Saving Seafood

European Union decides it won’t ban imports of American lobster

October 17th, 2016 — The European Union has decided the American lobster isn’t an invasive species after all, averting a ban on the live import of Maine’s iconic crustacean.

The EU’s Committee on Invasive Alien Species told Sweden, the member nation that had sought the ban after discovering American lobsters off its coast, that it would not list Homerus americanus for technical reasons, even though Sweden’s argument had persuaded the forum of EU scientists who study alien species to pursue the listing just one month ago.

Instead, the committee – which is the political side of the alien species issue as compared to the forum, which is the scientific side – told Sweden that it couldn’t find support for an invasive species listing, which would trigger an import ban among member countries, according to an EU Commission source. However, it might one day explore other measures to protect the European lobster that wouldn’t be as disruptive to trade.

American lobster industry officials celebrated the apparent victory Friday, saying the decision had saved a $200 million-a-year export industry.

“This would have had a massive impact throughout the industry, from the fishermen on up to the processors to the restaurants who serve our lobsters and consumers who eat them,” said Annie Tselikis, marketing manager for Maine Coast Co. and a spokesman for the Maine Lobster Dealers’ Association. “We are thrilled. We don’t have specifics about the decision, but are thrilled the European market is not in question.”

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald 

Danish Fishermen Fear Further Slashing of EU’s Cod Quotas

October 11th, 2016 — A stiff wind buffets Ulrik Koelle Hansen’s trawler as he heads out of this tiny fishing village in search of an early morning catch, but it’s nothing to the battering he predicts if the European Union slashes the fishing quota for cod in the western Baltic, as it did late Monday.

According to scientists and environmentalists, the region’s cod stock is on the verge of collapse. While scientists are pushing for the quota to be cut by about 90 percent, conservation groups want to shut it down temporarily.

“If we do not do something in time to allow the cod to recover, it may mean that we lose the (cod) fishery altogether in the near future,” said Inger Melander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund.

After all-day negotiations in Luxembourg, the European Union late Monday agreed to set tougher cod catch quotas, but stayed well above targets sought by scientists and environmentalists. The EU fisheries ministers agreed on a 56 percent quota cut for the western Baltic cod caught off Denmark and Germany.

Officials said Denmark pushed hard to safeguard the livelihood of its fishermen to make sure there was enough that they would still be allowed to catch.

As Koelle Hansen sees it, cutting the quota would mean the end for the few fisherman still working out of Bagenkop, a sleepy fishing village of less than 500 people on the southern tip of the Langeland island.

Read the full story at The New York Times 

Baltic Cod Fishermen Get Better Quotas Than Science Wants

October 11th, 2016 — With Baltic cod drawing closer to the edge of commercial extinction, the European Union on Monday set tougher catch quotas for fishermen but stayed well above targets sought by scientists and environmentalists.

After all-day negotiations in Luxembourg, the EU fisheries ministers agreed on a 56 percent quota cut for the western Baltic cod caught off Denmark and Germany, while scientists were pushing for the quota to be cut by about 90 percent.

Officials said Denmark was pushing hard to safeguard the livelihood of its fishermen to make sure there was enough that they would still be allowed to catch.

EU Fisheries Commissioner Karmenu Vella had been seeking a reduction of 88 percent “to bring back the stock to sustainability as soon as possible” but also had to compromise to keep member states on board for a unanimous decision.

“After listening to the member states’ arguments, and the impacts on the different fleets and in particular on artisanal fleets, I have accepted a lower reduction,” Vella said, insisting it would still give the species a good chance of survival in the Baltic waters.

The EU has agreed to revamp its fishing policies to protect dozens of species from commercial extinction, and by 2020 all fish must be sustainably caught. Member states, however, have a long tradition of rejecting scientific advice and instead sought the best deal possible for the industry, not for the survival of the fish. Over the years, it has driven many species to the edge of a full collapse, and instead of being plentiful, like cod in the Atlantic and North Sea and Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, they became threatened species.

It is now the same for cod in the western Baltic and tough quota reductions are needed. Some environmentalists have called for a total closing of those fisheries.

Read the full story at The New York Times 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s marine zone closure proposal outrages fisheries sector

September 28, 2016 — The decision taken by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to close off 30 per cent of all marine areas from extractive activities by 2030 has caused outrage to Europêche and the European body representing producer organisations(EAPO).

The IUCN adopted the measure in its latest Congress held in Hawaii, on September 1-10, during which the entity adopted a series of non-binding commitments to recommend governments and other relevant international bodies such as FAO or the European Union.

According to Europêche, the IUCN takes decisions on fisheries issues whilst disregarding the huge socio-economic impacts that this 30 per cent area closure would have on coastal communities and food security.

