Saving Seafood

Japan study creates model showing potential threefold profit increase for fisheries

September 6, 2019 — A new study has discovered that a model optimizing Japanese catch levels for profitability could see a 3.5-fold increase in annual profits and a 30 percent increase in biomass.

The new study – “Alternative outcomes under different fisheries management policies: A bioeconomic analysis of Japanese fisheries” –will appear in the journal Marine Policy (October 2019, Article 103646) and compares modeled outcomes under different fishery management policies. The study is the first of its kind apply profit modeling to Japanese fisheries, and compares the model with a simply maximum sustainable yield (MSY) model.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

New study reveals cost of 2017 salmon fisheries closure

May 7, 2018 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Last year’s closure of the commercial ocean salmon troll fishery off the West Coast is estimated to have cost $5.8 million to $8.9 million in lost income for fishermen, with the loss of 200 to 330 jobs, according to a new model that determines the cost of fisheries closures based on the choices fishermen make.

Scientists hope the model, described for the first time this week in Marine Policy, will help policy makers anticipate the economic toll of fisheries closures. Such foresight may be especially useful as conditions in the California Current off the West Coast grow increasingly variable, leading to more potential closures, said lead author Kate Richerson, a marine ecologist with NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the University of Washington.

“We’re probably only going to see more of these closures in the future,” she said, “so being able to predict their effects and fallout for coastal communities puts us ahead of the curve in terms of considering those impacts in planning and management decisions.”

The new model estimates the future losses associated with fisheries closures based on the way fishermen reacted to previous closures. It anticipates, for instance, that many fishermen will simply quit fishing rather than shift their efforts to another fishery instead. In this way, the model accounts for the difficulty fishermen face in entering other fisheries with limited permits, Richerson said.

The research is the first attempt to predict the effect of fisheries closures before they happen, said Dan Holland, an economist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and coauthor of the study. The model, developed prior to the 2017 closure, also can help identify the most affected communities.

For example, Coos Bay and Brookings, Oregon, and Eureka, California, were among the hardest hit by the 2017 salmon closures because they are geographically located in the center of the closure that stretched from Northern California to Oregon. The closure led to the estimated loss of about 50 percent of fisheries-related employment in Coos Bay and about 35 percent declines in fishing-related income and sales. Predicted percentage declines in overall fishing-related income are lower than declines in salmon income, since many fishermen were predicted to continue to participate in other fisheries.

The study estimated that the closure led to a loss of $12.8 million to $19.6 million in sales. Richerson noted that the model estimates only the economic consequences of the closure to the commercial ocean salmon fishery and does not include the toll on recreational fisheries or in-river fisheries, which would make the total losses even higher.

The closure recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and adopted by NOAA Fisheries was designed to protect low returns of salmon to the Klamath River in Northern California.

Learn more about NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center here.

 

New Study Shows How Much Fish Is Caught & Where

May 4 2018 — May 4, 2018 — In February, a paper published in Science Magazine mapped the “footprint” of fisheries, showing that fishing vessels are fishing in 55% of the world’s oceans. While some concluded that this study indicated immense overfishing, critics pointed out that the study did not show the intensity of fishing. However, a new paper in Marine Policy does show how much fish is caught and where. This new study is a true map of global fisheries.

The following is excerpted from an article published yesterday by Sustainable Fisheries UW:

A new paper out in Marine Policy ($) gorgeously illustrates global fisheries over the past 150 years. The figures tell the story and are cool as hell:

Where is fish caught?

Geographical representation of where fish is caught. Areas shaded by amount of catch in metric tons.

This is one of the coolest figures we’ve ever seen. You can see that areas with lower catch (like the high seas) correlate to areas with lower primary productivity—we go into further detail about primary productivity and fisheries here, in Seafood 101. A few weeks ago a different paper was published in Science that mapped the “footprint” of fisheries, essentially showing where fishing boats travel in the ocean. The paper was criticized for failing to show what the above figure shows clearly: how much fish is caught where. This is the true map of global fisheries.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

 

Mistake in fisheries statistics shows false increase in catches

February 7, 2018 — Countries’ improvements to their fisheries statistics have been contributing to the false impression that humanity is getting more and more fish from the ocean when, in reality, global marine catches have been declining on average by around 1.2 million tonnes per year since 1996.

