Saving Seafood

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

Scottish Conservatives Want Fishing Protected as Part of Brexit

June 14, 2017 — Scotland’s Conservatives want the fishing industry to be protected in any deal that Britain negotiates to leave the European Union after winning seats in fishing areas in last week’s national election.

Scottish party leader Ruth Davidson made this clear at a meeting with Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, who lost her parliamentary majority in Britain’s June 8 vote, a spokesman for the party said on Wednesday.

“Fishing is something that Ruth has talked about specifically, we are simply emphasising that this is something of huge importance to us,” a spokesman said, when asked whether fishing constituted a “red line” in Davidson’s wish list for Scotland within a new UK government.

May is under pressure from factions within her party to change her stance on Brexit, having lost her majority just as talks with the EU are due to start.

She has yet to reach a deal with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which has 10 seats. And Davidson, who spearheaded the campaign to win 13 Conservative seats in Scotland, has considerable influence.

The EU’s policy allows all European boats access to EU waters and fishing grounds, which it says allows fishermen to compete fairly.

But that means that 60 percent of what would be Scottish fish is caught by other EU fishing nations, the Scottish Fisheries Federation says, arguing that the industry has been decimated by EU membership.

Read the full story at The New York Times

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

NEW YORK TIMES: China Wants Fish, So Africa Goes Hungry

May 4, 2017 — Of all the stresses that humans have inflicted on the world’s oceans, including pollution and global warming, industrial fishing ranks high. For years, trawlers capable of scouring the ocean floor, and factory ships trailing driftnets and longlines baited with thousands of hooks, have damaged once-abundant fisheries to the point where, the United Nations says, 90 percent of them are now fully exploited or facing collapse.

The damage is not just to the fish and the ecosystem but also to people who depend on them for food and income. This is particularly true in Africa. In 2008, in two striking articles, The Times reported that mechanized fleets from the European Union, Russia and China had nearly picked clean the oceans off Senegal and other northwest African countries, ruining coastal economies.

It’s still happening, but now, according to a report by The Times’s Andrew Jacobs, China stands alone as the major predator.

With its own waters heavily overfished, and being forced to forage elsewhere to feed its people, the Chinese government commands a fleet of nearly 2,600 vessels, 10 times larger than the United States fleet, all heavily subsidized. As Zhang Hongzhou of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University observes, “For China’s leaders, ensuring a steady supply of aquatic products is not just about good economics but social stability and political legitimacy.”

Read the full opinion piece at the New York Times

After Whirlpool battle, Le Pen and Macron clash over fish

April 27, 2017 — After “the battle of Whirlpool,” when Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron both went hunting for France’s blue-collar vote at a threatened home appliance factory, the presidential candidates clashed over fish in a return to more traditional campaigning on Thursday.

The anti-European Union far-right populist Le Pen was up before dawn to cruise aboard a fishing trawler on the Mediterranean. The sea trip was her latest television-friendly effort to portray herself as the candidate of France’s workers against the centrist former banker and economy minister Macron, whom she paints as the candidate of the financial, political and pro-EU elite.

“My grandfather was a fisherman, so I am in my element,” Le Pen said after her pre-dawn voyage aboard the “Grace of God 2” trawler.

She said France will take back control of its maritime policies if she is elected in the second-round vote on May 7. She again tore into Macron’s more pro-market, free-trade economic program. Macron fired back on Twitter, saying her proposals to take France out of the EU would sink France’s fishing industry.

“Have a nice trip. Europe’s exit she proposes, it’s the end of French fishing. Think about it,” he tweeted, before visiting the ethnically mixed Paris suburb of Sarcelles.

As he met with residents, Macron continued the counter-attack, calling Le Pen’s National Front party “xenophobic.”

“There’s Marine Le Pen’s project of a fractured, closed France….On the other hand, you have my project which is a republican, patriotic project aiming at … reconciling France,” he said.

Macron went into a gymnasium to meet members of an association that works to socially integrate local youth through sports and by helping them to set up businesses and find jobs.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times

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