunks, modern electronics for navigating and fishing, and ahydraulic system for the fishing operation. SPC supervised the sea and fishing trials on this new superalia, which has a Samoan skipper and crew. The results from the fishing trials indicate this vessel is alarge improvement on the smaller vessels, with increased fish quality, increased crew comfort, andincreased vessel stability. The projected fishing ability and catch for a 12 month period, based on thecatches and expenses recorded through the four month fishing trials, indicates a good profit after allcosts (fixed and variable) are subtracted.

This vessel, or an equivalent monohull vessel, may work in other countries in the region, such as Fiji,for small-scale tuna longline development. The concept of this type of vessel could be introduced tosmall-scale operators in Fiji, although the Fisheries Division may wish to purchase one of thesevessels, or something similar in a monohull design, to trial as a suitable multipurpose vessel for bothtuna longlining, deep-water snapper fishing, and mid-water fishing around FADs. This wouldintroduce a vessel to small-scale operators, and allow an assessment of the vessel as to its suitabilityto fishing in Fijian waters. The Fisheries Division could then look to leasing this vessel out to theprivate sector to operate.

Suggestion 111: That the Fisheries Division consider purchasing a super alia or an equivalentmonohull design, to use as a multipurpose tuna longliner, deep-water snapper, and mid-water FADfishing vessel, as a way to introduce this vessel to the small-scale private sector, with the vessel beingleased to the private sector once the vessel and method has been accepted by local operators.

43

If the Fisheries Division chooses to purchase a vessel, they will probably require some training in thetuna longlining technique for the skipper and crew. Once trained, a larger training programme couldbe established to introduce the fishing technique to other local small-scale fishermen who areinterested. SPC would be the organisation to request technical assistance from, should fisheries decideto purchase a multi-purpose vessel for tuna longlining. Training of interested fishermen could be inthe form of workshops, followed by a two or three day fishing trip to gain a practical understanding ofthe gear and how to use it.

Suggestion 112: That if the Fisheries Division purchases and fits out a small-scale tuna longlinevessel, they request technical assistance from SPC to get their skipper and crew trained in tunalonglining gear and techniques.

Suggestion 113: That the Fisheries Division, through their Extension Section, set up a trainingprogramme to familiarise small-scale fishermen with the new gears, possibly through workshopsincluding seatime to undertake trial sets.

The one problem that needs to be highlighted is that many Fijians have been exposed to medium-scaletuna longlining, and the money they can earn from such an operation. This may create a situationwhere experienced skippers may not want to ‘go backwards’ and get a small-scale tuna longliner, butrather purchase a medium-scale vessel that they are used to working on. This may work against theintroduction of small-scale longlining, although the Fisheries Division should still make an effort tointroduce this for the smaller-scale operators who have not been exposed to medium-scale longlining,or Fijian skippers who want to go down this path.

To assist in the introduction of small-scale longline vessels, they should not be considered as part ofthe medium-scale tuna longline fleet. A separate number of licences should be held for these vesselsfor 100 per cent Fijian owned companies. In doing this, the Fisheries Division will need to be carefulthat companies do not use this to get around any cap that is placed on the number of medium-scalelongline vessels. Therefore the length of vessel could be restricted to say less than 13 m, and possiblythe number of hooks per set capped at say 600.

Suggestion 114: That the Fisheries Division consider small-scale longline vessels as a separatecategory to medium-scale longliners, with its own number of licences set aside for 100% Fijianowned companies, with small-scale being defined as a vessel less that 13 m in length, setting less than600 hooks per set.

Another point is that small-scale longlining will not be a year-round fishing operation, as the distancesthat the current fleet travel would be too far for such a vessel at certain times of the year. An exclusionzone around reefs has been suggested under Section 6.4, and this will assist small-scale operationsduring the tuna fishing season. However, when the tuna are seasonally out of fishing range for asmall-scale longliner, say more than 18 hours steaming, then the vessel will need to undertake otherfishing operations to keep it operational and viable as a commercial fishing vessel. Therefore, theFisheries Division should introduce the small-scale longline vessel as a multi-purpose vessel, andconduct training in the other fishing techniques as well as tuna longlining.

Suggestion 115: That the Fisheries Division introduce any small-scale longline vessel as a multi-purpose vessel, which can tuna longline seasonally when the fish are within 18 hours steaming ofport, but undertake other fishing methods out of the main tuna longline season.