A new study in Marine Policy explains why the reconstructed catch  of the Sea Around Us show declining , while the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations claims that catches have been more or less ‘stable’ since the 1990s. The Sea Around Us is a research initiative at the University of British Columbia and the University of Western Australia.

The problem – say authors Dirk Zeller and Daniel Pauly- occurs as an inadvertent side effect of well-intentioned efforts by countries to improve their national data monitoring and reporting systems. As they include new information, for example of a previously unmonitored or poorly-monitored fishery, region or fleet, these new data add additional catches to those of already monitored sectors, thus creating the impression of a growing trend.

But such upward tendencies in catches do not match reality in most countries because often national statistical systems do not correct their new numbers retroactively. This incidental by-product of updates in fisheries data collection systems is what Zeller and Pauly call a “presentist bias,” which means that the emphasis is on the ‘present’ at the expense of the ‘past.’

“In our paper, we use the example of Mozambique where officials reported that small-scale catches ‘grew’ by 800 per cent from 2003 to 2004. This is incorrect. What happened was that the small-scale sector was massively under-represented in the reported data for the longest time and when a new reporting scheme was put in place in the early 2000s, improved catch data by the always-present subsistence and artisanal fisheries were added. A very similar amount of fish was caught in previous years, it was just not registered in the reported data,” says Zeller, who is the lead author of the study and head of the Sea Around Us – Indian Ocean at the University of Western Australia.

Read the full story at PHYS

 

NOAA defends U.S. Fisheries

October 17, 2017 — This week, NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator, Chris Oliver, sent a letter to the editor of Marine Policy that does not mince words. In response to a new report on IUU fishing, Mr. Oliver asks the editor, “to publish a retraction, and to ensure future articles undergo adequate review to avoid publication of misleading information.”

The article in question, “Estimates of illegal and unreported seafood imports to Japan,” claims a portion of IUU seafood coming to Japan include salmon, crab, and Alaska pollock from the United States. However, these three species in particular are considered among the best managed and most closely monitored in the world. (Not to mention, they’re healthy).

A flawed methodology

Mr. Oliver calls the allegations absent of any transparency regarding the data sources and methodology used by the authors to come up with these claims. The letter goes into more detail about data and methodology concerns and then provides ample information about the robust management of U.S. Alaska pollock, salmon, and crab fisheries.

Read the full story at the National Fisheries Institute

Read the letter from Chris Oliver to Marine Policy at NOAA

Walton Foundation Flops As NOAA Demands an Outrageous Paper They Funded on IUU Fishing be Retracted

October 17, 2017 — Seafood News — The Head of NOAA Fisheries, Chris Oliver, has called for a major paper on IUU fishing published in Marine Policy to be retracted in its entirety due to egregious factual errors and misreporting as regards US fisheries.

The paper, Estimates of Illegal and Unreported Seafood Imports to Japan,  was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WFF).The lead author, Ganapathiraju Pramod conceived the design, conducted the study, analyzed information and drafted the paper. He has made a career out of constructing a model of trade in illegal fisheries, and has previously published a paper claiming up to 32% of US Fisheries Imports are from IUU fish.

He used the same basic methodology in both papers.  First, he develops estimates for trade flows, including fish processed in 3rd countries.  Then he searches for all possible indications of IUU fishing from news accounts, literature citations, government and fisheries association reports, consultants reports, NGO reports, Oral or Written interviews, and finally, peer reviewed academic papers.

He takes the mishmash of sources and assigns a weight to IUU fishing in each major sourcing area.

In the Marine Policy paper, he concluded that 24% to 36% by weight of seafood imported into Japan in 2015 came from IUU fishing.

The reasons NOAA called for the complete retraction of the paper can be seen in his estimates of IUU catches of Alaska Pollock, Crab, and Salmon.

He estimates that out of the 122,280 tons of US Alaska pollock products exported to Japan in 2015, from 15% to 22% (26,901 tons) came from IUU fisheries.

To put this in perspective, his estimate would mean about 20% of surimi destined for Japan is produced from IUU fish.  Since US surimi is produced by vessels with 100% onboard observer coverage, or in plants that are meticulously inspected and required to pay tax on all fish landed in Alaska, it seems that the authors are living in some alternate universe where their own perspective replaces hard facts.

So how does the paper get from the fact that the US Alaska pollock fishery is one of the cleanest, most transparent, industrialized, and most highly regulated fisheries in the world, to a claim that 20% of their exports are illegal fish.

