Saving Seafood

NGO Coalition Identifies Measures to Protect Fisheries Observers

June 13, 2018 — The following was released by FishWise: 

A group of influential NGOs working in sustainable seafood released recommendations for measures to support the safety of observers working aboard tuna fishing vessels, “Policies and Recommendations to Improve the Safety of Fisheries Observers Deployed inTuna Fisheries.” First introduced in March 2018, ten organizations, including the largest association for professional observers, have joined forces to coauthor the document: FishWise, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Justice Foundation, Greenpeace, International Pole and Line Foundation, International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, and the Association for Professional Observers.

Published amid reports of human rights abuses in some seafood supply chains, this new set of recommendations signals a groundswell of support calling for protective measures for observers and other seafood workers. The NGO community plays a vital role in identifying best practices and requesting reforms, and many of the groups supporting these observer safety measures have strong connections to the seafood industry and those working at the Regional Fishery Management Organization level.

Observers play a vital role in the effective management and long-term viability of fisheries by collecting data at-sea. Isolated far from shore, tuna observers have dangerous jobs where vessel and personal safety are not always guaranteed. Observers are in a particularly vulnerable position when they witness activities the vessel operator doesn’t want reported, sometimes triggering the use of threats, bribes, or intimidation. Tragically, as Hakai Magazine and CNN reported recently, threats by fishing vessel operators to observers are sometimes carried out and some have even been murdered or declared missing under mysterious circumstances.

Many of the measures being suggested in this document were drafted by observers themselves in an Observer Bill of Rights, a document aimed at outlining safety measures all observers should be provided. Unfortunately, few tuna regulatory bodies have implemented those measures. By supporting existing policies that could improve observer safety and security in tuna fisheries, it is hoped that this document will spur action by companies and regulators to prevent human rights and safety violations in the future.

The document is being launched ahead of this year’s SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Barcelona, where many of the world’s seafood experts from across sectors will convene to discuss sustainability and social responsibility in seafood. The document was funded in part by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Humanity United, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Several organizations lending their support have provided quotes on the importance of this issue as well as the need for continued reforms from tuna companies and regional fisheries management organizations:

“With the backing of ten organizations, including the Association for Professional Observers, this report represents a powerful call to action. Observers have asked for these reforms since 2000, and FishWise believes it is time for the global fishing community to stand up for the safety of the men and women that work tirelessly to support healthy and resilient oceans.”

-Tobias Aguirre, Chief Executive Officer, FishWise

“Fisheries observers collect the scientific information that forms the foundation of our understanding of our fisheries. Without this independent and objective source of information we simply cannot expect to effectively conserve and manage our collective ocean heritage. Given the tragic loss of 10 observers in the past 8 years, we owe it to observers to ensure these measures are implemented across all fisheries on a global scale.”

-Bubba Cook, Western and Central Pacific Tuna Program Manager, WWF

“Observers play an important role in helping us better understand the small-scale one-by-one tuna fisheries that we work with and having suitable, safe working conditions on board fishing vessels should be a priority for the small-scale sector as well as the large. We have therefore gladly supported the development of these guidelines and encourage all stakeholders to adopt best practice in the fisheries they work with, based on these recommendations.”

– Martin Purves, Managing Director, IPNLF

“Worker safety in any occupation is a fundamental human right,” says Monterey Bay Aquarium Director of Global Fisheries and Aquaculture Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly. “the Monterey Bay Aquarium is pleased to join our colleagues in supporting the awareness and implementation of Observer Safety Best Practices.“

“Since 1995, the APO has strongly supported robust, transparent, scientifically-based programs that provide sound science to support sustainable fisheries management and reduced bycatch in fisheries. Because observers are on the front-lines of this data collection, it is critical that all stakeholders support their professionalism and safety so that they may work free from harassment and interference.”

-Liz Mitchell, Association for Professional Observers

“Observers working aboard tuna fishing vessels do a crucial job in securing sustainable fisheries, and it is vital that we guarantee their safety. Companies and regulators must implement key safety measures to prevent human rights and safety violations.”

-Steve Trent, Environmental Justice Foundation

“Amid rampant illegal fishing, overcapacity of fleets, and labor and human rights abuses, tuna fisheries need strong checks and balances. Observers play a critical role in sustainable fisheries, and, like crew, deserve safe working conditions. Seafood businesses have a responsibility to ensure that the workers in their supply chains are not abused or murdered while doing their jobs.”

– David Pinsky, Senior Oceans Campaigner, Greenpeace USA

“Data collection is a vital component to ongoing sustainability work throughout the industry. SFP proudly supports any efforts to protect those entrusted with gathering data at sea, and we encourage our partners and other key influential industry stakeholders to do the same.”

-Tom Pickerell, Global Tuna Director, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

Sixth Pacific Islands Fisheries Observer Missing At Sea

July 3, 2017 — Another Papua New Guinea fisheries observer has gone missing at sea.

He has been named as James Junior Numbaru, a certified Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer in his 20’s with six years of observer experience. This brings to six the number of Pacific observers missing at sea while four in Papua New Guinea alone.

A statement issued yesterday by the PNG Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) states Mr Numbaru was reported missing by the Chinese flagged, PNG-chartered purse seiner FENG XIANG 818 on Monday 26 June.

Attempts to get comments from the National Fisheries Authority (NFA) and the Minister for Fisheries Mao Zeming were unsuccessful.

Read the full story at Pacific Islands Report

As Onerous Fees go into Effect that Threaten New Hampshire’s Fishing Industry, Sen. Shaheen Provides an Opportunity for Industry Leaders to Send a Message to Washington

March 3, 2016 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen:

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the lead Democrat on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, invited two prominent industry leaders in the New England fishing industry to testify at a committee hearing today. Through her leadership on the committee, Senator Shaheen was able to make New Hampshire’s struggling fishing industry a major focus of Thursday’s hearing. James Hayward and Dr. Joshua Wiersma both spoke to the enormous threat that new federal at-sea monitoring fees and existing catch limits pose to New Hampshire’s fishermen. As of the first of this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is forcing New Hampshire fishermen to pay for an at-sea observer program, which monitors catch sizes for conservation purposes. The program, which was previously paid for by NOAA, will cost fishermen an estimated $700 per day on fishing trips.

“Fishing is an integral part of New Hampshire’s economy and heritage,” said Shaheen after the hearing. “Our struggling small-boat fleet needs relief from onerous federal regulations so New Hampshire’s fishermen can continue to make a living. Catch limits and at-sea monitoring fees threaten the very existence of our fishing industry. I’m very pleased that Mr. Hayward and Dr. Wiersma took the time to inform the Senate of their first-hand experience in our region’s fishing industry.”

During the hearing Mr. Hayward and Dr. Wiersma delivered a dire warning to the Senate.

Mr. Hayward: “Time is crucial and the road we’re headed down right now is not a good one. It’s pretty much the end is near and if things aren’t changed soon, at least to some extent, the fleets going to look a lot different in thirty six month. I can assure you of that.”

Shaheen: “Will we still have any fishing in New Hampshire if we don’t see some changes from NOAA?”

Mr. Hayward: “What will happen is the infrastructure will be gone and when that’s gone, the boats will leave. The ones that want to remain will be forced out because they will have no place to offload, market or sell.”

That interaction can be watched here.

At a separate hearing today on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Shaheen confronted the Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker with the testimony she had just heard from Mr. Hayward and Dr. Wiersma. NOAA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Their interaction can be watched here.

Background information on Senator Shaheen’s invited witnesses:

James Hayward, President of XI Northeast Fisheries Sector, Inc.