“No-take zones (marine reserves) have become, in the eyes of many scientists, NGOs and lay-people, a solution for the overexploitation of fish populations. However, before we close off any area to extractive activities such as fishing we must first ask ourselves what are we protecting and why. MPAs are a tool, not an objective so in order for these closures to be successful, their existence has to be justified,” Javier Garat, President of Europêche, pointed out.

For its part, the fishing sector argues that fisheries is actually one of the most affected sectors by these recommendations, which do not take into account other impacts such as pollution and marine mining industries.

Moreover, those opposing the the decision consider the IUCN’s measure is not based on any broad consensus of the scientific community and disregards the unpleasant fact that a large proportion of MPAs already established are ‘paper parks’ with zero efficiency in meeting their objectives.

On the contrary, some scientists present at the Congress highlighted that there is little proof that the 30 per cent closure would bring about any major benefit to biodiversity and have objected very strongly to the proposal since it goes against efforts made by MPA proponents during the last decade to involve coastal communities in decision-making.

The fishing bodies also believe that any proposal which greatly impacts any economic sector should be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment from an environmental, social, economic and food security perspective, which was not the case in this decision. This would be the only tool which would highlight the consequences of the problems and allows states to decide whether to take action based on accurate, objective, comprehensive and non-discriminatory information.

The fishing sector also highlights that closing off parts of the ocean from extractive use would actually conflict with other the UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as increasing food security and reducing poverty; both of which require the use of the ocean. Closing 30 per cent of all coastal areas would be disastrous in the developing world, where coastal communities have no social safety nets and no unemployment schemes.

Read the full story at Fis.com

Sweden’s proposed ban on American lobsters clears first hurdle

September 7, 2016 — The scientific arm of the European Union says there is enough evidence to move forward with a review of Sweden’s request to declare the American lobster an invasive species.

America and Canada contend Sweden’s bid to protect the European lobster from its larger American cousin, which has been found in small numbers in North Atlantic waters, lacks any scientific evidence of a pending invasion, and had hoped to squelch the proposal this summer.

But on Tuesday, the Scientific Forum on Invasive Alien Species, which is made up of experts appointed by each EU member state, confirmed the validity of Sweden’s scientific risk assessment, setting in motion a broader review that could lead to the ban of live imports into the 28-nation coalition.

An EU spokeswoman said the opinion is a first step in a long process that would not reach a conclusion until the spring, at the earliest. It will be reviewed and possibly considered for a vote by the Alien Species Committee. If approved, the motion would go to the full European Union Commission for a final vote.

“This does not prejudge in any way the decision on whether the commission will propose the lobster for listing,” said Iris Petsa. “This is a preliminary opinion on a purely scientific risk assessment and not a decision as to whether to ban the species.”

Lobstermen in the U.S. and Canada stand to lose $200 million in business with EU countries if the ban becomes a reality. In its additional review, the European Union Commission will consider the implications for international trade, as well as alternative means to protect Europe’s native lobster, Petsa said.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

Europe studies claims of American ‘invaders.’ They are clawed and delicious.

September 7, 2016 — Today’s special: American lobster in European hot water.

The European Union’s Scientific Forum on Invasive Alien Species announced Tuesday that there was sufficient scientific evidence to push ahead with a review of Sweden’s request to declare the American lobster an invasive species that threatens native lobsters and other marine life.

It could mean a ban on the clawed cousins from across the pond.

Now, before European foodies go off the deep end, the whole spat is based on only a handful of American lobsters found in Swedish waters. And any final decision — not expected before April — will take into account potential fallout on international trade. That includes weighing the risks of possible retaliatory bans against Europe by the United States and Canada, which stand to lose a lobster market valued at up to $200 million by some estimates.

Overall, it is little more than a side dish compared with other transatlantic trade issues, such as last week’s E.U. order for Ireland to recover up to $14.5 billion in taxes from tech giant Apple. But out in places like the Gulf of Maine or the coast of Nova Scotia, the lobster showdown is a very big deal.

“Is this really about invasion of a species or invasion of [an] economy?” said Beth Casoni, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

EU reaches agreement on deep-sea fisheries

July 5, 2016 — A consensus has been reached by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission regarding how to best protect deep-sea fish, sponges and corals while also preserving the viability of the European fishing industry.

This latest agreement updates the previous EU rules placed upon deep-sea fisheries – which were last amended back in 2003 – bringing them up to par with the sustainability goals laid out in the reformed Common Fisheries Policy.

“I am glad that an agreement was reached today. As Commissioner in charge of both fisheries and the protection of the environment, I believe that we have achieved a balanced compromise that will protect our deep-sea environment and deep-sea fish stocks while finally putting an end to the uncertainty faced by European fishermen looking to run a successful and sustainable business,” said EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella in a prepared statement.

Among the provisions applied in the agreed upon text stipulates that fishers may only target deep-sea fish in areas where they have fished in the past (their so-called ‘fishing footprint’), thereby ensuring that pristine environments remain untouched. Moreover, trawls below 800 meters will be banned completely in EU waters, and areas with vulnerable marine environments (VMEs) will be closed to bottom fishing below 400 meters, according to the EU; to further protect VMEs, fishers will also have to report how many deep-sea sponges or corals they catch and move on to other fishing grounds in case a certain maximum amount has been reached.

Organizations such as Europêche have come forward criticising the ban on 800 meter trawls, arguing that the measure lacks scientific basis.

“According to Europeche the ban, agreed yesterday by Parliament, the Council and the European Commission is arbitrary and only responds to political interests and not to real environmental threats. The ban is included in the regulation of deep-sea fisheries agreed upon yesterday,” said the group in a statement.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

New England Officials Dispute Proposed EU Lobster Ban

June 27, 2016 — With struggling fisheries in Connecticut facing warmer waters and competition with other states, across the pond a potential U.S. lobster ban could add additional complications for New England.

The Swedish government has requested that the species Homarus americanus (the American lobster) be listed as invasive. Over the last eight years, 32 lobsters have been found in Swedish waters. Some say the crustaceans pose a threat to the smaller European lobster. The invasive label would effectively bar imports throughout the European Union. Government organizations and fisheries alike are fighting back.

David Simpson, director of marine fisheries at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said it will likely effect Connecticut lobster companies as well. Simpson also questioned the motives of the bans because of the low number of American lobsters found abroad.

“This clearly seems economically motivated, which is a shame,” Simpson said. “They’re using the guy from their environmental protection for economic protection.”

Read the full story at WNPR

European Union agrees on Mediterranean stock recovery strategy

June 9, 2016 — The 40th annual session of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) drew to a successful close with agreement on a raft of measures aimed at reversing the worrying trend of declining fish stocks in the region.

Decisions taken at the meeting in Malta are in line with the European Commission’s (EC’s) strategy to improve the state of the Mediterranean fish stocks and the economic prospects of the fishing industry.

EU Fisheries Commissioner Karmenu Vella expressed his deep satisfaction with the outcome, which “ushers in a new era of action to help fish stocks recover and fishing communities thrive.”

He said, “This year’s GFCM annual session was a truly historic meeting. After the troubling diagnosis concerning the future of Mediterranean fish stocks and the fishing economy, we now started to take corrective action. I am convinced that the steps agreed will usher in a new era of action that will help fish stocks recover and fishing communities thrive. The progress made at GFCM was a significant boost to the European Commission’s #MedFish4Ever campaign.”

Read the full story at SeafoodSource.com

The Future of Seafood Security: The Fight Against Illegal Fishing and Seafood Fraud

June 8, 2016 — In December 2006, the U.S. Congress passed a comprehensive reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs America’s fisheries. In the decade since, this law has been lauded around the globe as a model for both ending overfishing and allowing science to drive management of the world’s last major commercial hunting industry. As a result, regulators are required to set catch limits at the most sustainable levels possible. It has been so effective that the European Union used it as a model for revising its comparable law, the Common Fisheries Policy, in 2014. The upshot of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization is that overfishing has effectively been ended in U.S. waters. And yet, despite this fact, Americans are still consuming millions of tons of unsustainably caught seafood every year.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, more than 90 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This means it is harvested, farmed, or processed in nations that, in almost all cases, lack the high standards that the United States has mandated for domestic producers. Making matters more difficult, it is exceedingly hard for buyers who seek sustainable seafood to identify its provenance with any degree of confidence; mislabeling—either accidental or purposeful—is rampant. So the combination in many countries of low enforcement capacity on the water and in processing facilities and substantial short-term economic incentives for unscrupulous fishermen and dealers means that those who would seek to exploit or circumvent national and international standards and regulations have all but unlimited capacity to do so.

Therefore, while American fisheries approach the 10th anniversary of the enactment of some of the world’s strongest seafood sustainability standards, much work remains in the fight to maintain global fish populations, the industry that relies on them, and, ultimately, the primary source of protein for more than one billion people worldwide. President Barack Obama’s administration, with assistance from leaders in Congress, has begun to take significant steps toward addressing the two-track problems of combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity—also known as IUU fishing—and enhancing the traceability of seafood in order to combat trade in fraudulent fish. NOAA recently ended the public comment period on a new proposed rule that would boost efforts on both fronts, and last fall, the U.S. Senate acted to ratify a treaty requiring countries where fishermen land their products—known as port states—to take additional measures to block vessels engaged in illegal fishing activity from entering their harbors.

Read the full story at the Center for American Progress