The Oxymorons of 'Sustainable Overfishing' GENERAL SANTOS, Philippines - Fishtocrats from three dozen nations just met in Manila to protect imperiled Pacific tuna, but they barely budged the status quo. So I flew down to Mindanao to hobnob with fishermen. It looks as if we had best develop a taste for tofu tartar and seaweed sushi. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission banned reporters, as usual, from its five-day annual session last week. I went as an observer researching a book. But Pew Charities Trust, WWF and Greenpeace summed it up neatly: "It is outrageous that once again the scientific recommendations have been completely ignored, and that members once again focused debate this week on how much overfishing to allow rather than how to effectively end it." The joint statement singled out bigeye tuna, as cherished as blue fin for top-grade sashimi, but yellowfin is also under heavy pressure. Even the ubiquitous skipjack that goes into cans is at the limit. In General Santos, all three are landed as if there were no tomorrow. Elaborate restrictions apply across the west and central Pacific. Yet here, as in many ports and on the high seas, they are too often ignored. The main catch is mostly yellowfin from the rich Coral Triangle, from the Philippines to Indonesia and up to Papua New Guinea. Each morning, boats bring in yellowfin too young to breed along with baby bigeye and skipjack the size of measly trout. "Too many people are trying to catch too many fish," John Heitz told me, shaking his head at a crate of yellowfin no longer than his arm. It should have been as long as his leg. An ex-Peace Corps volunteer, he settled in decades ago to export fresh high-quality tuna. "If everyone would stop hammering this kindergarten class and follow the guidelines, tuna would be sustainable," he said. Even more than rampant overfishing at the bottom, the problem is politics at the top. The WCPFC includes not only major players like the United States, the European Union, China, Japan and such, but also dozens of Pacific island and coastal states. Government officials, a few of whom seem unable to tell a tuna from a turtle, dominate the delegations; they defend national interests. Other delegates are industry executives who want to fish. Many from both sides are serious about a sustainable long term. But all decisions must be unanimous. The NGO statement noted the WCPFC pledged in 2008 to end bigeye overfishing by the end of 2011. Instead, it said, "overfishing has actually increased, and now this commission wants to delay another five years." At each meeting, it said, talks focus on details, not the core problems. Ironically, those 500-plus delegates debated the future of half the world's tuna behind closed doors. We credentialed researchers aren't supposed to report on their debates. So I'll leave the conclusion to the NGO statement: "The Commission seems to be constructing a Rube Goldberg machine that has a lot of levers, chutes, and lifts that produce a lot of noise and activity, but in the end achieves effectively nothing." "Nothing" may be pushing it. But over the past 18 months, I've seen plenty of evidence for that, not only within the WCPFC but also in other regional fisheries management organizations. To save fish, we need firm guidelines, clear limits and serious enforcement. The crisis is clear enough here in Tuna Town, where six canneries now depend largely on fish brought from beyond depleted surrounding waters. Boats change flags at their convenience. Some of their holds disgorge undersized tuna. In one working group in Manila, someone's slip of the tongue coined a new phrase: sustainable overfishing. When everyone laughed, he indicated that he'd meant that as a joke. I'm not so sure.