Saving Seafood

Alaska working on flatfish tax fix to capture foregone revenue

December 9, 2015 — A state tax rate glitch let groundfish trawlers off the hook for more than $10 million of fishery taxes in the last half decade, and there’s no concrete fix just yet.

The fishery resource landing tax taxes groundfish based on ex-vessel price. Processors turn flatfish caught as bycatch into low-value fishmeal, so the only known ex-vessel price for certain flatfish species is artificially low. Nine species have this price uncertainty, but most flatfish volume comes from yellowfin sole and Atka mackerel.

By only having an ex-vessel value based on the price paid for bycatch turned into fishmeal, the state has no idea what the ex-vessel value is for the direct flatfish fishery that has annual harvests measured in hundreds of thousands of metric tons.

According to state research estimates, the state has lost out on $1.8 million to $2.5 million per year, or more than $10 million over the last five years. Researchers haven’t yet looked back further due to paucity of data, but the fishery resource landing tax has existed since 1994.

Lori Swanson, assistant executive director of groundfish trawler group Groundfish Forum, did not say whether the industry knew it had been underpaying since the tax’s birth.

“They pay what the state tells them to pay,” she said.

The state doesn’t really know

The Department of Revenue, however, hasn’t been calculating a realistic view of fleet’s tax rate, and is only starting to rework the system. The state began this tax specifically for factory trawlers and catcher-processors, but overlooked a systemic flaw from the beginning.

“It’s actually two things,” said Kurt Iverson, a research analyst with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “First, a very small amount of the total harvest is in the (Commercial Operator’s Annual Report), and on top of that, that harvest is not representative of a true ex-vessel valuation because it’s coming in as bycatch.”

Anna Kim, the Department of Revenue chief of revenue operations, said she can’t speculate why the issue went for so long without being noticed. Iverson said the problem isn’t intentional. The Department of Revenue simply attached the tax to shoreside sales, which don’t happen for some species.

Read the full story at Alaska Journal of Commerce

 

How Restaurants and Fisheries Are Saving Edible Seafood From the Trash

October 22, 2015 — As demand for seafood rises, chefs have their seafood supplier on speed dial. And while species like tuna, cod, and halibut are popular, these days, the daily catch on the blackboard might be something unfamiliar — squirrel fish or the banded rudderfish. Don’t be scared off. Most likely it’s bycatch or trash fish. While perfectly edible and quite tasty, these fish are so named because they might otherwise be thrown overboard or ground into fishmeal because they aren’t the intended catch on commercial fishing boats.

If they had a choice, fisherman would rather not have to deal with bycatch, but fishing nets aren’t particular about what they scoop up. Bottom trawlers have little discretion when they drag along the seafloor. Longlines with baited hooks extend for 50 miles or more, which attracts anything that swims by — including unwanted edible fish as well as sea turtles, sharks, and other sea mammals. Opportunistic seabirds flock to longlines in hopes of an easy meal, often getting snagged.

All in all, it’s an inefficient way catch fish, and even the fisherman dislike it. The most recent tally from Johns Hopkins University estimates that in United States-controlled waters, 573 million pounds of fish are lost due to fisherman bycatch every year. This pales in comparison to the even-more striking fact that 51-63 percent of seafood is wasted at the consumer level.

Read the full story at Eater

 

IFFO WELCOMES AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FEED STANDARD CONSULTATION

July 8, 2015 — On 30th June 2015, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) issued their draft Responsible Feed Standard for public consultation. This is a welcome opportunity to comment on the proposals which form a wide ranging and demanding standard, encompassing environmental impacts, social and welfare requirements, energy usage and other criteria. The consultation document is well written, with clear guidance on where input is required and how this should be submitted.

Although the document also covers the ingredients used to manufacture compound feed, an obvious feature of the draft standard is that the vast majority of the criteria refer to ingredients from marine sources e.g. fishmeal and fish oil. The criteria for land based ingredients, whether vegetable or animal, are very brief in comparison. This is perhaps surprising given that the marine sourced raw materials are the minority of the formulation, typically 10-15% by weight.

Read the full press release from IFFO