Climate Change Impact and Structural Reforms in Kiribati

KIRIBATI Figure 2. Kiribati: Sustainability of Tuna in WCP and Kiribati (Concluded) 4a. Gilbert Islands Region-based Marine Trophic Indices (RMTI) Fisheries in Balance (FIB) Index 4.0 2.0 0.0☑ 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021 4b. Line Islands Region-based Marine Trophic Indices (RMTI) 5 4 6.0 4.0 2.0 Fisheries in Balance (FIB) Index 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 202 4c. Phoenix Islands Region-based Marine Trophic Indices (RMTI) Fisheries in Balance (FIB) Index 101 5.0 wwwww. 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 202 Sources: PNA Office 2021 Yearbook; WCP Skipjack Tuna 2018 Stock Status Report; Sea Around U,; and NOAA Fisheries. Notes: In panel 1, plots show SB/SBF=0 ratios for 4 major species of tuna in the WCP area. Red horizontal line indicates the agreed limit reference point, the green horizontal line indicates the interim target reference point. Plots show the trajectories of spawning potential depletion for the model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid of WCPFC tuna assessments. Panel 2 shows estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact = 1-SBlatest/SBF=0) for WCP Region 8, which includes Kiribati. Panel 3 shows estimated stock abundance (B) and fishing mortality (F) against their levels at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) over different assessment years (2020, 2016, and 2014), except for yellowfin tuna (2014 only) in the WCP region. Red area shows biomass below target and fishing rate too high, green area denotes sustainable fishing rate and biomass above target. Upper right yellow quadrant shows high biomass but too high fishing rate, while lower left yellow quadrant shows sustainable fishing rate but biomass below target. Panel 4 shows Regional MTI and FIB indices, where the longest Regional MTI series assesses the fisheries in an initial (coastal) region, and the MTI of new regions (further away in the EEZ) are calculated in a sequential manner. FIB increases point to an increase in both trophic level and catches. C. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Fishery Management Rules 12. Across the world's major fishing areas, the MPA coverage is generally low. The MPAs can be used as a fisheries management tool to contribute to achieving conservation and sustainability objectives, while contributing to biodiversity and habitat conservation (FAO, 2011). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) put forward a target of placing 30 percent of all marine waters in no-take marine reserves by 2030. Only the Antarctic currently exceeds that target and the Pacific Northeast (near Alaska), at 24.7 percent, is close to that target (Figure 3). Apart from the MPAs in countries' EEZs, some are also established in the high seas, including in the Arctic, Atlantic, Figure 3. Kiribati: Current MPA Coverage in Major FAO Fishing Areas 81 Pacific, Southwest 88 Pacific, Antarctic- 39.5% 67 Pacific, Northeast 24,7% 71 Pacific, Western Central 12.8% 77 Pacific, Eastern Central 11.6% 21 Atlantic, Northwest 10.1% 7.2% 37 Mediterranean and Black Sea - 5.9% 48 Atlantic, Antarctic 5.1% 27 Atlantic, Northeast- 4.7% 31 Atlantic, Western Central - 4.6% 61 Pacific, Northwest- 4.5% 57 - Indian Ocean, Eastern - 3.5% 51 Indian Ocean, Western - 2.5% 87 Pacific, Southeast- 2.1% 34 Atlantic, Eastern Central - 2.1% 58 Indian Ocean, Antarctic- 1.1% 41 Atlantic, Southwest 0.8% 47 Atlantic, Southeast- 0.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 48 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

View entire presentation