He does so through the murky process of conflating all his sources where ever any source has mentioned a fisheries problem.  So for example, if a source wrote about high grading Alaska pollock, or roe stripping (both activities which would be impossible to hide from the 100% observer coverage), he then applies this to the export numbers and assumes a certain percentage of the charge must be true.

Writing to Marine Policy, Chris Oliver said “the Bering Sea pollock industry has long-established and contractually binding requirements among all vessels to share all catch data with an independent third-party. Discard of pollock is prohibited. Were it to occur, discard and high-grading of pollock would be detected by the numerous monitoring and enforcements provisions in place, and would result in a significant enforcement action.”

On Salmon, Oliver says “The authors’ suggestion that sockeye and coho salmon taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries makes its way to Japan as IUU product is a particularly egregious example of inadequate research and flawed conclusions. Easily accessible and publically available reports indicate that Chinook salmon in Alaska and along the West Coast of the U.S. and chum salmon in Alaska are the predominant species taken incidentally in trawl fisheries. Bycatch of sockeye and coho across all trawl (and for that matter, most other gear types) is de minimis, and occurs primarily in the highly-monitored pollock fishery.”

The paper claims that between 2200 and 4400 tons of Illegal salmon are caught in Alaska and exported to Japan.  The authors likely don’t realize that monitoring of salmon bycatch by trawl fisheries is highly developed in Alaska, with vessels reporting bycatch down to the individual fish.  These fish cannot be legally sold.

It is quite likely that the authors have confused US practices where bycatch is highly regulated with those in Russia, where the pollock fleet is allowed to keep whatever salmon they catch, and that salmon is subsequently sold in the commercial market.  The Russian system does not require that pollock vessels identify the species of salmon; and it assumes all pollock vessel bycatch of salmon is legal.

The authors make a similar mistake with US crab fisheries, once again assuming that because they have heard people talk about IUU crab in some instance, therefore up to 18*% of the US crab exports to Japan represent illegal fishing.  As anyone in the crab industry will tell you, this is simply laughable, given the regulatory oversight and close inspection of the Bering Sea snow crab and king crab fisheries.

Furthermore, most of the crab exports to Japan are made by very large exporting companies.  None of these major companies would allow their business or their markets to be jeopardized by engaging in illegal behavior.  The fact that the authors accept their model output without thinking twice about the real-world implications is the key reason they should withdraw their paper.

In short, this paper has sullied the reputation of all associated with it, because it is such an egregious example of constructing a fantasy world and then justifying it with a numeric model.

There has been a problem of IUU fish imports to Japan, especially in the crab and tuna fisheries.

if the authors had looked at the real world instead of just models, they would have seen that since the Russia-Japanese agreement on documentation for crab vessels, illegal live crab landings in Japan have dwindled to nearly zero.  In fact, plants closed, the supply chain shifted, and the market felt a huge impact in the collapse of IUU crab fishing to Japan.  But none of this makes it into the paper.

The problem here is that papers such as this one are based on fantasy but they become the basis for NGO claims about generalized IUU fishing, and they take away resources, attention and commitments from actions that actually address some of the problems.  These include the Port State Measures agreement, universal vessel registration in the tuna fisheries, US, Japanese, and EU import traceability requirements, all of which have served to dramatically reduce the marketability of IUU fish products.

NOAA is right to demand Marine Policy retract this paper and submit it to additional peer review,  if it is ever to be published again.

The Walton Family Foundation also needs to think about its own reputation.  Although they do fund many important fishery projects, allowing a paper as misguided as this to result from their funding actually undermines their efforts to promote sustainable seafood, because it sows doubts about their competence and understanding of fisheries issues.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Could a Shark Fin Ban Actually Be Bad for Sharks?

Two scientists have argued that the United States’ proposed shark fin ban may not have the intended benefits.

September 26, 2017 — At first blush, a proposed national ban on shark fins in the United States would seem like a good thing for sharks. Shark fishing has been blamed for the decline in a number of shark species, and specifically fins, which typically find their way into shark fin soup, create their own problems. Since the fin is the most valuable part of a shark, some fisherman use a practice called “finning”—already banned in the U.S.—where the fins are removed from the shark (sometimes while still alive) and then the rest of the animal is disposed of. Banning the fins all together sounds like a simple way to end all these issues once and for all. However, in a paper published this month in the journal Marine Policy, marine scientists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter present a different argument: such a ban actually “would undermine sustainable shark fisheries.”

