Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

JOHN SACKTON: Media’s Rampant ‘Fisheries Are Going Extinct’ Claim Finally has Serious Rebuttal from Scientists

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editor’s View] by John Sackton — Nov 3, 2015 — The following headline came across our newsfeed this morning “Some South China Sea fish ‘close to extinction'”, courtesy of Agence France Presse.

The report was based on a quote from Rashid Sumaila, director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit of the University of British Columbia.

“The South China Sea is… under threat from various sources. We need to do something,” said Sumaila.

“The most scary thing is the level of decline we have seen over the years. Some species (are facing) technically extinction or depletion,” Sumaila, who headed the study, told a press conference in Hong Kong. 

Having not seen the paper, it is not possible to evaluate his statements. But they are readily taken up because they feed into a media narrative that has proved very hard to change: fisheries around the world are dying because of human greed and overfishing.  This narrative has been central to NGO campaigns focused on fisheries. 

For many years, there was no organized response, and especially no way for journalists to get accurate scientific information. If they were fed a quote, such as “90% of the worlds stocks were unsustainably harvested” as appeared in Newsweek this summer, or that fish is ‘aquatic bushmeat’ comparable to eating monkeys and rhinoceros, as was said by Sylvia Earle, they have no way to evaluate its truthfulness. No wonder that seafood seems so controversial.

A group of scientists has come together through Ray Hilborn and his colleagues at the University of Washington, that is finally providing real-time commentary and rebuttal – i.e. pointing out the basic science – which in many cases does not support these media stories. 

Our companion story today by Peggy Parker has more detail on Hilborn’s rebuttal to Newsweek, where he said one article ‘may set a record for factual errors’.

The idea is not to simply point out poor science and unsupported conclusions, but to encourage media to use their website cfooduw.org, as a resource whenever they see a scientific claim about fisheries.

For example, just in the past few days, scientists from around the world have posted comments on a range of global topics.

Hilborn pointed out, and the Newsweek editors accepted, a correction that not 90%, but 28.8% of fish stocks were estimated as overfished. Would they have run the story if they had not been pitched intitally that 90% of fish stocks have collapsed?

Steve Cadrin of the University of Massachusetts comments on recent articles about cod in both New England and Newfoundland.  He says “The lesson from both of these papers is that rebuilding the stocks to historical levels depends both on fisheries management … and on the return of favorable environmental conditions.” 

“Stock assessment models are simplifications of a much more complex reality. Stock assessments typically assume that components of productivity (survival from natural mortality, reproductive rates, growth) are relatively constant. These assumptions may be reasonable for relatively stable ecosystems. However, considering the extreme climate change experienced in the Gulf of Maine, such assumptions need to be re-considered.  Alternative approaches to science and management are needed to help preserve the fishing communities that rely on Gulf of Maine cod.” 

Two tuna scientists collaborate on a story in response to the charge by Greenpeace that John West is breaking its sustainable tuna pledge by buying fish caught with FADs.

FADs are a type of fishing gear (radio monitored fish aggregating devices) that have become very widely used for pelagic tuna. The two scientists, Laurent Dagorn and Gala Moreno, point out in a comment and a recent paper the important issues with FADs are 1) quantifying, with scientific data, how big that impact actually is, 2) determining if the impact is acceptable for the amount and diversity of fish caught, 3) comparing it with the impact of other fishing gears, and 4) implementing measures to reduce an impact if it is too high for the ecosystem, taking into account all fishing impacts. 

This provides a real road map for a discussion of FADs and how they should or should not be used, in contrast to the campaign claims that they are simply destructive types of fishing gear.  Dagorn and Moreno point out that all food production (including organic farming) involves making choices about modifying ecosystems, and tuna fishing should not be considered in isolation, but in how it meets the goal of providing food for global populations.

Aggregating and making this kind of fisheries science easily accessible is one of the most concrete actions that has been taken in years to counteract the misinformation that so many of us in the industry experience every day. 

It is an effort that deserves wholehearted support, including publicizing the resource to local writers and editors. Please visit their website at cfooduw.org.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

JOHN SACKTON: WWF Attacks GSSI, Declares FAO Not an Acceptable Guide to Sustainability

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editor’s View] by John Sackton — October 15, 2015 — In a stunning display of arrogance and hubris, WWF which served on the Board of GSSI, (Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative) has come out with guns blazing against the GSSI benchmarking tool. WWF claims that certification schemes that meet the GSSI benchmark ‘do not indicate sustainability certification.’ (link)

This stance of WWF, designed entirely to protect their investment in their own model programs, namely the Marine Stewardship Council and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, spits in the face of the FAO Seafood Sustainability documents, which were recently called the most significant multilateral agreements to advance sustainability undertaken by the entire FAO organization.

The FAO Code of Conduct and Ecolabel Guidelines are best practice documents ratified by more than 170 governments, which constitute a legal basis for these governments to set laws and policy that results in long term fisheries sustainability.

