Saving Seafood

Season of uncertainty: Alaska braces for seafood tariffs

June 14, 2019 — Fisheries are always fraught with uncertainties, but there is an added element this year: trade tariffs on Alaska’s largest export: seafood. “The industry is accustomed to dealing with uncertainty about harvest levels, prices and currency rates. The trade disputes just add another layer to that,” said Garrett Evridge, an economist with the McDowell Group.

Tariffs of up to 25 percent on U.S. seafood products going to China went into effect last July and more are being threatened now by the Trump administration. China is Alaska’s biggest seafood buyer purchasing 54 percent of Alaska seafood exports in 2017 valued at $1.3 billion.

“It’s important to remember that a tariff is simply a tax and it increases the prices of our products,” Evridge explained. “As Alaskans we are sensitive to any increase in the price of our seafood because we are competing on a global stage. And right now we have tariffs imposed on seafood from the Chinese side and the U.S. side.”

In terms of Alaska salmon, the new taxes could hit buyers of pinks and chums especially hard. Managers expect huge runs of both this summer and much of the pack will be processed into various products in China and then returned to the United States.

“There is uncertainty as to whether or not those products will be tariffed and the Trump administration has indicated they want to tariff all products from China,” Evridge said.

For salmon, in a typical year Alaska contributes 30 to 50 percent of the world’s wild harvest. But when you include farmed salmon, Evridge said, Alaska’s contribution is closer to 15 percent of the global salmon supply.

The Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game is predicting a total catch of 213.2 million salmon this year, more than 80 percent higher than in 2018.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Lawsuit Challenges NMFS Exempted Fishing Permits for Two Pelagic Longline Vessels Off California

June 10, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network sued the Trump administration this week for permitting a new longline fishery — two vessels –in the Pacific Ocean.

The fishery, authorized in May by the National Marine Fisheries Service, would operate off California despite a federal ban on longline gear created in 2004 to protect sea turtles. This fishing will threaten endangered leatherback sea turtles, as well as olive ridley and loggerhead sea turtles and Guadalupe fur seals, the Center said in a press release.

“Leatherback sea turtles need to catch a break, not a longline hook,” Catherine Kilduff, a Center senior attorney, said in the release. “Californians demand more selective and sustainable fishing for swordfish. But the indiscriminate longlines authorized by the Trump administration will hook, injure and drown endangered species off our coast.”

“This is basically the same fishery the agency outlawed fifteen years ago, and the same agency is using a backdoor maneuver to get the fishery reopened,” Todd Steiner, executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network stated. “Sea turtles could go extinct if deadly longline fisheries are expanded. And it’s not just in California— the Hawaii longline fleet has been forced to close early two years in a row because they have exceeded their legal turtle take. It makes no sense to re-authorize this wasteful fishery off of California.”

The exempted fishing permit has been years in the making and was approved unanimously by the Pacific Fishery Management Council after being fully vetted by the Council, its advisory bodies and the public. NMFS then issued the permit that allows for only two fishermen on two vessels to target highly migratory tuna and swordfish.

The EFP requires 100% monitoring by observers and establishes hard caps on ESA-listed species. That is, fishing must stop if the number of incidental interactions with animals exceed certain parameters. It also excludes any fishing within 50 miles of the coast or offshore islands and requires a full suite of verified mitigation techniques be used during all test fishing. These techniques are known to reduce or eliminate interactions with sea birds, sea turtles and marine mammals.

In fact, NMFS issued terms and conditions for the EFP that are more restrictive than those listed in the original application.

“NOAA’s decision is a huge win for American fisheries, fishermen and ultimately, the environment,” Dave Rudie, owner of Catalina Offshore Products and President of the California Pelagic Fisheries Association, said in a statement. “It will greatly benefit San Diego and southern California and our consumers as well.”

The new permits could increase reliance on local seafood, particularly where swordfish and tuna are concerned. The North Pacific swordfish population is very healthy and would support a substantial additional harvest according to all international fisheries experts and published reports. Any increase in U.S. fisheries production improves America’s seafood security as well as provides for a sustainable ecosystem footprint often lacking in the weak environmental oversight of foreign fisheries, the association noted in a press release.

The Center said Pacific leatherback sea turtles are highly endangered, with scientists predicting their extinction in 20 years. Yet the exempted fishery will occur in an area that includes the Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area, which prohibits swordfish fishing using drift gillnets to protect leatherback sea turtles.

However, the increased mitigation requirements mandated by NMFS specify no-fishing areas such as the Southern California Bight and within leatherback critical habitat or 50 nautical miles from the coast, whichever is greater.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, states NMFS’ issuance of the permit violated several environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The suit seeks to invalidate the permit, protecting the turtles and seals from longlines.

NMFS issued the permit May 8.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

‘Why not lobsters?’: Mainers plead with Trump to help an industry suffering from his trade war

June 7, 2019 — The mild-mannered independent senator from Maine, Angus King, got angry as he watched President Trump announce a $16 billion bailout two Thursdays ago to help farmers who are losing money because of the U.S. trade war with China.

A guy from Idaho wearing a “Make Potatoes Great Again” hat stood appreciatively at the president’s side. So did producers of corn, soybeans, wheat and pork. They’re all getting another round of handouts from the Department of Agriculture.

But many of King’s constituents have also been suffering, and they’re getting the shaft from their government. Lobster exports to China, which had been booming for years, have plummeted 84 percent since Beijing imposed retaliatory tariffs last July, according to new data from the Maine International Trade Center. The growing Chinese middle class is eating more lobsters from Canada, which now cost them a quarter to a third less but taste no different.

“We’ve got an industry that’s suffering exactly the same kind of negative effects,” King said in an interview. “Why not lobsters? There’s no logical distinction that I can see. … I’m sure a lot of people in Maine had the same reaction I did watching that press conference: What are we, chopped lobster?”

To be sure, chopped lobster from Maine sounds delicious – especially if it’s thinly coated in mayonnaise and stuffed into a hot dog bun that’s been lightly toasted in butter. But, in all seriousness, King’s frustration underscores the degree to which Trump and his political appointees in Washington have been picking winners and losers. The lobster industry has been one of the losers.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

Environmental groups file federal suit to stop California longline fishery

June 6, 2019 — Two environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday, 6 June, claiming it used a “backdoor maneuver” to permit a new longline fishery off the California coast.

In a statement, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network said NOAA Fisheries did not comply with the Endangered Species Act when it approved the longline fishery last month. The fishery will consist of two fishing vessels utilizing lines with numerous hooks that stretch for miles to catch tuna and swordfish.

The groups fear endangered species such as Pacific leatherback turtles will end up caught in some of the hooks and potentially die from the interaction. Scientists believe those leatherbacks could become extinct within two decades.

“The failure of the Fisheries Service to comply with environmental laws in issuing the Permit diminishes leatherback sea turtles’ slim chance to defy predictions of extinction,” the complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, states.

Officials issued the permit even though NOAA Fisheries banned longlines 15 years ago.

“This is basically the same fishery the agency outlawed 15 years ago, and the same agency is using a backdoor maneuver to get the fishery reopened,” Turtle Island Restoration Network Executive Director Todd Steiner said in a statement.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

MASSACHUSETTS: Offshore drilling ban gets airing

June 4, 2019 — Trump administration plans to encourage offshore oil and gas drilling are motivating attempts to exempt Massachusetts, and maybe foil the entire scheme.

Lawmakers are weighing a ban on drilling for oil or gas in state waters, as well as a prohibition on the lease of state lands for oil or gas exploration, development or production.

While there are no immediate plans to drill off the New England coast, green groups say the proposal would fend off future efforts by denying access to the state’s land and waters, thus making exploration impractical.

The legislation, which goes before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture on Tuesday, is part of a multi-state effort to thwart President Donald Trump’s plan to open more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf to oil and gas exploration.

New Jersey, Delaware and California passed offshore drilling bans last year. Similar legislation has been filed in New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Environmentalists say drilling will harm ecosystems and endangered species, such as the North Atlantic right whale, while threatening commercial fishing and tourism businesses.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

How much U.S. Seafood is Imported?

June 4, 2019 — This week, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) is convening Capitol Hill Ocean Week in Washington, D.C. Additionally, President Trump has declared the month of June “National Ocean Month” in recognition of the importance of the ocean to the economy, national security, and environment of the United States.

For the duration of Ocean Week, Saving Seafood will share materials related to the sustainable and economically vital U.S. commercial fishing and seafood industries, including information tied directly to events being organized as part of the NMSF conference.

Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. EDT, as part of Capitol Hill Ocean Week, there was a panel “Addressing the US Seafood Deficit.” The following article looks at a new study that concluded more of the seafood eaten in the U.S. is produced domestically than previously thought. It was published last week by Sustainable Fisheries UW:

The commonly quoted statistic that “90% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported” is out of date and should stop being cited. In this post, I explain the origins of the 90% myth, the scientific paper that produced the updated numbers, and the implications for U.S. trade and seafood markets.

Where did the 90% statistic come from and why is the new estimate more accurate?

A lot of seafood farmed or caught in the United States is sent overseas for processing, then sent back. Due to varying trade codes that get lost in the shuffle of globalization, these processed seafood products are often mistakenly recorded as ‘imported,’ despite being of U.S. origin.

For example, pollock, the fish used in McDonald’s Filet-o-fish sandwich, is caught throughout U.S. waters near Alaska. Once onboard, a significant portion is sent to China (the U.S.’s largest seafood trade partner) to be cleaned, gutted, and processed into filets. After processing in China, the fish is sent back to the U.S. and sold in restaurants and grocery stores. Pollock is not a Chinese fish, but the trade codes used when sending them back from China signify them as Chinese-origin and they are recorded as imported or foreign seafood.

Recording fish caught in the U.S. but processed in China has led to a significant overestimation of Americans’ so-called ‘seafood deficit’, or the ratio of foreign to domestic seafood consumption in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the misleading 90% deficit statistic has become commonplace, mostly due to coverage of Oceana’s seafood fraud campaign that stoked consumer anxiety about imported seafood. Distorted import data had been taken at face value for several years because no one had pieced together the conversion factors that account for processing and return export/import—until three scientists, Jessica Gephart, Halley Froehlich, and Trevor Branch, published their work in PNAS in May 2019.

Knowing the conversion factor for seafood products caught or farmed in the U.S. is the key to accurately estimating the amount of domestic seafood processed abroad. Froehlich describes a conversion factor as a number that can be used to back-calculate a processed seafood item to its pre-processed weight. Basically, when pollock are sent back to the U.S. after being processed in China, a conversion factor can be applied to estimate how much fish was originally sent and domestic seafood statistics can be corrected. When U.S. seafood is processed abroad but consumed in the U.S., it should be counted as domestic seafood consumed domestically.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Alaska senator requests tariff exemption for state’s seafood

May 30, 2019 — An Alaska senator has written to the U.S. trade representative asking for Alaska fish species to be removed from a list of goods facing tariffs, a report said.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer last week, The Kodiak Daily Mirror reported Tuesday.

As part of an ongoing trade dispute with China, earlier this month the Trump Administration announced an increase in tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of products and tariffs on an additional $300 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Sullivan said he asked Lighthizer to consider removing tariffs from seafood fished in Alaska including salmon, some species of rockfish and flatfish, Pollock, and Pacific cod.

The increase in tariffs is “creating tremendous uncertainty” for the industry and “is deeply troubling, because they continue to potentially negatively impact the very Americans the administration is trying to help,” Sullivan’s letter said.

The letter was also signed by Sen Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Young, who are both Republicans.

Read the full story at the Associated Press

Interior boss: No monument changes planned, but up to Trump

May 23, 2019 — U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said Wednesday he has no plans for additional changes to national monuments that were recommended by his predecessor, but that it’s ultimately up to President Donald Trump.

The comments at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee meeting are the latest indication that recommendations to shrink two monuments in Oregon and Nevada and change rules at six others remain relegated to backburner status as the White House deals with other issues.

Trump acted in December 2017 to shrink two sprawling Utah monuments on the recommendations of then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who was tasked with reviewing 27 national monuments around the country. Since then, he has done nothing else with Zinke’s recommendations.

The monument review was based on arguments from Trump and others that a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt allowing presidents to declare monuments had been improperly used to protect wide expanses of lands instead of places with particular historical or archaeological value.

New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat, asked at Wednesday’s hearing if there were plans to move forward on the other eight monuments.

“I think the answer is no,” Bernhardt said.

He said he has not received any further instruction on Zinke’s report from Trump. “The president is ultimately the holder of the pen,” said Bernhardt, who was confirmed as Interior Secretary last month.

Bernhardt is a former lobbyist for the oil and gas industry and other corporate interests who became the acting secretary after Zinke resigned in December amid multiple ethics investigations.

Read the full story at Boston.com

Alaska seafood industry making plans for China tariff impact

May 13, 2019 — Alaska’s seafood industry is exploring strategies to reduce damage from the Trump administration’s trade dispute with China, officials said.

The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute plans to explore how Alaska can enter additional markets to expand the state’s seafood brand, The Kodiak Daily Mirror reported Thursday.

The U.S. plans to raise tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports from 10% to 25% Friday.

China is the largest export market and re-processor of Alaska seafood, with about $989 million worth of sales to China in 2017 alone. That is more than 50% of the state’s seafood products, the institute said.

The institute is looking at “both traditional and nontraditional markets” for seafood globally, Executive Director Jeremy Woodrow said.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at KTOO

China retaliates by upping tariffs, sending markets spiraling

May 13, 2019 — On Friday, 10 May, the United States formally implemented higher tariffs on USD 200 billion (EUR 178.6 billion) of Chinese goods – a move that had been announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday, 5 May.

On Monday, 13 May, China responded with its own announcement that it will raise tariffs on USD 60 billion (EUR 53.4 billion) of American goods from 10 percent to 20 or 25 percent.

The back-and-forth occurred after negotiations between the two countries appeared to have suffered a setback on 10 May after talks in Washington D.C. failed to produce an agreement on reducing the trade tensions.

Read the full story at Seafood Source