If Fijians do take up small-scale tuna longline fishing with a multi-purpose vessel, they can seekshort-term technical assistance from SPC in preparing their boat for fishing, and actually fishing. Thisrequest will need to go through the Fisheries Division and Department of Foreign Affairs. Suchtraining would include the correct on board handling, processing and chilling of the catch.

44

Suggestion 116: That the Fisheries Division request technical assistance from SPC to work with anynew entrants in the private sector who undertake small-scale tuna longlining activities using a multi-purpose vessel, including the rigging of the vessel and gear, and on board handling, processing andchilling of tunas to export standards.

6.5.7 Sea safety issues, especially for small-scale fishing operations

The development of small-scale offshore fishing operations is not without safety problems. TheSamoa fishery during its early years of development lost 25 fishermen and many boats over an 18month period in the late 1990s. More recently, two small Samoan longliners have showed up monthsafter they have gone missing, in each case, several people have died. Fiji wants to ensure that they donot go down the same path, but rather learn from the Samoan experience and implement a sound seasafety policy and provide training in this area.

The ‘Skipjack Project’ implemented by fisheries off Suva provided 36 skiffs and outboards to localfishermen, with the fishermen encouraged to fish offshore around the FADs. No safety equipment orsea safety training was provided to any of the fishermen as part of this project. This should bechanged for any future project, with the boat and outboard not only provided with fishing equipment,but also sea safety equipment, including life jackets, flares, an EPIRB, hand-held VHF radio etc. Thecost of the sea safety equipment would be added to the overall cost, and each fisherman would paythis off as part of his loan. The same should apply to any small-scale tuna longline or multi-purposevessel that is introduced to Fiji.

Suggestion 117: That the Fisheries Department provide adequate sea safety equipment with anyfurther boats and outboards, small-scale tuna longline or multi-purpose vessels that they assist localfishermen into, with the cost of the equipment covered in their loan that they will pay off.

Having sea safety equipment on board a small-scale fishing vessel is no good if no one knows how touse it. Therefore the Fisheries Division, through their Extension Section, should run a sea safetyawareness campaign including the use of the equipment, for all small-scale fishermen, not just thosein the future that they will be assisting into new boats. SPC has materials that could be used as part ofthe awareness campaign. Coupled with this should be regulations, under either the Fisheries or MarineLegislation, that require that the sea safety equipment be carried on board the boat at all time, as younever know when you will need it.

Suggestion 118: That the Fisheries Division develop or request materials from SPC, and run anawareness campaign on sea safety and the use of safety equipment, for all small-scale fishermen.

Suggestion 119: That the Fisheries Division work with the Marine Department, to ensure appropriateregulations are developed and implemented for sea safety requirements on small-scale fishing vessels.

6.5.8 Collection vessel operation

One approach to collecting fish from outer island locations in some countries in the region that hasworked, or is working, is the private sector use of a collection vessel. There have been manyvariations of the collection vessel system or theme, and the Fisheries Division in Fiji tried one of thesevariations in the 1960/70s, with shore facilities around the country and several collection vessels. Thisapproach did not work.

The approach that is working is for the collection vessel to be a self-contained unit that operatesindependently doing a range of tasks. That is, it is not tied to shore base facilities in the outer islands.The vessel has to be of a sufficient size though to be able to be used safely. The key element is that itis a private sector operation that has to operate at a profit.

The vessel can either have an ice maker on board, or just carry ice in sufficient quantities for thelength of the trip. Before the vessel heads to sea, a location is identified and the villagers in that area

45

notified of the vessel coming. If the villagers want any supplies, they can be arranged and transported,as well as passengers if there are any, all at a set fee. The vessel then heads to the location and ice isprovided to the local fishermen, with the catch purchased by the vessel. The vessel may or may notfish itself for the time it is at the location. Local fishermen can be encouraged to fish for particularspecies, like tuna or deep-water snappers, however, the boat should be prepared to purchase any fishbrought in that is of a reasonable quality. At the end of the stay, cargo and passengers can betransported back to Suva, or where the vessel is heading to unload, at a set fee. The next trip wouldnormally be to a different location, to spread fishing effort, and the money paid for the fish, aroundthe outer islands.

Suggestion 120: That the Fisheries Division support private sector operators who want to set up anindependent vessel collection system that would mainly work in the outer islands

Having this sort of an operation focused on tuna would be very difficult, as most all of the fishing issmall-scale. If FADs were located close by, then local fishermen could use mid-water fishingtechniques to try to catch the larger, more valuable tuna species. Purchasing skipjack tuna would bedifficult, as the purchase price would be very low, as the value of the fish itself at market is also low.Even if the current world price for skipjack is used, this species is only worth from FJD 1.50–2.00/kgin the market place, retail. All of the costs for storage and transportation and a profit margin wouldneed to be taken off this price to come up with a purchase price, which would be less that FJD1.00/kg. Therefore, no operation of this sort could be based on purchasing tunas alone, and in fact,tuna would probably be a small component of the total catch purchased.

6.5.9 Catching bait

Suitable bait is a major component of any tuna longlining operation. It is also required for small-scalemid-water fishing activities. Suitable bait species include pilchards, herring, mackerels, scads, andsquid, with an average bait weighing from 60–120 grams. Large volumes of bait are currentlyimported to Fiji to meet the needs of the existing tuna longline fishery. Unfortunately this practice willneed to continue, as surveys have been conducted in the past in Fijian waters to assess the baitresources, including squid, that would be suitable for tuna longlining, and the results were negative.

6.6 Value-adding processes as development options

Several of the processing facilities are looking at value-added products. This includes the loining ofalbacore (individually vacuum packed and either fresh or frozen) for the EU market, filleting orcutting stakes and packing them, and some smoking. This is an area that will expand in the future, asmore processors look at marketing bycatch species, or trying to increase the current value of the lowervalue fish species. This will generate employment in the country, and cut down on freight costs onproduct being exported. With the current trend towards reduced air freight space and higher charges,this is a logical solution. The Fiji Government should be encouraging value-adding in Fiji, andensuring that they play their part in ensuring the legislation side is in order, such as the need for aCompetent Authority to be established as outlined in Section 6.2.3. The processing side seems to bewell under control with the private sector, and this should only be encouraged to expand bygovernment.

Suggestion 121: That the Fisheries Division and the Government of Fiji encourage the expansion ofvalue-adding of fish from the tuna longline fishery, and ensure that all legislation is in place to allowthis to happen freely.

There is also the possibility of small-scale value adding to products in the outer island fishing depots.This however will need to be carefully developed, as the facilities will need to meet all healthrequirements and any requirements of the importing nation, such as HACCP for the US market.Marketing will be the key to any value-adding in the outer islands, as there is no point developing aproduct that is not marketable or is too expensive. Therefore, markets should be looked at and testedbefore products are developed on a commercial scale.

46

Suggestion 122: That the Fisheries Division look at possible areas for value-adding with the fishingdepots they are planning for the outer islands, with marketing the main factor after the facilities meetall local and international requirements for operation.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The medium-scale tuna longline fishery has passed the development stage, with around 90 vessels inthe fishery at present. This has been developed by the private sector, and the Fisheries Division islooking at managing this sector under the National Tuna Development and Management Plan for thecountry. There is scope for the development of small-scale tuna operations, although marketing thecatch, especially in outer island locations, will be a major constraint.

In support of the current and future tuna fishery, the government needs to look closely at theinfrastructure needed. This includes a new wharf complex in the Lami area, with land reclamation forthe construction of a slipping facility, plus land being made available for the private sector to buildprocessing facilities or support services. The same is true for Lautoka, especially if the governmentwants to decentralise the current tuna fishery, as Lautoka has a lot of positive aspects once the basicinfrastructure is in place.

Training is a main area where Fijians can benefit. At present, around two-thirds of the crew on boatsare Fijian, however, only one-third of the skippers and engineers are Fijian. There is a need for Fijiansto be trained as skippers and engineers, as they accrue the appropriate seatime, to replace the foreignskippers and engineers that are currently in the fishery. There is also the need for basic training forFijians as crew, and this could be addressed through the establishment of a Fisheries Training Schoolas part of the Maritime Training School. Specific courses could then be developed including sometime at sea, and the sitting for a basic sea safety certificate.

There are some immediate problem areas that need to be addressed. These include the need for allpeople working on fishing vessels to hold a current STCW-recognised sea safety certificate, and theneed for the appropriate training to be provided for this to happen as soon as possible. The MarineRegulations also need to be amended so that a minimum size applied to fishing vessels. Thegovernment as a matter of urgency needs to get legislation in place to allow the establishment of aCompetent Authority to meet EU requirements, and inspectors need to be trained. Data collection alsoneeds to be improved, with some observer coverage and a representative port sampling programmefurther developed, to assist, with all data being provided to SPC for inclusion in the regional database.

The Fisheries Division now needs to re-assess it role and responsibility in fisheries, and come up witha new workable structure. There is no need for the current three vessels they own, with one beingadequate for FAD work and for sharing with the Maritime Training School for basic training ofFijians as crew for tuna longline vessels, both local and high seas. Fisheries staff will also needtraining in various areas, including surveillance and compliance and the effective implementation onthe National Tuna Development and Management Plan.

47

Appendix A

People consulted during the study

• Vue Buatoke, Permanent Secretary for Fisheries and Forests, Government of Fiji;

• Maciu Lagibalavu, Director of Fisheries; Government of Fiji;

• Malakai Tuiloa, Principal Fisheries Officer and Manager, Capture Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheriesand Forests, Government of Fiji;

• Suresh Chand, Senior Fisheries Officer Western (Lautoka Office), Fisheries Division,Government of Fiji;

• Inoke Naceba, Project Officer (deep-water snappers), Fisheries Division, Government of Fiji;

• Anare Raiwalui, Licensing Officer, Fisheries Division, Government of Fiji;

• Apolosi Turaganivalu, Acting Principal Fisheries Officer, Management and Technical Services,Fisheries Division, Government of Fiji;

• Don Aldous, Canadian consultant and coordinator of the project;

• Esaroma Ledua, Consultant looking at the structure of Fiji Fisheries;

• Douglas McMillan, Private Sector Adviser, Forum Secretariat;

• Tony Lewis, Oceanic Fisheries Programme Coordinator, SPC Noumea;

• Ms Lyn Lambeth, Community Fisheries Officer, SPC Noumea;

• Ms Margaret Leniston, Gender Issues Adviser, Forum Secretariat;

• John Hogan, Maritime Training Adviser, SPC Suva;

• Ian Chute, Managing Director, Celtrock Holdings Limited;

• Adrian Chute, Operations Manager, Celtrock Holdings Limited;

• Gabriel Titili, Food Systems Specialist, Celtrock Holdings Limited;

• Captain David Lucas, Director, Solander (Pacific) Ltd;

• Tom Hyland, General Manager, Great Pacific Seafood Limited;

• Albert Peterson, Operations Manager, Great Pacific Seafood Limited;

• Mr X.J. Du, Managing Director, Win Full Fishing;

• Abdul Khalid, Company Secretary/Manager, Tosa Bussan (Fiji) Limited;

• Faiyaz Saheb, Managing Director, Saheb Holdings Limited;

• Allan Watters, Managing Director, Trans Pacific Seafoods (Fiji) Pty Ltd;

• George Stock, Katini Seafood Exports (Fiji) Ltd;

• Robert and Lisa Stone, Owners and Managers, Ocean Trader;

• Mr M. S. Park, Director, Jiko Fisheries Co. Ltd;

• Mr Se Jung-Kim, Managing Director, Jiko Fisheries Co. Ltd;

• Robert Gillett, Consultant, Gillett, Preston and Associates;

• Ms Betty Wang, Managing Director, Agape Fishing;

• Peter Chute, Skipper, Agape Fishing;

• Riyaz Ali, Financial Manager, Tuna Pacific Company Ltd;

48

• Anil Raj, Accountant, Tuna Pacific Company Ltd;

• Peter Shi, Managing Director, Zhong I Fiji Limited;

• Sang Nam Han, Managing Director, Hans Marine Company Limited;

• Kim Sung Soo, Managing Director, CKP Fishing Company Limited;

• Duck Hwan Lee, Director, Sung Jin Co (Fiji) Ltd;

• Charles Hahn, President, PEICO Incorporated;

• Mitieli Baleivanualala, Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Fishing Company Limited (PAFCO);

• Thomas Teke, Operations Clerk, Rabi Fishing Company;

• Ross Brodie, Manager, Seamech Limited, the hydraulics shop;

• Shayne Brodie, Hydraulics Technician, Seamech Limited, the hydraulics shop;

• Paul Khan, Acting Examiner for Masters and Mates, Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration(FIMSA);

• Hazrat Ali, Seafarer Registrations, Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration (FIMSA);

• Jitendra Mohan, Manager, Hangton Pacific Co. Ltd;

• Aziz Zullah, Operations Manager, TriPacific Marine Limited;

• Johnny Shi, Managing Director, Seafresh Fiji Limited;

• Grahame Southwick, Managing Director, The Fiji Fish Marketing Group Ltd;

• Russell Dunham, Group Business Director, The Fiji Fish Marketing Group Ltd;

• Gene Lin, General Manager, Yuh Yow Fisheries (Fiji) Ltd;

• Leong Chan, Operations Manager, Yuh Yow Fisheries (Fiji) Ltd;

• Winston Sun, General Manager and Owner’s Representative, TaiFi Fisheries Limited;

• Colin Dunlop, Managing Director, Alloy Fabrications and Chairman of the Marine Board;

• Kevueli Tavainavesi, Head of School, School of Maritime Studies, Fiji Institute of Technology;

• Capt. Yukio Matsuda, JICA Volunteer, School of Maritime Studies, Fiji Institute of Technology;

• Josese Rakuita, Fisheries Counterpart, School of Maritime Studies, Fiji Institute of Technology;

• Sivoki Mateinaniu, President, Forum Fish Traders Association;

• Eroni Bilolavu, Treasurer, Forum Fish Traders Association;

• Peter Crawford, Managing Director, Cakaudrove Fish;

• Wan Mook Jun, Managing Director, Voko Industries Limited; and

• Kay T. Jun, Managing Director, Shine Marketing Limited.

49

Appendix B

Bibliography

Anderson, J. 1994. The assessment of the interaction between fish aggregating devices and artisanalfisheries. Document 3: Fiji Country Report, MRAG, London. 55 p.

Anon. 1979. Fisheries Division annual report 1979. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,Government of the Republic of Fiji. 116 p.

Anon. 1980. Fisheries Division annual report 1980. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,Government of the Republic of Fiji. 99 p.

Anon. 1981. Fisheries Division annual report 1981. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,Government of the Republic of Fiji. 95 p.

Anon. 1982. Fisheries Division annual report 1982. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,Government of the Republic of Fiji. 91 p.

Anon. 1984. Fisheries Division annual report 1984. Ministry of Primary Industries, Government ofthe Republic of Fiji. 30 p.

Anon. 1985. Fisheries Division annual report 1985. Ministry of Primary Industries, Government ofthe Republic of Fiji. 38 p.

Anon. 1985. Feasibility study: marine base for Ika and Fisheries Division. Report prepared for theAustralian Development Assistance Bureau (Report No MW 128). 32 p.

Anon. 1986. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1986. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 49 p.

Anon. 1987. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1987. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 33 p.

Anon. 1988. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1988. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 38 p.

Anon. 1988. Republic of Fiji. Levuka fishing base improvement project. 6 p plus appendices.

Anon. 1989. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1989. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 18 p plus appendices.

Anon. 1990. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1990. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 18 p plus appendices.

Anon. 1991. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1991. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 52 p.

Anon. 1992. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1992. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 48 p.

Anon. 1993. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1993. Ministry of Primary Industries, Governmentof the Republic of Fiji. 51 p.

Anon. 1993. Third quarter review of 1993 capital projects. Economic Planning and Statistics Division,Ministry of agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Suva, Fiji.

50

Anon. 1995. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1995. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andForests, Government of the Republic of Fiji. 42 p.

Anon. 1996. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1996. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andForests, Government of the Republic of Fiji. 43 p.

Anon. 1997. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1997. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andForests, Government of the Republic of Fiji. 18 p.

Anon. 1997. The development of ‘Suva Port’, base for foreign fishing vessels – preliminary researchinto the viability of establishing a fully integrated fishing port facility in Suva for the foreignflagged distant water fishing fleet.

Anon. 1998. Fiji Fisheries Division annual report 1998. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andForests, Government of the Republic of Fiji. 47 p.

Anon. 1998. The third meeting to review the progress of the various capture progress under theCommodity Development Framework Programme (Lami, 30—31 July 1998). Record ofproceedings, Capture programme, Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andForests. 69 p plus appendices.

Anon. 1998. Fiji sashimi longline fishery. Draft report (May 1998). 21 p.

Anon. 1999. The project for construction of Labasa Fisheries Port. Application for Japan’s grant aid,Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Government of Fiji. 13 p plus appendices.

Anon. 1999. The project for development of fisheries community in Northern Division. Applicationfor Japan’s grant aid, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Government of Fiji. 15 pplus appendices.

Anon. 2000. Capture Fisheries, work programme for year 2000. Fisheries Division.

Anon. 2001. Republic of Fiji. Marine (STCW Convention) Regulations 2001. Government of Fiji.112 p.

Anon. 2001. The project for central fishing port. Government of the Republic of Fiji. 17 p plusappendices.

Anon. 2001. Manifesto 2001, good leadership for a secure and stable Fiji. The SDL’s plan for aprosperous Fiji. 16 p.

Anon. 2001. Capture Fisheries, work programme, implementation schedule and cashflow for the year2001. Fisheries Division.

Anon. Undated. Marine resource sector development plan (2000—2004). 14 p.

Anon. Undated. Pacific Fishing Company Limited, Fiji. 14 p.

Anon. Undated. Small scale skip-fishing development project. Report compiled by the CaptureFisheries Section of the Fisheries Division. 28 p.

Bartram, P. 1998. US fresh tuna market study. FFA Report 98/12, Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara,Solomon Islands. 85 p.

51

Beverly, S. and L. Chapman. 1998. Report on fish aggregating device (FAD) technical assistance toFiji (12–23 October 1992). Unpublished report No. 23. South Pacific Commission, Noumea,New Caledonia. 12 p.

Breimer, M. 1977. Fiji fishing ports development. Report prepared with funding from the Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 38 p plus appendices.

Chapman, L., P. Taumaia, and G. Preston. 1984. Deep Sea Fisheries Development Project report ofparticipation in FAO/Fiji Government fisheries rehabilitation programme. South PacificCommission, Noumea, New Caledonia. 15 p.

Emberson-Bain, A. Undated. Fishy business. Four pages downloaded from website:http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue291/fishy.htm

Evening, C. 1993. Fisheries Division development of FADs, 1985—1993. Government of theRepublic of Fiji.

Farman, R. 1984. Report of observer activities on board a New Zealand 471-GT purse seiner in thewaters of Fiji (12 October—10 November 1984). South Pacific Commission, Noumea, NewCaledonia. 10 p plus appendices.

FFA. 1998. Development opportunities in selected tuna fisheries for Pacific Island countries. ForumFisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands. 177 p.

Gillett, R. 1995. A review of licensing practices in Fiji for offshore vessels and for the export of fishproducts. FAO Technical Report No. 2 (FI:TCP/FIJ/2353), technical cooperation programme,Rome. 47 p.

Gillett, R. 1995. The Fijian domestic longline experience. Papua New Guinea Industry Seminar onTuna Longlining, Islander Travelodge Waigani (2—6 December 1995), edited by PeterPhilipson, South Pacific Project Facility, Sydney Australia. p 29—31.

Gillett, R. and M. McCoy. 1997. Employment of Pacific Islanders aboard foreign fishing vessels. FFAReport 97/11, Gillett, Preston and Associates Inc., Suva, Fiji. 92 p.

Gonzales, R. 1982. Report on technical assistance for skipjack and tuna seining with the use ofanchored bamboo rafts in the Fiji Islands. FAO consultancy. 6 p.

Hornell, J. 1940. Report on the fisheries of Fiji. 87 p.

IKA. 1998. Annual Report of the Ika Corporation for the financial year ending 30/6/88. IkaCorporation. 12 p.

JICA. 1985. The fisheries resources survey programme in Fiji and Tuvalu. Progress report by theJapan International Corporation Agency. 24 p plus appendices.

JICA 1986. Basic design study on Lautoka fishing port improvement project in Fiji. JapanInternational Cooperation Agency. 43 p plus appendices.

JICA 1987. The fisheries resources survey in Fiji and Tuvalu. Japan International CorporationAgency. 110 p.

Mead, P. 1980. Report of the visit of the South Pacific Commission Deep Sea Fisheries DevelopmentProject to Fiji (8 November to 13 December 1979 and 13 March to 1 September 1980). SouthPacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia. 21 p.

52

Mead, P. In press. Deep Sea Fisheries Development Project report on the third visit to Fiji (18 January1984 to 24 April 1985). South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.

OFP. 2001. Fiji national tuna fisheries management plan, scientific information on tuna stocks.Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, NewCaledonia. 22 p.

Preston, G. 1982. The Fijian experience in the utilisation of fish aggregation devices. Informationpaper prepared for the 15th South Pacific Commission Regional Technical Meeting onFisheries (August 1982), Noumea, New Caledonia. 61 p.

