Saving Seafood

ABTA: ICCAT Meeting Ends After ‘Spectacular Failure’ to Protect Bigeye Tuna

November 27, 2018 — NORWELL, Mass. — The following was released by the American Bluefin Tuna Association:

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) concluded its annual plenary meeting on November 19 after a spectacular failure to arrive to a comprehensive agreement on badly needed management measures to address the present poor state of Atlantic bigeye tuna stock. Bigeye tuna is highly coveted by sashimi markets worldwide, similar to bluefin tuna.

ICCAT’s eight-day meeting, held this year in Dubrovnik, Croatia, was attended by over 700 people representing 52 countries.

In October, the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS), the scientific arm of ICCAT, issued a new stock assessment on Atlantic bigeye tuna which stated that the stock is significantly overfished, with overfishing taking place.   An approximate 40% cut in overall Atlantic-wide allowed catch would be required to end overfishing. Discussion and “heated” negotiations regarding new management measures aimed at addressing the dire status of this important fish stock dominated the 8-day meeting. However, when the meeting drew to a close, the Commission had failed to agree upon any measures to address the numerous problems in the Atlantic bigeye tuna fishery.

The U.S., Canada, South Africa and a handful of other nations strongly advocated for the adoption of measures that would end overfishing immediately and rebuild the stock within 10 years. However, a strategy aimed directly at achieving quantifiable reductions of catch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the West Africa purse seine skipjack fishery, although strongly urged by ICCAT scientists and considered key to the recovery of Atlantic bigeye stock, was notably absent from the various conservation measures proposed.

Thus, the failure by ICCAT to come to an agreement on a conservation and management plan for Atlantic bigeye will result in the further erosion of the stock’s status until ICCAT succeeds in taking decisive action on this critical issue. This will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the U.S. East Coast commercial handgear, pelagic longline and recreational fishermen that catch bigeye tuna. The next opportunity to achieve these goals will be at the annual ICCAT meeting in 2019.

Numerous issues unrelated to bigeye tuna were taken up during this meeting with mixed results. A 47-page recommendation drafted by the European Union establishing a multi-annual management plan for East Atlantic-Mediterranean bluefin tuna, first tendered at the plenary meeting in 2017, was finally concluded at the current meeting.

The U.S. succeeded in obtaining consensus on its proposal to address ICCAT’s Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) protocols that will result in a badly-needed increase in VMS polling time for purse seine from four to a one-hour intervals. Also, under the same proposal, longline vessels are now required to transmit VMS data at two-hour intervals.   The U.S., the EU, Norway and Senegal proposed new port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and this succeeded in obtaining support from the Commission.

The U.S. attempted to establish conservation measures for overfished blue and white marlin stocks but failed to obtain the needed support from ICCAT countries. Similarly, the U.S., Panama, Cape Verde, Nicaragua and Guatemala proposed measures to reduce bycatch of sea turtles in longline fisheries, but this too did not obtain a consensus.

MAFMC Overwhelmingly Rejects Hudson Canyon Sanctuary Proposal

Image courtesy of Hudson Canyon Cruise 2002

April 14, 2017 — On Wednesday, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted 15-4 in opposition to a proposal by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to name the offshore Hudson Canyon a National Marine Sanctuary. The proposal was widely opposed by both commercial and recreational fishermen.

“The proponents of the sanctuary nomination will eventually claim that commercial fishing in the sanctuary is a threat,” said Garden State Seafood Association executive director Greg DiDomenico, who testified in-person at the MAFMC meeting. “They will use the authority under the Sanctuaries Act to address those threats and restrict commercial fishing. In addition, they want to conduct science, and educate and organize a constituent base, all things that they can accomplish without making the Hudson Canyon a sanctuary. It’s that constituent base that they will use later to harm the commercial fishing industry.”

The American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) praised the MAFMC’s decision to oppose the sanctuary nomination. In a press release today, ABTA wrote, “Notwithstanding statements made by the WCS at the meeting that sanctuary status would not affect fishing in the area, great concern was expressed by the Council for the fact that the Marine Sanctuary Act provides for a sanctuary to have ultimate statutory authority over fishing […] The MAFMC should be applauded for a bold decision taken at the appropriate time.”

The following is excerpted from an article published yesterday by The Fisherman:

In their official nomination, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and their Coney Island Aquarium staff outlined their specific reasons for nominating the offshore Hudson Canyon as a National Marine Sanctuary.

“Many people, whether they are ocean enthusiasts or have never set foot in salt water, will never make it out to the Hudson Canyon itself because of its distance offshore and accessibility being restricted to a half-day boat trip,” the letter says, adding “WCS has the unique opportunity to bring the wonder of the deep sea directly to millions of visitors each year through interactive exhibits within our parks.”

For thousands of coastal fishermen who don’t mind the “half-day boat trip” to the Hudson to tangle with mahi, tuna and billfish, there was good news on April 12 when the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) voted 15-4 in opposition to the WCS pitch to designate the Hudson Canyon as a restricted area of the ocean.

While claiming to have “community-based support for the nomination expressed by a broad range of interests,” the WCS marine sanctuary plan had actual fishermen and fishing industry leaders incensed.

In a letter of opposition on behalf of coastal fishermen, Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) executive director Jim Donofrio noted that regardless of the WCS’s intention, recreational fishermen would not have any legal protection under the federal sanctuary law.

Read the full story at The Fisherman

Read a press release from ABTA here

Read a letter from ABTA to the MAFMC here

ABTA: Atlantic Marine Monument Says U.S. Doesn’t Support Its Own Sustainable Fisheries

September 15, 2016 — The following was released today by the American Bluefin Tuna Association, in response to President Obama’s decision to designate a new Marine National Monument off the coast of Cape Cod:

The American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) represents 27,000 commercial, charter/headboat and recreational fishermen who fish for Bigeye, Yellowfin, Bluefin and Albacore tuna. ABTA is deeply saddened to hear of President Obama’s decision today to designate a marine monument in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts. All of the aforementioned fish species are found and fished by our fishermen within the newly designated monument.