At the recent 20th anniversary celebrations of this achievement in Vigo, Spain, FAO personnel showed how this set of documents and practices has essentially stopped the downward slide of fisheries that reached a crisis point in the 1990’s.

Indeed, when compared to other global problems from deforestation, falling biodiversity and extinction, and global warming, the FAO Responsible Fishing documents stand out as having had a profound impact on national laws and legislation that put science first, end overfishing in some areas, and above all begin to reverse the fisheries crisis that became acute in the 1990’s.

Now the WWF seeks to undermine that progress, by frightening retailers and seeking to perpetuate the global consumer confusion over what constitutes a sustainable fishery.

The WWF says “These ‘essential components’ designated by GSSI, can be used to evaluate whether certification schemes are consistent with the FAO CCRF and Guidelines, but not whether they certify sustainable fisheries or farms .”

Instead, the WWF wants the global retail community to adopt the WWF version of sustainability, which they themselves have said can only apply to the top 20% of a given sector.

The reason is that the WWF is not interested in a measure of sustainability, but rather in instituting a system of continuous improvement where the WWF and its allies determine what improvements are needed.

This is the exact opposite of the continuous improvement process of the Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Book of Food”), which is the collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety. When people’s lives, health, and economic well being are at stake, continuous improvement is done through a rigorous process of scientific review and consensus adoption.  This is the same process used to improve and extend the FAO code of conduct.  But the WWF rejects this approach and instead claims only the WWF and its allies can design a continuously improving sustainability process.

For example, in their statement today they say “the GSSI essential components are not a sustainability benchmark and, as such, do not reflect best practice.”  Companies wanting to source sustainable seafood will need to consider additional criteria, including but not limited to the GSSI “supplementary” criteria. ”

WWF then goes on to suggest that “The GSSI tool does not consider social issues impacting the sustainability of fishing operations. ”

The reason the GSSI does not reflect social issues is because the tool began with an environmental and marine conservation mandate. The best practices to achieve sustainability under that mandate were negotiated and accepted as a legal document by more than 170 governments.

As social issues have become more prominent in the seafood sector, the agricultural sector, and the migrant labor sector, new norms of responsible social behavior are emerging within many appropriate UN international bodies, including the International Labor Organization. As these practices become codified, it may be possible for even the GSSI to adopt a Social Chapter, but for the WWF to criticize them for not having this is simply to try and undermine their strengths so as to maintain WWF’s position as arbiter of global marine and aquaculture sustainability.

At the heart of the dispute within the GSSI board has been the issue of whether the GSSI benchmark is a “pass/fail” benchmark, that provides a minimum credible standard meeting all the scientific and operational requirements for seafood and aquaculture sustainability, or whether GSSI simply becomes a ranking scheme where some participants, like MSC, are awarded A+, while other participants, like Viet Gap, are awarded a D-.

The NGO’s wanted the ranking scheme because they were unalterably opposed to a fundamental aspect of the FAO Mission: not allowing certification schemes to be used as trade barriers to prevent the international marketing of seafood from less developed countries.

A year ago, FAO informed the GSSI board that such ranking schemes were not compatible with the FAO documents on which seafood certifications were based. They said that if the NGOs on the GSSI Board insisted on such a ranking scheme, FAO would withdraw its support from GSSI.

Since every certification scheme on the planet, including the MSC and the ASC, claim they are founded based on the FAO fishing and ecolabeling principles, such a withdrawal would have exposed the NGO scheme for what it was: a power grab to prevent competition, especially to prevent government sanctioned schemes from becoming acceptable in the marketplace.

The GSSI board sided firmly with the FAO, and agreed that the every certification scheme that met the GSSI essential components would be certified as credibly meeting the FAO guidelines.

They retained the optional elements to allow various schemes to demonstrate particular skills or interests in different areas – but not to claim that only those areas represented the true measure of sustainability.

WWF is a major partner with a number of retailers and foodservice companies who are 100% committed to GSSI. In this case, their partners will have to tell them that the long term project of global seafood sustainability is more important than protecting the WWF’s own certification schemes.

Every major buyer has their own specifications.  In some cases it might be that suppliers adhere to a carbon budget, in others it might be a minimum wage, or contract transparancy.  Not every purchase specification has to be bound into a definition of “sustainability.”  When WWF argues that this is the only option, they are simply trying to assert a monopoly claim that only WWF sanctioned schemes are ‘sustainable.’

“WWF is concerned that the GSSI tool will lead to further confusion in the marketplace and sustainable sourcing claims that aren’t credible, ” said Richard Holland, Director, WWF Market Transformation Initiative. “We hope that GSSI will continue to strive to provide clarity to its supporters by ensuring that claims of meeting GSSI components reflect meeting the CCRF and FAO Guidelines, not certification of sustainable seafood, that the assessment guidance is clear and applied consistently, and that assessments are completed accurately by independent experts. ”

What Holland failed to understand is that the GSSI tool as released is incredibly strict and robust, and that it represents a real accomplishment for a certification scheme to meet its requirements.

But more importantly, WWF and Holland failed to see how valuable the GSSI is as a roadmap.

