Saving Seafood

Brexit “no deal” contingency proposals adopted to support fisheries

January 22, 2019 — The mounting uncertainty over whether the United Kingdom will ratify a withdrawal agreement from the European Union has led the European Commission (EC) to adopt two legislative proposals aimed at helping mitigate the impact a so-called “no deal” Brexit could have on E.U. fisheries.

The first proposal is to allow fishermen and operators from E.U. member-states to receive compensation under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the temporary cessation of fishing activities. The E.C. said this will help offset some of the impact of a sudden closure of U.K. waters to E.U. fishing vessels in a no-deal scenario.

Its second proposal amends the Regulation on the Sustainable Management of the External Fleets. The aim is to ensure that the E.U. is in a position to grant U.K. vessels access to E.U. waters until the end of 2019, on the condition that E.U. vessels are also granted reciprocal access to U.K. waters.

This second proposal also provides for a simplified procedure to authorize U.K. vessels to fish in E.U. waters and E.U. vessels to fish in U.K. waters, should the United Kingdom grant that access. This proposal is limited to 2019 and is based on the agreement in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 17 and 18 December, 2018, on the fishing opportunities for 2019.

The commission said these contingency measures cannot mitigate the overall impact of a no-deal scenario, nor do they in any way replicate the full benefits of E.U. membership or the terms of any transition period, as provided for in the withdrawal agreement.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

28,000-Strong Survey Reveals Europeans’ Fish and Seafood Preferences

January 8, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Most Europeans prefer buying fish and seafood frozen but consumers in Mediterranean countries such as Greece and Spain prefer fresh, according to a 28,000-strong European Commission survey.

The EU is one of the world’s largest markets for fish and seafood.

While per capita spending on fishery and aquaculture products is one-third of that of Japan, the world leader, it is more than three times as much as in the United States.

A recently published study commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, therefore aimed to shed light on what Europeans look for in fish and seafood, where they buy it and which information they would like to see on-pack.

The survey questioned almost 28,000 individuals from each member state in face-to-face interviews that were conducted at home in their native language.

“It aims at improving understanding of the EU internal market for fishery and aquaculture products to allow operators to be more competitive and to support new strategies that can stimulate growth, strengthen economic activities in the internal market and lead to job creation,” the report said.

Overall, seven in ten respondents (70%) eat fishery or aquaculture products at home ‘at least once a month’.

Unsurprisingly, the biggest consumers of fish and seafood products are from countries with a tradition of fishing and eating fish. Spain led the way, with 92% of respondents saying they eat fish at least once a month, followed by Portugal and Sweden (both 87%), Estonia (85%), Finland (84%) and Denmark and Greece with 83%.

As with the previous 2016 survey , Hungary stood out for having the lowest proportion, with just over one quarter (28%) of individuals eating fish at home at least once a month. However, price may be a deterring factor for consumers in the land-locked country: 90% of Hungarians said they would buy or eat more fishery and aquaculture products if the prices were not so high.

Supermarkets are the preferred purchase point

Over three-quarters of these respondents (77%) buy fishery or aquaculture products at the grocery store, supermarket or hypermarket. However, a majority of Italians (64%), Greeks (65%) and Maltese respondents (74%) were more likely to buy fish or seafood directly from a fishmonger, a fishmonger’s stall in a market hall, or at a specialist store.

Almost no country seemed to favour online shopping for fish products with one exception: Denmark, with 6%.

The most popular format was frozen. A total of 68% of all respondents who buy fish and seafood purchase frozen products either from time to time or often, with Portugal, Austria and Sweden the top countries for frozen fish purchases. Greece, Spain and Portugal, on the other hand, came out top for fresh fish and seafood products.

Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Cyprus and Croatia preferred to buy whole products.

Respondents were more likely to express a preference for wild products (35%) over farmed products (9%), but nearly as many said that they did not have a preference (32%).

“The most commonly mentioned reasons to buy or eat fishery and aquaculture products are because they are healthy (74%) and because they taste good (59%),” the report said.

Label information

“More than half mention the product’s appearance (59%) and the cost of the product (52%) as important aspects when buying fishery and aquaculture products. The third most frequently mentioned aspect is the origin of the product, with more than four in ten respondents (41%) considering this important. More than a fifth (23%) of respondents consider the brand or quality labels (e.g. PGI, PDO) and how easy and quick it is to prepare as important. Finally, the environmental, social or ethical impact is least mentioned as important (17%).

After date of catch and production, the second piece of information consumers would most like to see on-pack was environmental information, which nearly four in ten (39%) thought should be on labels.

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

NGOs: Chance for EU to hit 2020 overfishing targets lost for deep sea quotas

November 21, 2018 — The EU Council has agreed on the total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for certain deep-sea stocks in the EU and international waters in the North-East Atlantic, for 2019 and 2020.

The fish stocks concerned are deep sea sharks, black scabbardfish, alfonsino, roundnose grenadier, and red seabream.

“In view of the vulnerability of deep-sea species to human activity, and in order to prevent their over-exploitation, the Council decided to raise the TACs for the two stocks and to reduce the TACs for ten stocks as proposed by the Commission.”

It said it had decided to make cuts to fishing opportunities to protect the maritime environment and help the industry in the longer term.

It confirmed the Commission proposal to increase quotas for red seabream around the Azores and roundnose grenadier in South Western waters over the next two years, “in line with positive scientific advice”.

“Given the small number of fish being caught and in line with the scientific advice, the TAC management system for greater forkbeard in the North-East Atlantic, roundnose grenadier in the North Sea and black scabbardfish in the North Sea and Skagerrak was canceled. Fishing for orange roughy remains prohibited.”

Following finalization by the legal/linguistic experts, the agreement will be submitted for final adoption without discussion at a forthcoming Council meeting. The regulation will apply as from Jan. 1, 2019.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

EU Commission proposes 2019 TACs for Atlantic, North Sea

November 9, 2018 — The European Commission has proposed new 2019 quotas for 89 separate stocks in the east Atlantic and North Sea.

The new quotas will see total allowable catch (TAC) increased or maintained for 62 stocks, while 22 stocks have seen a decrease in TAC — five of which have a proposed TAC of zero, indicating that the reduced stocks should no longer be targeted at all.

Some of the biggest quota gains belonged to North Atlantic haddock, which had a proposed TAC of 10,469 metric tons, up 103% from 2018; horse mackerel off the west coast of Spain, with a proposed quota of 94,017t, up 69%; and Norwegian lobster west of Sweden, up 65% to a new TAC of 19,424t.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Oceana claims four countries violated EU law by fishing illegally in African waters

September 14, 2017 — Environmental nonprofit Oceana is claiming vessels from the European Union’s distant-water fleet have been fishing unlawfully in the waters off the coasts of Equatorial Guinea and Gambia.

Using Automatic Identification System (AIS) data collected by satellite and terrestrial receivers tool Global Fishing Watch, Oceana said it tracked 19 vessels from Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain fishing unlawfully for more than 31,000 hours in African waters between April 2012 and August 2015.

The European Union has signed fisheries partnership agreements with several African countries, offering financial and technical support in exchange for fishing rights. However, its agreements with Gambia and Equatorial Guinea are “dormant,” signifying countries that signed fishing partnership agreements “without having a protocol into force, for structural or conjonctural reasons.” Under rules set by the European Commission, EU vessels are not allowed to fish in waters of countries with dormant agreements.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ARA BUAKAMSRI: Major change for the Thai and global seafood industry

July 27, 2017 — Thailand is on the brink of making real progress toward the elimination of destructive fishing and human rights abuses in its seafood supply chains. As a potential yellow card de-listing from the European Commission looms, it remains to be seen whether the country will take the steps needed to fully meet the standards to eliminate human rights abuse in the seafood industry.

It’s fair to say that Thai authorities have made progress in key areas, including reforms to the legal and regulatory framework for fishing that was drawn up in 1947, along with improvements to and the enforcement of labour regulations. At the UN Ocean Conference in New York this year, Thai delegates announced a voluntary commitment to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing by rigorously controlling, monitoring, and inspecting all Thai-flagged fishing vessels operating inside and outside Thai waters. A key piece of this commitment is to eliminate all IUU fishing in Thai fishing fleets by 2019.

Understandably, this progress has been met with criticism, seen by some as insufficient and cosmetic.

Read the full opinion piece at the Bangkok Post

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

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

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

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