ABTA’s fishermen have the distinction of employing the most sustainable fishing methods of any oceanic fishery in the U.S.  ABTA’s commercial fishery is the U.S.’s only artisanal fishery, as defined by the United Nations Fish and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) and by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). ABTA fishermen catch one fish at a time, using handgear, with negligible bycatch and its commercial fishermen have the highest record of compliance with fishery regulations of any such fishery in the world.

ABTA’s takeaway from the Administration’s decision to designate an Atlantic marine monument:

  1. This decision sends a message to the world that the U.S. does not support its own sustainable fisheries; that the U.S. is more interested in promoting the concept of marine protected areas internationally than it is in protecting its own fishing economy and food supply. Implicit in this action is the message that the U.S. does not trust the body of law that we have created and the democratic institutions we have empowered to enact that law in the stewardship of our oceans.
  1. This decision will most definitely result in the U.S. having greater difficulty in utilizing its fishing quota, as set by ICCAT, for certain species fished in this region; in particular, swordfish. There is a very real threat that the U.S. will have to surrender some or all of its unutilized swordfish quota to another ICCAT-member country who may not maintain sustainable fishing practices. This decision will also result in an unnecessary increase in fish imports.
  1. The proposed prohibition on all forms of fishing in the monument is simply punitive and completely unnecessary. The Canyons and Seamounts region is in very deep water, from 1,500 to 15,000 ft in depth. Much of the fishing in this region uses surface and sub-surface fishing gear, sustainable fishing methods in which the fishing gear never comes into contact with deep sea coral found on the sea floor. Prohibiting these forms of fishing is tantamount to prohibiting commercial airline flights over Yellowstone National Park for fear that trees will be knocked down.
  1. The notion that creating a marine monument will contribute to the sustainability of the marine species found there is a myth. All of the marine species harvested in this region are from healthy fish stocks and are sustainably managed by NOAA. Most of the marine species that are harvested in this region are highly migratory, highly fecund pelagic species whose habitat is the entirety of the tropical, sub-tropical and temperate regions of the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas. These species do not preferentially inhabit this region for long periods of time. They swim in and out of the region constantly during certain months and migrate to the east Atlantic, West Africa or the east coast of South America regularly.

A negative message

Abandoning the open, democratic and thoroughly science-based process by which we undertake to establish protections for important marine attributes in favor of a monument established by executive fiat sends a negative message to those U.S. fishermen and shoreside industries who would needlessly pay for this monument by loss of income. It also sends a negative message to the majority of our fishermen who are committed to adhering to the processes and respect for regulation promulgated in accordance with the Magnuson Stevens Act. The decision is a clear denouncement of the democratic institutions that are charged with safeguarding the public interest as it pertains to oceanic marine matters. U.S. fisheries, in particular those fisheries that are found in the proposed area, are already the most highly regulated such fisheries in the world.

Absent strong, verifiable scientific support for such an action, creating a marine monument based upon vague and unsupported concerns “for the future”, can be likened to such expressions as “better safe than sorry” or “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. These are fairly vacuous guidelines for safeguarding the environment and for public policy in general.

David Schalit, Vice President

American Bluefin Tuna Association

ABTA questions efficacy of precautionary approach

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – July 11, 2016 – The American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) has released its position statement on the ‘precautionary approach’ to fisheries management, which the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is considering adding to its Convention text.

The precautionary approach, which fisheries expert Dr. Carl Walters criticized in a discussion with CFOOD last month, says that if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or environment, it is up to the people taking that action to prove it is not harmful.

In its statement, ABTA noted that the precautionary approach is “deeply incoherent” because, while ICCAT “should take precautions against certain speculative dangers,” precaution and inaction also create risk.

“There are conditions in which it can be dangerous to reduce, increase or maintain fishing quota for the following year particularly if [we] take into account another guiding principle: maximum sustainable catch,” ABTA wrote.

While maximum sustainable catch is an unambiguous concept, ABTA wrote, the precautionary approach does not specify the proper conditions for using the approach or the preventative actions to take. Without more specific guidelines, the precautionary approach can be easily abused, ABTA argued.

“Efforts to impose the precautionary approach through regulatory policy will inevitably intend to accommodate competing concerns or, more likely, become a Trojan Horse for ideological crusades,” the statement said.

ABTA concluded by saying that the precautionary approach could by sound policy in certain situations, but a broad framework must first be developed. ABTA suggested creating this framework using guidelines in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement or through ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics’ Working Group on the Precautionary Approach, which last met in 1999.

Read ABTA’s full statement

Statement of the American Bluefin Tuna Association on ASMFC Marine Monument Policy

June 2, 2016 — In a mid-May letter to President Obama, the American Bluefin Tuna Association joined seven other fishing organizations, as well as New Bedford’s fishing port – the most valuable in the country – to back an Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission resolution opposing existing proposals for a marine monument off the coast of New England. 

“The greatest difficulty ABTA has with the Atlantic monument proposal is the fact that it contains a prohibition on all forms of fishing including the types of fishing gear used by our fishermen. In this connection, we cannot state more emphatically: our fishing methods cannot possibly have a negative effect on deep sea coral or any other sea bottom attributes because we are using “surface” and “sub-surface” fishing gear, sustainable fishing methods that do not come into contact with the sea bottom. It is important to keep in mind that deep sea coral exists in this Region on sea bottom located at great depths. The fish stocks our fishermen are targeting, however, preferentially inhabit the top, not the bottom, of the water column.”

Read the full letter to the White House here