James Hayward is a second generation commercial fisherman. He is primarily a day boat gillnet fisherman operating in the Gulf of Maine ranging from 20 to 120 miles from port. He currently owns two fishing boats located in Portsmouth Harbor, New Hampshire. He owns and manages Heidi Seafood Services, the only federally licensed groundfish dealership at the State facility in Portsmouth Harbor.  He is president of the community’s groundfish sector, XI Northeast Fisheries Sector, Inc., as well as treasurer of New Hampshire community supported fisheries, New Hampshire Community Seafood.  He is also a board member of the Northeast Seafood Coalition and the Northeast Sector Services Network, and a member of the Seafood Harvesters of America.

Dr. Joshua Wiersma, Manager, Northeast Fisheries, Environmental Defense Fund

Dr. Wiersma has over 15 years of experience working with commercial fishermen in New England to improve their business conditions. His doctoral research, which examined the value of collaborative research to New England fishermen, led him to work directly for the ground fishing industry after graduation. Initially hired by the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership as a Fisheries Economist, he then worked for the Northeast Seafood Coalition as their Sector Policy Analyst where he helped to create the twelve Northeast Fisheries Sectors. He went on to manage New Hampshire’s two ground fishing sectors for the next five years.  Over this time, he also co-founded and was the Executive Director of New Hampshire Community Seafood Association, a successful community supported fishery cooperative that offers fresh, local, underutilized fish to the New Hampshire public through a type of fish share model. He is now the Manager of Northeast Fisheries at Environmental Defense Fund, where he continues to work with fishermen to shape effective fisheries management, to improve fisheries science and data collection, and to develop better seafood markets and other business opportunities.

Cause of Action’s Stephen Schwartz Discusses At-Sea Monitoring Lawsuit on WBSM

December 16, 2015 — WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — Last Saturday, December 12, on the Ken Pittman Show on WBSM in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Cause of Action Counselor Stephen Schwartz, discussed a lawsuit that the organization filed against NOAA for their at-sea monitoring program. During the interview, Mr. Schwartz explained that the federal requirement that fishermen fund at-sea-monitors is overly intrusive and too burdensome for the fishing industry.

“The federal government is making a huge imposition even when top agencies and regional administrators agree that fishermen can’t afford to fund the observers, and more than half of them would go out of business,” he said.

Mr. Schwartz said that most federal observers do not have the same expertise that fishermen do – fishermen who have made their living on New England waters often in inclement conditions – and present a danger to the fishermen by taking up space on the boats, and preventing them from efficiently collecting data on fish stocks.

“If fishermen were left to their own devices, they would actually protect fish stocks and be more productive,” he said.

Mr. Schwartz and Cause of Action are arguing that NOAA does not have the power to require that the industry fund the observer program, and that the principles of constitutional law involved have the potential to restructure fishing industry regulations in order to not place the burden solely on fishermen.

Listen to the interview here

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD: Electronic catch monitors would improve fishery

November 27, 2015 — Managing the decline in New England’s commercial fishery has long been a delicate dance among fishermen, regulators and scientists.

The scientists estimate how many fish are available for harvest, and regulators use those estimates to allot catch shares among various groups of fishermen, called “sectors.”

It doesn’t always work smoothly.

Fishermen question the validity of the science, saying that they see more fish than the estimates would indicate. Regulators are influenced by members of Congress, who represent fishing communities, not fish, and are concerned with the communities’ economic survival.

Scientists say that they are doing the best they can with the data available, but what they can see paints a much darker picture than what the fishermen report.

Fortunately, there may be a way to produce data that everyone can be confident in: electronic monitoring.

Currently, professional monitors go out on fishing boats about 20 percent of the time, cataloging what the boats pull up in their nets and what they throw overboard.

The information they bring back is valuable, but there are problems with the system. The fishermen have to pay for the live monitors, and they are expensive. That’s especially true for boats leaving from rural areas, where the captain has to pay the travel expenses and accommodations for a monitor who is not locally based.

Read the full opinion piece at the Portland Press Herald

 

A message From Eileen Sobeck On At-Sea Monitors

October 14, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

I frequently share my admiration for the many talented and passionate people who make up the NOAA Fisheries workforce. I want to take this opportunity to recognize a cadre of highly trained, dedicated individuals who are part of the NOAA team and play a critical role in supporting our fisheries science and management.

At-sea fisheries monitors and observers are our eyes and ears on the water. They may spend days or weeks aboard commercial fishing vessels gathering first-hand information on what’s caught and thrown back.

The work is intense. Observers undergo a rigorous training program to be able to identify and take samples of the myriad ocean life that might come aboard. Getting it right is important because the stakes are high. The high-quality data they collect are used to monitor fisheries, assess fish populations, and inform management.

The working conditions are tough. Observers work alongside fishermen in stressful, strenuous and at times hazardous conditions. Fishing is one of the most dangerous professions in the world. NOAA’s observers and monitors are right there with those doing the dangerous work. This was tragically underscored recently when a member of our observer community, Keith Davis, went missing while at sea on a foreign vessel. There is an ongoing investigation into his disappearance led by the Government of Panama that is supported by the U.S. Embassy in Panama, the US Coast Guard investigative unit and the FBI.

Cooperation is critical. Deploying observers safely and collecting data at sea requires an active partnership between NOAA Fisheries, observers, observer providers, and the fishing industry.

We understand that at times, there can be tension among these parties. Observer safety is of utmost importance for me and NOAA as a whole. I understand tensions have been on the rise recently, but we must maintain respectful relationships. I have asked our law enforcement officers to remain vigilant and ensure the safety of our at-sea monitors and observers. Threats to these individuals will not be tolerated.

At-sea observers and monitors are dedicated professional scientists. They make a valuable contribution to our knowledge of fisheries and deserve our respect.

 

Weekly Update: 9/21/15 North Carolina Fisheries Association

September 21, 2015 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

INTERESTED CANDIDATES FOR SAFMC SEAT EXPIRING IN 2016
Members interested in serving in the obligatory seat for the South Atlantic Marine Fishery Commission, please let Lauren know. You can email or give her a call at 252-725-2468.

NEW ANALYSIS COMPARES COSTS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING AND AT–SEA OBSERVERS
Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries issued regional electronic technology implementation plans that lay out our vision for the implementation of this technology in U.S. fisheries. One key element missing from those plans and ongoing Council discussions regarding the use of electronic monitoring was cost information. To better inform the Council decision-making process with regard to fishery-dependent data collection, NMFS is issuing two reports comparing the projected costs of two different operational electronic monitoring programs with the costs of more traditional observer/at-sea monitoring programs, as well as an independent review of the groundfish electronic monitoring report. The costs in both reports are estimated for hypothetical programs and costs are based on agency spending and cost estimates provided by three electronic monitoring service
providers in the fall of 2014. Access the reports below:

Cost Comparison for Hypothetical Groundfish Sector
Independent Review of the Groundfish Cost Comparison
Cost Comparison for Hypothetical Herring/Mackerel Fishery

Read the full update from the North Carolina Fisheries Association

New Analysis Compares Costs of Electronic Monitoring and At-Sea Observers

September 9, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries issued regional electronic technology implementation plans that lay out our vision for the implementation of electronic technology in U.S. fisheries. One key element missing from those plans and ongoing Fishery Management Council discussions was cost information. 

Today, NOAA Fisheries is releasing two reports comparing costs of actual at-sea monitors and observers against a proposed electronic monitoring system in hypothetical Northeast groundfish and Atlantic herring/mackerel fisheries.

We found that electronic technologies can be a cost-efficient monitoring option in some cases, but not always. Our findings suggest technology, such as on-board camera systems, may be most cost-effective for monitoring compliance, such as in the midwater trawl herring and mackerel fisheries. Our reports also show that human observers proved more cost-efficient than electronic technologies at catch accounting, such as required for groundfish sectors.

Any monitoring program must weigh many factors including data quality, feasibility, and cost. This analysis of relative costs fills an important information gap, and is a first step that will help inform the broader discussion taking place at the Fishery Management Councils about the most effective way to monitor fisheries.  

You can find the full reports, including details about factors driving program costs and our assumptions, as well as an independent peer review pf the report, online.