Preston, G. Undated. UNDP/Fisheries Division small-scale tuna fishing project. Fisheries DivisionTechnical Bulletin No. 2. 21 p.

Richards, A., M. Lagibalavu, S. Sharma, and K. Swamy. 1998. Fiji fisheries resources profiles —partially updated by the Information Section, Fisheries Division, Fiji in 1998. FFA Report No.94/4. 231 p.

Smith, D. and J. Tamate. 1999. Fiji Islands skipjack pole-and-line fishery. Report prepared for the FijiFisheries Division, funded by the Forum Secretariat. 25 p.

Southwick, G. 1995. Perspectives from Fiji Fish: the tuna industry from the inside. Achieving goalsfor sustainable living in the aquatic continent – towards a Pacific Island-based tuna industry,Maui Pacific Centre (19—23 September 1995). p 97—98.

SPC. 1994. South Pacific Commission Fiji, 1994 National Fisheries Assessment. Oceanic FisheriesProgramme Country Report No. 7, South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Stone, R. 1984. Analysis of costs, income and profitability for pole-and-line vessels, and tuna purseseiners operating in Fiji. Stonefish Co. Ltd, Pacific Harbour, Fiji. 24 p.

Travis, W. 1977. The fishing, handling and marketing of sashimi tuna. Paper prepared for the NinthRegional Technical Meeting on Fisheries, Noumea, New Caledonia (24—28 January 1977).30 p plus appendices.

UNDP. Undated. UNDP/FAO assistance – local tuna fishery. 5 p plus appendices.

Whitelaw, W. 2001. Country guide to gamefishing in the Western and Central Pacific. OceanicFisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. 112 p.

53

Appendix C

Approximate composition of the crew in the Fiji tuna longline fishery and on foreign high seas vessels (15 November 2001)

Company / owner / manager / Boats Crew make-up at 15/11/01 Additional crewcontact At New by Skippers Engineers Crew Sub-total (15/11/01) anticipated at 1/6/02 TOTAL

01/11/01 01/06/02 Fijian Non-Fijian Fijian Non-Fijian Fijian Non-Fijian Fijian Non-Fijian Fijian Non-Fijian Fijian Non-Fijian

Agape Fishing 4 4 4 40 48 48Agape charter boats 2 2 4 8 6 8 12 8 12Celtrock Holdings Limited 0C & J Enterprises 3 ? ?CKP Fishing Co Ltd 2 2 2 12 12 12 16 12 16CKP Korean high seas vessels 100 100 100Fiji Fish Marketing Group 10 6 6 10 104 120 6 120 6Gold Hold/Win Full 4 6 4 8 36 4 36 16 54 24 90 40Great Pacific Seafood Ltd 4 3 1 8 40 51 1 51 1Hangton Pacific Company Ltd 12 2 12 24 90 48 90 84 12 16 102 100Hans Marine Limited 1 1 1 7 8 1 8 1Jiko Fisheries Company Ltd 6 6 6 63 12 63 24 63 24Katini Seafoods (Export) Ltd 1 1 1 4 5 1 5 1Mai Fiji 2 2 2 8 14 8 18 8 18Ocean Trader Limited 2 1 2 12 12 14 12 12 26 12Orion Marine Company Ltd 1 1 1 10 11 1 11 1PAFCO 0Rabi Feeders Company Ltd 1 4 1 1 7 9 30 16 39 16Saheb Holdings 5 3 5 5 30 40 24 64Seafresh (Fiji) Limited 4 4 4 8 12 12 12 24 12 24 24 48Solander (Pacific) Ltd 8 2 15 1 12 70 97 1 20 117 1TaiFi Fisheries Limited 5 5 5 20 41 20 51 20 51Trans Pacific Seafood Fiji 3 13 13Tuna Pacific Company Ltd 3 3 3 24 24 6 24 6Yuh Yow Fisheries Company 10 10 10 50 71 50 91 50 91Zhong I (Fiji) Limited 3 3 3 19 21 19 27 19 27Sub-total 90 28 36 64 43 87 766 241 845 392 177 80 1022 472

Pole-and-line boatsTosa Bussan (Fiji) Limited 1 2 1 2 18 21 42 63TOTAL 91 30 37 64 45 87 784 241 866 392 219 80 1085 472

55

Appendix D

Approximate composition of staff in tuna processing/packing facilities, office and workshops (15 November 2001)

Company Process/packing facilities Office Workshops and other Total staff Additional process/packingas at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 from 15/11/01 to 1/6/02Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total

Agape Fishing 3 (1) 3 + (1) 3 3 6 (1) 6 + (1) 15 + (2) 8 23 + (2)CKP Fishing Co. Ltd 4 + (1) 2 6 + (1) 1 + (1) 1 + (1) 5 + (2) 2 7 + (2)Fiji Fish Marketing Group 26 + (1) 30 56 + (1) 4 + (2) 6 10 + (2) 103 22 125 133 + (3) 58 191 + (3)Gold Hold/Win Full 3 + (6) 1 4 + (6) 2 2 6 + (6) 1 7 + (6) 12 8 20Great Pacific Seafood Ltd 3 2 5 3 3 6 2 8Hangton Pacific Company Ltd 4 + (8) 2 6 + (8) 4 + (8) 2 6 + (8)Hans Marine Limited (1) 1 1+ (1) 1 1 1 + (1) 1 2 + (1)Jiko Fisheries Company Ltd 5 + (3) 3 8 + (3) 2 2 7 + (3) 3 10 + (3)Katini Seafoods (Export) Ltd 4 + (1) 4 + (1) 4 + (1) 4 + (1)Ocean Trader Limited 2 7 9 1 1 2 3 3 6 8 14 5 7 12Orion Marine Company Ltd 1 + (1) 1 2 + (1) 1 + (1) 1 2 + (1)Rabi Feeders Company Ltd 2 2 3 3 5 5Saheb Holdings 4 6 10 2 2 6 6 12 6 14 20Seafresh (Fiji) Limited 1 + (4) 1 2 + (4) 5 5 6 + (4) 1 7 + (4)Solander (Pacific) Ltd 3 + (1) 3 6 + (1) 34 + (1) 34 + (1) 37 + (2) 3 40 + (2)TaiFi Fisheries Limited 1 + (1) 1 + (1) 3 3 4 + (1) 4 + (1)Tuna Pacific Company Ltd 3 + (2) 3 + (2) 6 6 9 + (2) 9 + (2)Yuh Yow Fisheries Company 2 + (3) 1 3 + (3) 6 + (1) 6 + (1) 8 + (4) 1 9 + (4)Zhong I (Fiji) Limited 1 + (1) 1 + (1) 1 + (1) 1 + (1)

Sub-total for longline CompaniesFijians employed 32 37 69 45 30 75 177 22 199 254 89 343 38 37 75Non-Fijians employed (2) (2) (34) (1) (35) (3) (3) (39) (1) (40) (2) (2)

56

Company Process/packing facilities Office Workshops and other Total staff Additional process/packingas at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 as at 15/11/01 from 15/11/01 to 1/6/02Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total Men Women Sub-total

Processing only--no boats

Celtrock Holdings Limited 55 55 3 9 12 19 4 23 77 13 90Forum Fish Traders Assn 70 70 70 70PAFCO 150 600 750 15 25 40 19 + (5) 6 25 + (5) 184 + (5) 631 815 + (5)Trans Pacific Seafood Fiji 14 18 32 2 + (1) 3 5 + (1) 16 + (1) 21 37 + (1)Tri Pacific Marine Limited 19 1 20 6 6 25 1 26 4 2 6

Sub-total for tuna processing onlyFijians employed 238 619 857 26 37 63 108 10 118 372 666 1038 4 2 6Non-Fijians employed (1) (1) (5) (5) (6) (6)

Tataki processing of skipjack

Tosa Bussan (Fiji) Limited 20 30 50 4 + (3) 2 6 + (3) 24 + (3) 32 56 + (3)

Other processors to start on tuna

Voko Industries limited 15 + (1) 101 116 + (1) 2 + (1) 5 7 + (1) 11 + (1) 11 + (1) 28 + (3) 106 134 + (3) 8 50 58Cakaudrove Fish Limited 7 7 14 1 + (1) 1 + (1) 1 3 4 9 + (1) 10 19 + (1)

Sub-total start tuna processing 22 + (1) 108 130 + (1) 3 + (2) 5 8 + (2) 12 + (1) 3 15 + (1) 37 + (4) 116 153 + (4)

TOTAL--FIJIANS 312 794 1106 78 74 152 297 35 332 687 903 1590 50 89 139

TOTAL--non-FIJIANS (3) (3) (40) (1) (41) (9) (9) (52) (1) (53) (2) (2)