If a country like Vietnam or Indonesia wants to design laws, practices and enforcement mechanisms that can be certified by a third party as meeting the GSSI criteria, they need a road map. They need to know where to improve, where to put their resources, where to invest.

The WWF wants to overthrow all of that, and replace it with the slogan “Ask the WWF.” This is simply not a valid option for the 170+ countries that have committed to the FAO code.

The fact that WWF would fail to grasp how significant the GSSI is in advancing global seafood sustainability, and would in fact publicly try to undermine it by pissing on it to their retail and foodservice partners, is the ultimate act of selfish corruption.

In this case, WWF is stating its own institutional pride and power is more important than one of the greatest advances in global seafood sustainability in a generation.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

NMFS Moves to Add Marine Mammal Rules Similar to Turtle Excluder Laws; May Ban Some Seafood Imports

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — August 11, 2015 — NOAA Fisheries has published a notice in the Federal Register today about rules for foreign seafood exporters regarding marine mammals.

Although there is a five year window for implementation, the new rules would require certification for any export fishery that interacts with marine mammals. Unless the foreign country had a program certified as effective by NMFS for reducing marine mammal bycatch mortality, exports from that fishery would be prohibited into the US.

The operation of the program appears similar to the Turtle Excluder Laws, which require tropical shrimp producing countries to certify the use of turtle excluders for wild shrimp, if they intend to export such shrimp to the US.

Over the years, exports have been suspended from some countries for failure to comply, with the most recent being Mexico whose wild shrimp exports were suspended for a year.

Fisheries that interact with marine mammals include yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, where dolphins are at risk, many longline fisheries that have marine mammal bycatch; large scale driftnet fisheries, and even potentially pot fisheries like lobster.

In the US, lobster gear has been modified to reduce whale interactions, and entanglement is recognized as the leading cause for marine mammal bycatch globally.

In order to export to the US, once the rule is fully in effect, a foreign country would have to meet the following qualifying conditions before a fishery that interacts with marine mammals could export to the US:

1. Marine mammal stock assessments that estimate population abundance for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export fishery;

2. An export fishery register containing a list of all vessels participating in an export fishery under the jurisdiction of the harvesting nation, including the number of vessels participating, information on gear type, target species, fishing season, and fishing area for each export fishery;

3. Regulatory requirements (e. g., including copies of relevant laws, decrees, and implementing regulations or measures) that include:

(a) A requirement for the owner or operator of vessels participating in the fishery to report all intentional and incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations; and

(b) A requirement to implement measures in export fisheries designed to reduce the total incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit. Such measures may include: Bycatch reduction devices; incidental mortality and serious injury limits; careful release and safe-handling of marine mammals and gear removal; gear marking; bycatch avoidance gear (e. g., pingers) ; gear modifications or restrictions; or time- area closures.

4. Implementation of monitoring procedures in export fisheries designed to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in each export fishery under its jurisdiction, as well as estimates of cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export fishery and other export fisheries with the same marine mammal stock, including an indication of the statistical reliability of those estimates;

5. Calculation of bycatch limits for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in an export fishery;

6. Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these export fisheries: (a) Does not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks; or

(b) Exceeds the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for which the exporting fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the other export fisheries interacting with the same marine mammal stock or stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks.

The next step will be a formal comment period, after which NOAA will issue the final rule.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

One reason you’re shelling out more for lobster? China

August 6, 2015 — CHINA — Prices for lobster meat have hit record highs in the U.S. this year thanks to surging demand from China and environmental factors such as the unseasonably cold winter. This comes two years after prices for the tasty shellfish hit a 20-year low because of a supply glut.

In recent years, China, which consumes 35 percent of the world’s seafood, has taken an increasingly larger bite out of the lobster market, where it is considered both a delicacy and symbol of good luck because of its red color. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shellfish exports rose 8 percent in fiscal year 2014 and 20 percent of them went to China.

“China is a huge factor,” said John Sackton, editor and publisher of the trade news site SeafoodNews.com, in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. “They have become a year-round consumer of live and frozen lobster. They are a permanent factor in the market now.”

According to market research firm Urner Barry, wholesale prices for lobster meat, which is mainly sold to food service customers, are about $22.50 per pound, up more than 30 percent from a year earlier. According the company, prices haven’t been this high in decades and are at unprecedented levels.

Read the full story at CBS News 

 

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Recent Headlines

  • A Story About Whales & Scallops in Maine
  • Western Pacific Fishermen Losing Last Vestiges of U.S. Waters Open to Fishing; Council Frustrated
  • University of Idaho study shows climate change is shrinking natural habitat for salmon
  • MAINE: Gov. Mills announcing more than $15 million for seafood industry
  • IFFO, SFP convene roundtable to improve sustainability of global fishmeal, fish oil sector
  • Simulator Helps Researchers Envision Commercial Offshore Wind Farm In Maryland
  • Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone Smaller Than Previous Years Due To Mild May Temperatures
  • New criteria for Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish and Red Drum management

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon Scallops South Atlantic Tuna Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2022 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions