Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

NFI and Maine Lawmaker Ask Sweden for Restraint in Proposal to Ban Live Lobster Imports

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews] By Michael Ramsingh — March 21, 2016 — The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and a Maine lawmaker are asking for restraint on the part of Swedish officials who have proposed an outright import ban on live lobsters from North America.

Earlier this month Norway and Sweden proposed to ban live lobster imports from North America after several Homarus americanus species were found alive in Swedish waters. The basis for the import ban was environmental and considered the lobsters an invasive species.

However, the NFI’s President John Connelly issued a statement on behalf of its membership asking for Swedish and EU officials to carefully consider the potential of widespread fallout from such a trade restriction.

Following is Connelly’s statement:

It is important to note that there is no EU ban on imported live lobsters from North America. Sweden has raised the specter of such a prohibition but no embargo has been implemented.

We will work with our European colleagues to better appreciate their apprehensions. We need to understand how 32 lobsters found in EU waters over an 8-year period constitutes an “invasion.”

We will also work to identify credible, science-based solutions to reduce the chances of live North American lobsters entering EU waters.

The lobster trade has had a positive economic impact on both trading partners for many years. North American lobster exports to the EU generate about $139 million and are a favorite with consumers across Europe. North American lobsters mean jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

As the U.S. works on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Canadians implement their own groundbreaking agreement with the EU, we expect the European Commission to consider the least costly solution in addressing concerns.

Europeans releasing live lobsters into the sea, after arrival from North America, is a local law enforcement issue and perhaps not part of an international commerce dispute that could cripple mutually beneficial trade in lobsters. If locals break local laws, let’s not escalate this to a continent-wide ban on trade in lobsters.

Maine Congresswoman Chelli Pingree also took issue with the proposed ban.

“This is a complete overreaction on the part of Sweden.  We have safely exported live lobster to dozens of countries for decades, and even if it’s true that a few Maine lobsters have been found in foreign waters, regulators need to look at the problem more carefully and not just jump to conclusions,” said Pingree. “The idea that somehow lobsters are going to jump out of their tanks and crawl into the sea and survive just doesn’t make sense,” Pingree said. “Some reports have suggested that it’s actually consumers who have bought lobsters and thrown them in the ocean.  Whatever the cause, EU officials should figure out what’s really happening before jumping to any conclusions.”

The discussion on how best to address this problem has barely started, and it will likely be months before any further updates are forthcoming from the EU.  Although some Northern European countries are supporting the Swedish request, it is highly likely that it will be opposed by many southern European countries who have been importing large volumes of North American lobster for many years with no environmental issues whatsoever.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission. 

DAVID SCHALIT: Report from ICCAT

December 7, 2015 — The following is a commentary submitted to Saving Seafood by David Schalit, the Vice President of the American Bluefin Tuna Association:

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) used to be the regional fishery management organization everybody loved to hate.  Its dysfunctionality was legendary.  ICCAT became famous because it is the regional fishery management organization responsible for Atlantic bluefin tuna, the famously “iconic” and “charismatic” tuna stock that has been the subject of intense media interest for a very long time and the only tuna species to star in its own cable television series. 

ICCAT’s Problem

In the mid-late 1990’s, due to concerns expressed by ICCAT scientists about the status of Atlantic bluefin, ICCAT began adopting measures to limit harvest of both east and west stocks.  Only the west Atlantic harvesters heeded the advices of ICCAT scientists.  European Union fishing countries and other eastern harvesters who target east Atlantic bluefin weren’t listening.  During the next several years the east Atlantic stock was subject to consistent and increasing overfishing, illegal fishing and unreported fishing.  In 2007 – the worst year on record for east Atlantic bluefin – ICCAT scientists estimated that catch in the east Atlantic could be as high as 60,000 MT, almost twice the allowed quota.  

As a consequence, “the plight of the Atlantic bluefin” became the subject of ongoing public relations campaigns by numerous environmental organizations.  Annual meetings of ICCAT in the years leading up to 2008 developed a circus atmosphere, consisting of a full complement of delegates, a large number of industry representatives, media and environmental observers as well as environmental activists who regularly demonstrated outside of the meeting venue.  As a result, ICCAT meetings were regularly covered by media worldwide.  

ICCAT’s Redemption

ICCAT finally began to redeem itself during its 2008 meeting when it mustered the political will to cease overfishing and begin the process of rebuilding east Atlantic bluefin stock.  Today, both east and west Atlantic bluefin stocks have become a fishery management success story. 

The New Problem

However, ICCAT may be returning to its old ways.  This time, the problem is with Atlantic bigeye tuna.  ICCAT scientists turned in a stock assessment on Atlantic bigeye this October indicating that the stock is presently overfished and with overfishing presently taking place.  ICCAT scientists urged the adoption of conservation measures to immediately address this problem.  Last week, the 24th annual meeting of ICCAT was held in Malta.  Unfortunately, when the meeting came to a close on November 17, ICCAT had failed to achieve meaningful conservation measures for Atlantic bigeye tuna.  Sound familiar?

What Were the Objectives?

The scientists recommended steps that would lead to increasing “future chances that the stock will be at a level that is consistent with the convention objectives.” The primary means available to ICCAT for achieving this were a reduction in harvesting of mature bigeye in the central/south Atlantic and a reduction in bycatch of juvenile bigeye in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery.  Neither of these goals was met.

Major Harvesting Forces

The Atlantic bigeye tuna fishery consists of 8 major harvesters and 11 minor harvesters.  The eight major harvesters (China, EU, Ghana, Japan, Panama, Philippines, Korea and Chinese Taipei) are, in total, a fleet of 659 longline vessels plus assorted “support vessels”, mostly fishing in the equatorial Atlantic, in deep water, for mature bigeye.  The EU alone has 269 vessels in this fleet, and Japan has 245.  

In addition, there are 51 purse seine vessels permitted by ICCAT to operate in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery that are responsible for significant bycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin.  Of those 51 vessels, the EU (France and Spain) is the largest fleet, with 34 vessels.

To put this in perspective, in 2014, the 8 major harvesters were responsible for over 53,000 MT of bigeye catch, whereas the 11 minor harvesters, including the U.S. and Brazil, were responsible for just under 14,000 MT.  (The U.S. reported 800 MT of catch in 2014.)  And there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the level of mortality on juvenile bigeye in the purse seine fishery. 

The Negotiations

During the negotiations at last week’s meeting, the U.S., Brazil and a few other minor harvesters squared off against the very well prepared forces of the EU and Japan who had the backing of their formidable fishing industries.  It is said that those who have “the most skin in the game” tend to prevail and so, notwithstanding the efforts of the U.S., Brazil and others to reduce fishing effort by these major harvesters, the EU, Japan and the 6 other major harvesters were the winners and Atlantic bigeye tuna was the loser.

Curiously, the major harvesters can make the claim to have reduced the overall TAC.  Atlantic bigeye harvesting is presently governed by an Atlantic-wide TAC from which each of the 8 major harvesters are given a fixed, “not to exceed” individual TAC. Last week, the major harvesters agreed to reduce their combined allowed TAC from its present level of 79,000 MT to to 58,000 MT.  This gives the distinct impression that significant conservation measures were taken.  However, landings averaged over the last 5 years are below 58,000 MT.  In actual fact, this agreement allows these harvesters another 9,000 MT above their reported landings of 2014.  Consequently, no actual cuts in catch were made. 

The Fiasco in the Gulf of Guinea

The problem in the Gulf of Guinea is an issue that has plagued ICCAT since the 1990s. ICCAT has made various attempts, beginning in the late 90’s, to reduce bycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin typically weighing no more than 3-6 lbs, in the Gulf of Guinea purse seine skipjack fishery.  According to the scientists, none of these attempts yielded any reduction in bigeye bycatch.  Why?

At each ICCAT meeting in which this bycatch problem was addressed, the EU has tendered its own fully detailed proposal to address the problem.  In each instance, their proposal involved a variation on the concept of a time/area closure in the Gulf of Guinea for a fixed period during each fishing season.  Since the EU purse seine fleet is the dominant force in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery, it is difficult to imagine why ICCAT would have ever seriously considered an EU proposal.  Clearly, the EU’s interests are best served by thwarting any conservation action that would have a negative effect on its seining activities in the Gulf.  However, in each instance, ICCAT has adopted the EU’s proposal.  And in every instance, ICCAT scientists subsequently found that these closures did not result in the reduction of bycatch.  Today, these facts are well known to ICCAT member countries.  So, why did ICCAT, in last week’s meeting, adopt a new EU-authored solution to the problem of bigeye bycatch that is likely to achieve nothing?  This, too, is reminiscent of the “old” ICCAT.

Final Outcome

We can point to other successes that came out of the ICCAT meeting such as significant progress on Convention amendments, eBCD and the development of harvest control rules; all important issues.  But if ICCAT fails in its primary task – the “conservation of Atlantic tunas” – all other successful initiatives are diminished in importance because of that failure. 

Fortunately for ICCAT, it has a chance to partially redeem itself at next years’ meeting, when it will address Atlantic yellowfin tuna, a stock that has some of the same problems as Atlantic bigeye.  Unfortunately, ICCAT will have to wait until 2018 to have a chance to again address the issue of conservation of bigeye tuna.

Pangasius water content causes uproar

November 30, 2015 — It seems as though the Vietnamese government’s decision at the end of last year to delay implementation of the regulation to limit glazing and humidity (added water) levels on pangasius exports could hit sales to the EU hard.

In mid-November, a leading Dutch newspaper Telegraaf picked up on a television program shown in the Netherlands in which it was claimed that pangasius fillets imported from Vietnam on sale in Dutch supermarkets were found to contain up to 30 percent water.

Comments from 140 consumers who had purchased pangasius reacting to the article ranged from “nothing you would eat” to something that cannot be politely translated into English.

As reported in SeafoodSource on 6 January, pangasius exporters had objected to the regulation, Decree No. 36, which was due to come into force on 1 January, saying it would cost them business.

Decree 36 would have restricted glazing on frozen pangasius fillets, to no more than 10 percent and humidity to 83 percent of the product weight. As a result of their petition, the introduction of the regulation was postponed for a year.

While the exporters agreed that these restrictions would help to increase the quality and image of Vietnam’s pangasius abroad, they said they wanted more time to measure the impact on their customers. They were adding water to the fish in order to meet their customers’ requirements for prices below the then quoted USD 3.40 (EUR 3.18) per kilogram.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

EU fishing sector accuses Pew of knowingly publishing misinformation

November 19, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published on November 18 by Undercurrent News:

European fisheries industry body Europeche has issued an open letter to Pew Charitable Trusts, warning that statements which are “demonstrably untrue and contrary to scientific opinion” can cause damage.

Javier Garat, Europeche president, pointed to the Pew report ‘Turning the Tide: Ending

Overfishing in North Western Europe’ as containing such misleading inofrmation.

The report makes the assertion that:

  • Fishing in recent decades, in pursuit of food and profit, off North West Europe has dramatically expanded
  • Calls by scientists and environmentalists to reduce fishing pressure have been ignored
  • Many fish stocks collapsed throughout the region
  • The reformed CFP should prove a successful first step in restoring and maintaining the health of the fisheries and fish stocks

The unambiguous view of the scientific community has been clearly stated, most recently at the State of the Stocks Seminar in Brussels, said Garat, quoting Eskild Kirkegaard, chair of the ICES advisory committee:

“Over the last ten to fifteen years, we have seen a general decline in fishing mortality in the Northeast Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. The stocks have reacted positively to the reduced exploitation and we’re observing growing trends in stock sizes for most of the commercially important stocks.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News 

The European Commission sees the light

November 16, 2015 — On Tuesday November 10, the Director General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mr.  João Aguiar Machado announced that the European Commission had dropped its proposal to ban all kinds of drift nets throughout EU waters. Addressing the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament, DG Aguiar Machado stated that the regulation of drift nets would rather be addressed through regionalisation and the framework proposal on technical measures due to be published in early 2016.

Small scale fishers across Europe had been dismayed by the former Commissioner Damanaki’s announcement in May 2014 that she was determined to “eradicate once and for all” fishing with drift nets in European waters, with a ban to be implemented on January 1 2015.

Damanaki’s decision was backed by an impact assessment that had reached the conclusion, that due to signs that the number of vessels partaking in driftnet fishing had seen a decrease, ‘the overall socio-economic impact of the total ban is therefore considered irrelevant’. The impact assessment by its own admission, was inherently flawed, noting it had “not been possible to collect accurate landings data from driftnet fisheries apart from Italy and UK, which made it almost impossible to identify the economic importance of the gear at the European level.”

Read the full story at Low Impact Fishers of Europe

 

EU looks into reports of fake fish labeling in Brussels

November 3, 2015 — BRUSSELS (AP) – The European Union is looking into reports that cheap seafood is often mislabeled as choice fish in some of the Belgian capital’s fine restaurants and even in EU cafeterias.

The Oceana environmental group said Tuesday it found that 31.8 percent of seafood it tested in and around EU institutions in Brussels was a different fish than what was labeled on the menu. In the cafeterias of the EU, which sets fishery policies for the 28-nation bloc, the total amount of falsely labeled fish stood at 38 percent.

“We take this very seriously,” EU spokesman Alexander Winterstein said of the report.

Oceana said 95 percent of what was labeled Bluefin tuna – a fatty, sublime sushi favorite – was actually a less expensive species, served to make a hefty profit. In 13 percent of the cases, cod was also mislabeled and people sometimes were fed pangasius instead, a freshwater fish farmed in southeast Asia.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at New Jersey Herald

 

Bill targeting pirate fishing worldwide heads for presidential signature

October 22, 2015 — WASHINGTON — A bill aimed at taking down “pirate” fishing by keeping illegally caught fish out of U.S. ports is headed for President Barack Obama’s signature.

The Senate late Wednesday passed a bill aimed at giving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard greater enforcement capabilities to combat illegal and unregulated fishing, a multibillion-dollar problem for Alaska and the U.S. fishing industry.

The bill, which brings together such unlikely bedfellows as Republican lawmakers and Greenpeace, passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. The House passed the same legislation in July.

The bill has the backing of the White House, which determined in 2014 that new legislation was needed to implement a port agreement requiring member countries to reject ships that have illegal product onboard. The European Union, Australia, Chile and New Zealand have signed on, among other countries. Ten more are needed to reach the 25 required before the agreement takes effect, according to environmental group Oceana.

“This important legislation, which imposes added sanctions on countries whose vessels engage in IUU fishing, would provide our authorities the tools they need to fight back against these global criminals and ensure millions of pounds of illegally caught product never reach market,” said Alaska Rep. Don Young, a Republican who co-sponsored the House version of the bill.

Read the full story at Alaska Dispatch News

 

 

EU auditors’ report reveals lack of transparency of EU fishing in developing countries

October 21, 2015 — A report by the European Court of Auditors has revealed a lack of data that jeopardises the sustainability of EU fisheries agreements with third countries (Sustainable Fisheries Partnership agreements or SFPAs). According to the Common Fisheries Policy, EU fleets can only target the surplus of a stock, but the report questions the calculations of this surplus and if the actual catch data is reliable. Oceana is concerned about these findings, which adds to the long-existing absence of public information on vessels operating outside the EU.

View a PDF of the report

Read the full story at EU Reporter

 

EU probes illegal fishing, slave labor before Thai ruling

BRUSSELS (AP) — October 1, 2015 — The European Union is including Thailand’s actions to stamp out slave labor in the fishing industry during its investigation whether to impose sanctions on the major fish-exporting nation for failing to crack down on illegal and unregulated fishing.

The EU is expected to rule by the end of the year whether to impose an EU seafood import ban on Thailand and is in negotiations with Bangkok on amending a series of fishing practices which it considers as seriously contributing to the depletion of fish stocks.

The EU has successfully forced several nations to change its fisheries policies, but in the case of Thailand though, it is also looking into the social conditions of some fishermen that many have called slavery.

An AP investigation has shown that enslaved fishermen are routinely hauled from Thailand to work on smaller Thai trawlers in foreign waters where they are given little or no pay. Hundreds of former slaves told AP they were beaten or witnessed other crew members being attacked. They were routinely denied medicine, forced to work 22-hour shifts with no days off and given inadequate food and water.

“We are very concerned about the situation, both at the level of fishing and slavery. And we think we have to deal with both issues,” a senior EU fisheries official said on condition of anonymity because the talks with the Thai authorities were still ongoing.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

EU Extends Thailand’s “Yellow Card” Deadline Past October to Fix Trafficking Issues

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Bangkok Post] — September 18, 2015 — Thailand has been given more time by the European Union to stamp out illegal fishing practices beyond the initial deadline of October, government spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Thursday.

Maj Gen Sansern said the respite was confirmed by a Thai delegation that has gone to the EU Council headquarters in Brussels to report progress in Thailand’s efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

In April, the EU yellow-carded the country’s fishing industry giving it six months to fix its IUU situation or face an expensive ban on seafood imports into the EU.

Maj Gen Sansern said Thailand was being given more time to counter the IUU situation, but stressed that the country must make tangible achievements on three major issues, including the promulgation of the Fisheries Act, the implementation of Marine Fisheries Management Policy, and the implementation of a national action plan. These issues were expected to have been dealt with by the October deadline.

He did not say whether the EU had set a new deadline.

“The prime minister is glad that the EU understands the Thai government’s intentions and is allowing it to continue to solve the problem,” Maj Gen Sansern said. “Thailand has shown its sincerity in tackling the problem and there has been progress in several areas.”

Thailand’s overall annual exports to the EU are estimated to be worth between 23.2 billion baht and 30 billion baht. Its global fish exports were worth about 110 billion baht in 2014.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Recent Headlines

  • MAINE: Maine legislative panel votes down aquaculture regulation bill
  • MASSACHUSETTS: SouthCoast Wind Environmental Report Draws Divergent Views
  • Tuna longline fishing needs to do more to protect endangered species
  • Lobsters may weather warmer waters better than expected, study finds
  • Inside the making of the Global Seafood Alliance, Responsible Fisheries Management partnership
  • MAINE: Winds of Change, Pt. 2: Maine fishermen share concerns with proposed offshore wind farms
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Offshore wind in New Bedford: A guide to what you need to know
  • MAINE: Maine lawmakers consider bill to keep funding lobster legal defense

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon Scallops South Atlantic Tuna Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2023 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions