Saving Seafood

“Whitefish wars” driving Vietnam’s pangasius away from EU, US

February 7, 2018 — The rapid growth of Vietnam’s pangasius shipments has met with several markets barriers in the European Union and United States, where the fish is being gradually pushed away.

With similarity in texture and taste to other whitefish such as cod, sole, haddock, and pollock, but with much lower prices, pangasius from the Southeast Asia nation has quickly become a competitive alternative in the U.S. and E.U., Nguyen Tien Thong, an assistant professor of applied economics and marketing research at the University of Southern Denmark, told SeafoodSource.

But Thong, also a research associate with analytics firm Syntesa, with a specialty in price formation and consumer preference for seafood, said pangasius’ growth in the U.S. and E.U. markets has been actively thwarted by market barriers erected by both the industry’s competitors and erroneous reporting by mass media.

Vietnam’s pangasius exports were worth USD 1.78 billion (EUR 1.43 billion) last year, up 4.3 percent from 2016. But the export value to the U.S. and E.U. fell 11 percent and 22.3 percent, respectively, recently released data from Vietnam Association of Seafood Producers and Exporters (VASEP) revealed.

Three “wars” against pangasius

European and Vietnamese seafood experts have collectively created a new term for the campaigns surrounding pangasius, calling them the ”whitefish wars.”

The most recent round of this war broke out in early 2017, when a television segment on Spain’s Cuatro channel claimed pangasius farming was polluting the Mekong Delta. Two weeks later, French retail giant Carrefour decided to suspend sales of Vietnamese pangasius in all its stores in Belgium, France, and Spain. Carrefour attributed its decision to “the doubts that persist about the adverse impacts that pangasius farms have on the environment.”

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council responded to Carrefour’s move with a statement insisting the facts did not support Carrefour’s pangasius decision, and VASEP said repeatedly that the Cuatro report provided distorted information. Seeking to help combat the growing ”PR crisis,” 20 of Vietnam’s leading pangasius exporters joined together to create a market development fund in June 2017. But the rebuttals appeared largely ineffective at halting the negative impact on pangasius sales.

However, Thong argues that the “whitefish war” began as early as 2000, and started in the United States. In that year, about 90 percent of the catfish imported by the U.S. was from Vietnam. Feeling threatened, U.S. catfish growers and wholesalers started a campaign to curtail imports of Vietnamese pangasius into the country.

For years, pangasius faced high anti-dumping duties imposed by the U.S government, and a push for increased inspections. After a protracted political debate, in August 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) began inspecting all imported pangasius. Only a few months after the decision, only two of 14 Vietnamese pangasius exporters are still shipping pangasius to the U.S., according to VASEP.

In the E.U., backlash against pangasius started in late 2010, when the World Wildlife Fund placed the fish on the “red list,” effectively branding it a no-buy for environmentally conscientious consumers, Thong said. The attempt, which Thong termed as the second “war,” was made after the fish became a significant substitute fish to other whitefish raised in many European countries.

A few years later, WWF reversed course on pangasius, giving its backing to all Vietnamese-produced pangasius awarded Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification.

Further controversy was ignited in 2011 when Member of the European Parliament Struan Stevenson, senior vice president of the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee, attacked the pangasius’ environmental, social, and safety credentials during an address to the European Parliament.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

Many in Thai fishing industry fail to see conditions as slavery: research

February 6, 2018 — NEW YORK — Thai fishing boat owners who trap workers on board ships and withhold wages often do not realize that is modern slavery, so authorities must ramp up their policing efforts, advocates say.

Research shows many fishing operators are oblivious that the grim conditions on board their ships amount to forced labor, according to a recent report.

Many operators know smuggling people across borders and forcing them to work at sea for long periods of time is wrong but see withholding documents or forcing them to pay off debts as acceptable, said the report by Issara Institute, a Bangkok-based anti-trafficking organization.

Thailand’s multibillion-dollar seafood sector has been the target of scrutiny in recent years following investigations that found slavery, trafficking and violence on fishing boats and in onshore processing facilities.

“Vessel owners exploit fishermen yet view themselves as benevolent patrons,” said the report, released last month, based on interviews with 75 Thai captains and large fishing boat owners.

The findings show a need for stronger efforts to improve the working conditions and bring the fishing industry in line with anti-trafficking laws, advocates said.

“It’s all going to come down to enforcement,” Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The military government in Thailand has rolled out industry reforms since the European Union in 2015 threatened to ban its fish imports, but little has changed, Human Rights Watch said in a report also released last month.

Shawn MacDonald, chief executive of Verite, a charity fighting labor injustices, said the Issara findings provide insight useful for crafting incentives against forced labor.

Read the full story at Reuters

Brexit may not have desired outcome for UK fishermen, but US could see upside

January 25, 2018 — The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union – colloquially known as Brexit – doesn’t pose a major threat to American exporters, and it could provide some upside, according to Rabobank Global Seafood Industry Senior Industry Analyst Gorjan Nikolik.

Speaking at the 2018 Global Seafood Marketing Conference on Wednesday, 24 January, Nikolik laid out the three most probable scenarios facing Great Britain in its move away from the E.U.: a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit, or a soft-ish Brexit with a free trade agreement. Nikolik dismissed a fourth option, “Bremain,’ where the U.K. reverses course and decides not to leave the E.U., as doubtful and not likely to cause major change to existing trade.

A “hard” Brexit, in which the U.K. would break off from the E.U. without any negotiated special agreements, would be “the worst outcome for everyone,” Nikolik said. Trade barriers would be high, the price of imported goods would increase by an estimated 11 percent, the total labor force in the U.K. would decline by 1.3 million people by 2030, and the British pound would lose approximately 30 percent of its value, according to economic modeling cited by Nikolik.

On the other hand, a “soft” Brexit would sustain many of the U.K.’s ties to the E.U., potentially including its continued membership in the continent’s single market. Under this scenario, prices of imported goods would rise by an estimated three percent and the British economy would grow by a predicted 1.6 percent annually, as opposed to 1.3 percent under a hard Brexit and 2.1 percent under the “Bremain” scenario.

E.U. negotiators will push back hard against efforts for a truly soft Brexit, Nikolik said, as it gives too much away while clawing back little in return. Nikolik’s pick for the most probable outcome is a soft Brexit with a free trade agreement.  Such an agreement would result in an estimated 700,000 fewer laborers working in the U.K., and hike the cost of imported goods by around six percent, Nikolik said. It would also result in a 1.6 percent expected GDP growth rate, he added.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Another country has banned boiling live lobsters. Some scientists wonder why.

January 16, 2018 — Poached, grilled, or baked with brie.

Served on a roll, or in mac ‘n cheese.

Lobsters may be one of the most popular crustaceans in the culinary arts. But when it comes to killing them, there’s a long and unresolved debate about how to do it humanely, and whether that extra consideration is even necessary.

The Swiss Federal Council issued an order this week banning cooks in Switzerland from placing live lobsters into pots of boiling water — joining a few other jurisdictions that have protections for the decapod crustaceans. Switzerland’s new measure stipulates that beginning March 1, lobsters must be knocked out — either by electric shock or “mechanical destruction” of the brain — before boiling them, according to Swiss public broadcaster RTS.

The announcement reignited a long-running debate: Can lobsters even feel pain?

“They can sense their environment,” said Bob Bayer, executive director of the University of Maine’s Lobster Institute, “but they probably don’t have the ability to process pain.”

Boiling lobsters alive is already illegal in some places, including New Zealand and Reggio Emilia, a city in northern Italy, according to the animal rights group Viva.

A Swiss government spokeswoman said the law there was driven by the animal rights argument.

“There are more animal friendly methods than boiling alive, that can be applied when killing a lobster,” Eva van Beek of the Federal Office of Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs said in an email.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

 

North Korean workers prep seafood going to US stores, restaurants

October 5, 2017 — HUNCHUN, China — The workers wake up each morning on metal bunk beds in fluorescent-lit Chinese dormitories, North Koreans outsourced by their government to process seafood that ends up in American stores and homes.

Privacy is forbidden. They cannot leave their compounds without permission. They must take the few steps to the factories in pairs or groups, with North Korean minders ensuring no one strays. They have no access to telephones or email. And they are paid a fraction of their salaries, while the rest — as much as 70 percent — is taken by North Korea’s government.

This means Americans buying salmon for dinner at Walmart or ALDI may inadvertently have subsidized the North Korean government as it builds its nuclear weapons program, an AP investigation has found. Their purchases may also have supported what the United States calls “modern day slavery” — even if the jobs are highly coveted by North Koreans.

At a time when North Korea faces sanctions on many exports, the government is sending tens of thousands of workers worldwide, bringing in revenue estimated at anywhere from $200 million to $500 million a year. That could account for a sizable portion of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, which South Korea says have cost more than $1 billion.

While the presence of North Korean workers overseas has been documented, the AP investigation reveals for the first time that some products they make go to the United States, which is now a federal crime. AP also tracked the products made by North Korean workers to Canada, Germany and elsewhere in the European Union.

Besides seafood, AP found North Korean laborers making wood flooring and sewing garments in factories in Hunchun. Those industries also export to the U.S. from Hunchun, but AP did not track specific shipments except for seafood.

Read the full story at the Associated Press

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

Brexit Leaves French Fishermen On The Hook

September 12, 2017 — France’s busiest port, Boulougne-sur-Mer, sits just across the English Channel from Britain, in the Calais region.

Seagulls glide above scores of brightly painted boats docking to unload the catch of the day — mainly sole but also cod, roussette, crab and scallops.

It’s all sold at a bustling seaside market where Marie-Laure Fontaine sells seafood from a fishing boat called Providence.

“Sole and cod and turbot, we get these all from British waters,” Fontaine says. “And this is a worry.”

Up to 80 percent of fish caught by fishermen here comes from British waters, which are about a two-hour boat ride away.

French fishermen have been nervous since Britain voted to leave the European Union last year. That’s because when the divorce is final, the U.K. will also leave what’s called the Common Fisheries Policy.

“After that, the U.K. will be an independent coastal state, like Norway or the Faroe Islands or Iceland,” says Barrie Deas, chief executive of the U.K.’s National Federation Fishermen’s Organisations. “The U.K. will determine its own fishing quotas and access arrangements. So I think it’s realistic for the French to be worried.”

Read and listen to the full story at NPR

Electrofishing: Saviour of the sea or fracking of the oceans?

August 17, 2017 — The Netherlands is testing a new technique to fish – using electric currents. Electrofishing is controversial and is banned by the EU, but can be used on an experimental basis. Critics argue it is cruel because it breaks the backs of some larger cod. But advocates say it is less damaging for the environment than traditional beam trawling. James Clayton reports for BBC Newsnight.

Watch the video from BBC Newsnight on YouTube

Brexit Britain: The Island Nation’s Fishermen and the Battle With the EU

August 7, 2017 — NEWQUAY, England — Fisherman Phil Trebilcock is tired of being told there are not enough fish in the sea.

“On the east coast of Cornwall there are fish swimming up the beaches but they’re not allowed to catch them,” he said, hauling pots of spider crabs out of a choppy Celtic Sea recently. “They should take more advice from the fishermen, and less from the scientists.”

Trebilcock is bridling against European Union quotas that dictate how much fish British vessels can land — in some cases prompting fishermen to dump dead fish back into the water if they have caught more than they are allocated.

And that’s not all. The fisherman ticked off his grievances with the EU regulations: quotas, too much paperwork and too many foreign boats chasing fish in British waters.

So it is no surprise that last year Trebilcock joined 52 percent of the voting public to chose to leave the EU, or “Brexit.”

The country fishing industry accounts for less than 0.5 percent of Britain’s GDP but has nevertheless become a symbol of resistance to what many believe are onerous and damaging EU regulations. So as negotiations between the U.K. and EU ramp up in the coming months, one of the many sticking points will be around shared waters.

In spite of the iconic place that fishermen have within the Brexit camp, the industry is actually divided. While many of those who do the catching are cheering the move, a good number of those who process the catch are fretting over the upcoming divorce.

“We have more to lose from Brexit than to gain from it, definitely,” said Julian Harvey, a partner at W. Harvey and Sons, a shellfish wholesaler and processor in Cornwall on the southwest coast of England.

Read the full story at NBC News

EU Discard Ban Stimulates Innovation and Improved Cross-Sectoral Communication

July 7, 2017 — The following is a report written by Dr. Bill Karp, Affiliate Professor at University of Washington:

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) governs fisheries management in the European Union and is, very roughly equivalent to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the US. The CFP is updated (reformed) every ten years. Article 15 of the 2013 reform is entitled “Landing Obligation” and includes the following text:

  1. All catches of species which are subject to catch limits and, in the Mediterranean, also catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes as defined in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006, caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters in waters not subject to third countries’ sovereignty or jurisdiction, in the fisheries and geographical areas listed below shall be brought and retained on board the fishing vessels, recorded, landed and counted against the quotas where applicable, except when used as live bait, in accordance with the following time-frames:

For further details (including exceptions) see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1380&rid=1

This “Landing Obligation” or discard ban was enacted in response to public concerns regarding perceived wasteful practices. It is being implemented over several years, initially in the more industrialized, large scale fisheries of northern Europe. Many concerns about practicability, cost, and other aspects have been raised and hotly debated in Europe, but implementation is proceeding.

As expected, this change in public policy has directly impacted many aspects of fishing, handling, processing, and marketing. The EU has funded several projects designed to encourage cross-sectoral engagement to improve gear selectivity, share information on avoiding unwanted catch (spatial, areal, etc.), encourage advances in handling, stimulate marketing opportunities, etc. Among these initiatives is a project called “DiscardLess” which is a four-year, multi-million Euro project. Through this project, researchers and stakeholders from throughout Europe and elsewhere are working together to reduce discards in European fisheries. The DiscardLess Consortium includes 31 partners from 20 countries.

Participants include fishermen, gear technologists, economists, handling, processing and marketing experts, and marine scientists. Work packages within the project focus on selectivity, avoidance, optimal use, ecosystem considerations, and policy aspects. Work began more than two years ago, and some important results are already apparent. For example, the Atlas, and Selectivity Manual provide broad-based and comprehensive information, much of which will be useful to US fishermen. See http://www.discardless.eu/ to download these products and learn more about the DiscardLess project. For an excellent short video about DiscardLess, see https://player.vimeo.com/video/206395350