Saving Seafood

EU opens consultation on 2018 CFP, overfishing

July 7, 2017 — The EU has announced a consultation period on the way in which levels of fishing effort and quotas are set according to the new common fisheries policy (CFP), and on the basis of scientific advice.

The contributions received, as well as the outcome of the seminar on the state of the stocks and the economics of fishing fleets that will take place in September, will feed into the European Commission’s proposals on fishing opportunities for 2018.

The consultation will run July 6 to Sept 15, 2017.

The EU claimed in its consultation documents that “significant progress in implementing the 2013 CFP reform” has been made:

  • Meeting the maximum sustainable yield objective. According to the latest assessment from the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries, based on 2015 data, 39 of 66 stocks assessed in the North-East Atlantic were exploited within FMSY (equating to 59%, up from 52 % in the previous year).
  • Rebuilding stocks. Average stock biomass in the North-East Atlantic increased by 35% between 2003 and 2015.
  • Improving overall economic performance. The EU fleet registered record net profits of €770 million in 2014, a 50% increase over the 2013 figure of €500m.
  • Better balancing fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. In recent years, the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities across the entire EU fleet has improved.

“Despite this progress, further efforts are needed in particular to bring down the high levels of overfishing in the Mediterranean, to reduce the number of individual stocks exploited above FMSY in the North-East Atlantic and to implement the landing obligation.”

NGO ClientEarth took issue with what it said was an overly optimistic viewpoint.

“A report released today by the European Commission paints a misleadingly positive impression of progress towards sustainable fishing, by glossing over the fact that progress has slowed or reversed in recent years,” it said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

UK to withdraw from 50-year international fisheries arrangement

July 5, 2017 — A convention that allows foreign countries access to fish waters surrounding the United Kingdom will be terminated within two years, the U.K. government has declared.

As part of the process to prepare the country for leaving the EU, the government will officially begin withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention this week, confirmed Environment Secretary Michael Gove.

The convention, signed in 1964 before the United Kingdom joined the EU, allows vessels from five European countries – France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands – to fish within six and 12 nautical miles of the U.K. coastline. It sits alongside the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which allows all European vessels access between 12 and 200 nautical miles of the country and sets quotas for how much fish each nation can catch.

Those members signed up to the convention will be notified this week, triggering a two-year withdrawal period.

“Leaving the London Fisheries Convention is an important moment as we take back control of our fishing policy. It means for the first time in more than 50 years we will be able to decide who can access our waters,” said Gove.

“This is an historic first step towards building a new domestic fishing policy as we leave the European Union – one which leads to a more competitive, profitable and sustainable industry for the whole of the U.K.”

As announced in the recent Queen’s Speech, the government will introduce a new Fisheries Bill to control access to U.K. waters and set fishing quotas. Starting this summer, there will be a period of engagement on the bill with the devolved administrations, fishermen, trade organizations, fish processors and the public to deliver a deal that works for country.

Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organizations (NFFO), welcomed the announcement that the London Fisheries Convention would be brought to a close, saying it was “an important part of establishing the U.K. as an independent coastal state with sovereignty over its own exclusive economic zone.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Seafood can’t be sacrificial lamb in Brexit negotiations

July 5, 2017 — Confirmation that creating a new fisheries bill will be one of the U.K. government’s immediate priorites as it looks to make a success of its departure from the E.U. has eased one of the seafood sector’s biggest fears regarding the Brexit negotiations that are now underway: that fisheries could be packaged into a broader multi-industry deal in pursuit of other, more lucrative agendas that might not serve its best interests.

On the eve of the fisheries bill announcement, which came in the recent Queen’s Speech – the event that traditionally opens parliament, with the monarchy listing the laws that the government hopes to get approved during the year ahead – delegates at the London seminar, “Priorities for U.K. fisheries policy – sustainability, trade, access and funding,” heard industry leaders and other key stakeholders warn about the dangerous ramifications of overlooking fisheries and the needs of the broader seafood supply chain while Brexit talks progressed.

Lord Robin Teversen, chair of the House of Lords’ E.U. select sub-committee on environment and energy, which also covers fisheries and farming, said a major concern is the sheer scale of policymaking now required from the government’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which is responsible for getting good post-Brexit policies in place for agriculture and the environment, as well as for fisheries. He also warned the rule-makers to expect an a ferocious fishing industry should they fail to deliver a satisfactory package.

“Although fisheries is seen as a marginal sector to macro-economists, with something like 0.7 percent of the GDP – my goodness, the industry can make itself felt. Politically, it’s a very sensitive area and one that I am sure will dominate more of the Brexit negotiations than perhaps the GDP [share] would suggest. Whichever government it is that’s in power when we come to Brexit, if a wrong decision is taken on fisheries, they will get to know about it; that’s how important and politically charged this area is,” Teversen said.

“The other thing about fisheries that makes a [deal] even more important is that it’s the one area of Brexit on day one – 29 March, 2019 – that could see actual physical conflict if it goes wrong. We shouldn’t underestimate that importance when it comes to making sure that an agreement is reached,” he said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

A spat about seafood shows the compromises that Brexit will force

July 5, 2017 — Britain’s fishing industry is a tiddler, contributing less than 0.1% of GDP. But the island nation has great affection for its fleet. During last year’s Brexit referendum campaign, a flotilla of trawlermen steamed up the Thames to protest against European Union fishing quotas. On July 2nd Michael Gove, the Brexiteer environment secretary (who claims that his father’s Aberdeen fish business was sunk by EU rules), announced that Britain would “take back control” of its waters by unilaterally withdrawing from an international fishing treaty.

Gutting such agreements is strongly supported by coastal communities. The pro-Brexit press cheered Mr Gove’s bold announcement. But landing a new deal for British fishermen will be legally complex, expensive to enforce, oblige Britain to observe European rules that it has had no hand in setting and, most likely, leave its businesses and consumers worse off than before. It is, in other words, a case study of the Brexit negotiations as a whole.

The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was drawn up before Britain joined, to its disadvantage. But membership has allowed Britain to improve the policy. Countries’ quotas are now set on a basis that is more scientific than political. Unwanted fish can no longer be discarded at sea, which has helped to reverse the depletion of stocks.

Unpicking decades of tangled legal agreements will be harder than it looks. Mr Gove has initiated Britain’s withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention. But Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Brexit negotiator, argues that this 1964 agreement has since been superseded by the CFP. Regardless of these conventions, foreign fishermen may claim historic fishing rights going back decades or even centuries. Many of them have set up units in Britain to buy quotas from British fishermen. Unless the government overturns these property rights by decree, it may face a large compensation bill.

Read the full story at The Economist

Scandinavian biologists see threat in crossbreeding by American, European lobsters

June 7, 2017 — Scandinavian biologists say American and European lobsters are crossbreeding and their offspring can survive in European waters, but it is too early to tell if the hybrids can reproduce.

Susanne Eriksson of the University of Gothenberg in Sweden and Ann-Lisbeth Agnalt of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway presented their findings on the threat that American lobsters found in the northeast Atlantic Ocean pose to their smaller European cousins Tuesday during the second day of the International Conference and Workshop on Lobster Biology & Management in Portland.

“American scientists said your lobsters couldn’t survive in European waters, but we have proof they are not only surviving, but competing with the European lobster for food, shelter and mates,” Eriksson said. “They are crossbreeding, the hybrid eggs are hatching, and the larvae are surviving in our tanks, and in our oceans. We don’t know if they can reproduce yet, that’s a year or two away, but we know the males can produce sperm.”

Last year, Sweden asked the European Union to list the American lobster as an invasive species after scientists there found evidence of crossbreeding. The EU bans the import of invasive species, so a listing would have put an end to the $200 million annual export business. The evidence persuaded the forum of EU scientists who study alien species to support a ban, but not the EU politicians who must approve such a listing.

The EU said it might one day explore other protective measures that would not be so disruptive to trade if Sweden returns with further proof of an invasion.

That’s why Scandinavia is continuing to look at how American-European hybrids will fare in the northeast Atlantic, especially once they hit sexual maturity.

Read the full story at The Portland Press Herald 

NFI urges cut in U.S. tariffs to boost exports

May 23, 2017 — The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) encouraged the reduction of tariffs on United States seafood exports at public hearing before regulators in Washington, D.C., on 18 May.

Meanwhile, the American Shrimp Processors Association urged more restrictions on seafood imports from other countries in order to cut the United States’ significant overall trade deficit.

The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative asked for public comments on an executive order, “Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits,” which impacts U.S. trade deficits with 13 countries: Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

“Addressing the U.S. goods trade deficit with any one of the 13 nations/blocs of nations identified by the department should focus on opening markets for American seafood, reducing overseas tariffs, and eliminating non-tariff barriers,” NFI President John Connelly said at the hearing. “Fully 95 percent of world’s consumers and nearly 80 percent of consumer purchasing power lie outside of the United States, and both numbers are likely to rise in the future.”

For example, per capita seafood consumption in Japan is 300 percent higher than in the U.S., and U.S. seafood exports to Japan were USD 681 million (EUR 608 million) in 2016, Connelly said.

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership would have immediately eliminated and phased out Japan duties on U.S. roe, surimi, and cod,” Connelly said. “This would have allowed domestic fishermen, and particularly fishermen on the Pacific coast, to exploit opportunities in a country that already has a high opinion of the U.S. harvest, and in the process would help narrow the U.S. trade deficit with the nation’s closest Pacific Rim ally.”

In addition, implementation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, a recently signed trade deal between Canada and the European Union, has placed U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage, according to Connelly.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

EU Calls for Better Enforcement of Fisheries Laws

April 26, 2017 — The European Commission has released a new review of its fisheries control regulation, which was adopted in 2009. While EU member states have put most of the regulation’s measures into effect, the EC said, many have not yet fully implemented it.

“Our evaluation . . . showed that more needs to be done to fully implement certain provisions. It is also clear that the current legislative framework is not entirely fit for purpose,” said commissioner for environment, maritime affairs and fisheries Karmenu Vella.

Many of the regulation’s objectives have been achieved, including national-level Fishing Monitoring Centers; national control programs; surveillance and tracking measures; and improved data collection and reporting. Compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is also up. However, the EC found that not all national fisheries authorities use the regulation’s enforcement tools consistently, and the regulations for small vessels (under 10 meters) are poorly implemented across the board.

Data obtained by environmental lawyers ClientEarth showed minimal use of the regulation’s punitive enforcement measures by certain member states. The NGO asserts that legal penalties are being assessed too infrequently, especially in Northern European nations, and the penalties that are imposed are often too mild to serve as an effective deterrent. As an example, ClientEarth found that about 90 percent of fisheries enforcement cases in France in 2014 were settled out of court, many with fines in the low four figures.

Read the full story at The Maritime Executive

Corporate Coordination Can Stop Seafood Slavery

April 4, 2017 — In 2015, media investigations revealed horrific occurrences of physical and emotional violence, human trafficking, and murder on fishing vessels and in shrimp processing facilities primarily in Southeast Asia. The stories sent shockwaves through the seafood industry, but despite efforts by several companies to combat these abuses, seafood slavery persists and will continue to erode consumer trust without a more comprehensive response. At a moment when many U.S. policymakers and ordinary citizens are voicing skepticism over U.S. participation in a globalized economy, now is the time for the international seafood industry to take robust and unified steps toward a transparent and traceable seafood supply chain.

The U.S. Department of State has identified seafood-related human trafficking in more than 65 countries over the past half-decade, many of which supply seafood to the United States, including major exporters such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The paths by which seafood from these countries enters the United States is complex and often opaque. There are numerous points along supply chains at which fish caught or processed using forced labor are mixed with responsibly caught fish—some occurring even before the fish first hit dry land. For example, vessels will often offload their catch onto a supply ship in exchange for provisions and fuel, where it commingles with fish from other vessels. This practice, known as transshipment at sea, allows fishing boats to stay offshore for months—or even years—at a time, keeping laborers from escaping from what amount to floating prisons.

The international seafood supply chain is composed of tens of millions of people moving 158 million metric tons of fish and shellfish annually. This complexity alone poses a serious obstacle to eliminating slave-caught seafood from the U.S. market. The solution is not as straightforward as simply refusing to buy fish from boats with slaves on board. And yet, despite the complicated nature of the problem, the industry must address these abuses. The United States is the second-largest seafood importer after the European Union, and U.S. importers and retailers have a crucial role to play in the global fight against trafficking in persons and other labor abuses.

Read the full story at the Center for American Progress

Lobster industry fears lost sales from ramped-up Canadian exports

March 20, 2017 — A new trade deal looming between Canada and the European Union is setting off alarm bells in the Maine lobster industry.

The deal between Canada and the EU – the largest seafood consumer market in the world – would eliminate tariffs on Canadian lobster exports into Europe and give the Maritimes a competitive advantage over their American counterparts, who would be stuck selling lobsters with tariffs ranging from 8 percent for a live lobster to 20 percent on processed or cooked lobster.

A weak Canadian dollar, which is now valued at about 75 percent of a U.S. dollar, will only make Canadian lobster that much more attractive to importers in the 28 member nations of the European Union, which is the second biggest importer of American lobsters, second only to Canada, according to trade data. In 2016, the EU imported $152 million worth of lobsters from the U.S., most of it from Maine.

“This is a big deal,” said Annie Tselikis, director of the Maine Lobster Dealers’ Association. “Canada recognizes that it is an export nation. They are putting their money where their mouth is and adopting a very aggressive trade policy. They are also developing a very aggressive, smart marketing campaign abroad. It is going to be very difficult to compete with that because we sell the same product.”

The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, has been under negotiation for years. The United States was negotiating one, too, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, but it has stalled. The Canadian-EU deal appears likely to get its final OK in May, and the first phase of the deal, including the trade tariffs, would go into effect in June.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

EU still vulnerable to illegal fish imports

March 17, 2017 — Disparities and weaknesses in import controls in key member states of the European Union mean illegally caught fish can still slip through the net and into EU supply chains, according to an analysis published today by the Environmental Justice Foundation, Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts and WWF.

The analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of countries’ progress in implementing import controls under the EU Regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which came into force in 2010. This is the first published analysis of data reported by member states to the European Commission for the most recent two-year reporting period, 2014 to 2015. It reveals significant problems with the way a number of EU member states are executing controls of fish consignments. For example, authorities in some major importing countries still fail to apply robust checks even where consignments come from countries that have been warned by the EU for having inadequate measures in place to prevent and deter illegal fishing. In some cases, the procedures implemented by EU countries appear insufficient to comply with the minimum control obligations laid down in EU legislation.

The study calls for more harmonised and rigorous procedures, as well as the digitisation of catch certificate information within the EU by the end of 2017, to ensure unscrupulous operators do not attempt to move their catch through ports where weaker controls are in place. Imports entering the EU in shipping containers are identified as particularly challenging for enforcement authorities, with procedures for these not harmonised to a sufficiently rigorous standard to date.

The import controls are a cornerstone of the European Union’s 2010 Regulation to combat IUU fishing, which is seen as a world-leading piece of legislation in the global fight against illegal fishing. The analysis reinforces the findings of a recent case study published by the four NGOs revealing that the fraudulent use of paper catch certificates and lack of an EU-wide system for cross-checking import documents means illegal catch is still getting through.

Read the full story at The Fish Site