Last updated September 24, 2012

FIP Stage

Implementation 

Species

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

© Dwi Ariyoga Gautama

Fishery Background

  • Volume – approximately 695,000 mt (all gear types)
  • Gear – longline, purse seine, hand-line, pole & line, troll & line, drift gill net, and ring net
  • Location – territorial waters, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and areas beyond national jurisdiction of Indonesia (Western Central Pacific and Indian Oceans)

Project Background

A Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre-assessment was completed for seven Indonesian tuna fisheries in June 2010. In the pre-assessment, a number of MSC Performance Indicators (PIs) were scored such that either the fishery would fail under a full MSC assessment (score below 60) or require conditions (score between 60 and 80). A FIP scoping document was subsequently produced that outlines potential strategies for addressing deficiencies identified in the pre-assessment. In October 2010, WWF held a FIP stakeholder meeting in Bogor, Indonesia to discuss the pre-assessment and to develop a FIP Action Plan, which describes the necessary FIP activities, with associated responsible parties and timeframes, required to meet the MSC standard. Implementation of FIP activities began in 2011 when the Action Plan was finalized.

In addition to the FIP Action Plan, WWF worked with stakeholders to develop a blueprint for a Tuna Management Plan, which was shared with the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) in June 2011.

Deficiencies Raised in the Pre-Assessment

In the pre-assessment, a number of MSC performance indicators (PIs) were scored such that the fishery would likely either fail under an MSC full assessment (score less than 60) or pass with conditions (score between 60 and 80). This FIP includes a number of different types of gears and target species, each with their own range of identified challenges. The challenges that need to be addressed can be grouped into a number of broad categories including: a lack of governance and national fishery management objectives, weaknesses in the institutional framework; a lack of research on stock status, fleet composition, harvest strategies, and bycatch; a lack of compliance with regulations; and negative impacts of fuel subsidies. 

 Key Accomplishments

  • The work done by FIP stakeholders to date has resulted in many accomplishments, some of which include the following:
  • A Terms of Reference (TORs) document for specific FIP activities for fishery managers;
  •  A draft Tuna Management Plan to be used by fishery managers;
  •  An action and evaluation plan for the tuna fishery, which will also be used by companies joining the Seafood Savers program;
  •  A cost-benefit analysis of MSC certification for the fishery;
  •  A study on the identification of management body schemes for the tuna fishery; and
  •  Facilitation of a national consultation to develop a draft Ministry Decree on onboard observer coverage in Indonesia, which is planned to be issued by the end of 2012.

 Next Steps

A number of FIP activities outlined in the Action Plan still need to be implemented by FIP stakeholders in order for the fishery to meet the MSC standard. Some of these activities include:

  • MMAF adoption of the Tuna Management Plan;
  • Refining objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at the national and local levels;
  • Capacity building across the range of implementing bodies;
  • Improving the systematic collection of data and fill data gaps on stock abundance, fleet composition, stock productivity and stock structure;
  • Developing and adopting harvest control strategies; and
  • Strengthening the legislation on sanctions.