According to the office of New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, over 100 scientists have come out in support of the bill he introduced this past March seeking to ban shark fins. But of course, there are two sides to every story, and according to the Associated Press, Shiffman and Hueter essentially state that when it comes to shark fishing, America is one of the few places that actually practices sustainability, so why mess it?

“Removing that from the marketplace removes a template of a well-managed fishery,” Shiffman told the AP. “It’s much easier for us to say, here’s a way you can do this.” His paper also suggests that since the U.S. is such a small part of the worldwide shark fin trade, a ban in the U.S. would simply be made up for by more fishing elsewhere.

Read the full story at Food & Wine

Shark fin bans might not help sharks, scientists say

September 25, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — As lawmakers propose banning the sale of shark fins in the U.S., a pair of scientists is pushing back, saying the effort might actually harm attempts to conserve the marine predators.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced a bill this year designed to prevent people from possessing or selling shark fins in America, much to the delight of conservation groups such as Oceana. But marine scientists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter said this approach could be wrongheaded.

Shiffman and Hueter authored a study that appears in the November issue of the journal Marine Policy, saying the U.S. has long been a leader in shark fisheries management and that shutting down the U.S. fin trade entirely would remove a model for sustainability for the rest of the world.

The U.S. also is a minor contributor to the worldwide shark fin trade, and countries with less regulated fisheries would likely step in to fill the void if America left the business altogether, Shiffman said.

“Removing that from the marketplace removes a template of a well-managed fishery,” Shiffman, a shark researcher with Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, said. “It’s much easier for us to say, here’s a way you can do this.”

Shark fins are most often used in a soup considered a delicacy in Asia. Shark fins that American fishermen harvest are often shipped to Asia for processing.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Bangor Daily News

Shark Fin Ban Is Misguided, Would Undermine Sustainable U.S. Shark Fisheries, Say Experts

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 14, 2017 – A ban on shark fin sales in the United States would undermine some of the planet’s most sustainable shark fisheries while harming global shark conservation efforts, according to two prominent shark scientists.

In a paper published this month in Marine Policy, Dr. David Shiffman, a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., and Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla., call proposed Congressional legislation banning the sale or purchase of shark fins in the United States “misguided.” Environmental group Oceana is pushing the legislation, known as the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act.

In an interview with Saving Seafood, Dr. Shiffman said the legislation was “well-intentioned” but “overly simplistic.” By withdrawing from the global shark fin market, the United States would remove incentives for its trading partners to build sustainable shark fisheries, and would eliminate an important example of sustainable shark fisheries management, he said.

“We’re a relatively small percentage of the overall trade in shark fins, so banning the trade of shark fins within the U.S. will not have that much of a direct impact on shark mortality,” Dr. Shiffman told Saving Seafood. “But we’re a really high percentage of the sustainably caught, well-managed shark fishery. So removing us from the global marketplace for fins doesn’t help save that many sharks, but it removes this sustainable fishery from the marketplace as a template that can be copied.”

According to Dr. Shiffman, U.S. shark fisheries are built on a strong mix of “scientific research infrastructure” and “management and enforcement infrastructure,” which has helped make them some of the most sustainable in the world. His coauthor, Dr. Hueter, told Saving Seafood that enacting a shark fin ban would undermine decades of progress that went into building those sustainable fisheries.

“We have done a great job working together to rebuild the fish, and at least make the fisheries sustainable and profitable,” Dr. Hueter said. “And that is why this fin ban, in our opinion, is so misguided. Because after all these decades of work to get us to a great point with a bright future, this sort of ban would just cut the legs out from underneath the fishery. It would cause waste, put people out of business who are doing things right, and reward the folks in other nations who are not doing things well.”

Much of the public remains unaware of the sustainable status of most U.S. shark fisheries, a phenomenon the authors attribute to confusion over key issues related to shark conservation. In particular, many do not understand the difference between “shark finning” – the inhumane and illegal practice of removing a shark’s fins at sea – and sustainable landings of whole sharks required by U.S. law. Finning is “just this boogeyman of shark conservation activists,” Dr. Shiffman said. “People don’t understand what shark finning means in many cases.”

“We have sounded the alarm now for 20 years or more about this thing called finning to the point where we’ve gotten people so upset about it that they no longer listen to the subtle difference between finning and fishing,” Dr. Hueter said. “And they think that all sharks that are caught by commercial fishermen are finned animals.”

Should a total fin ban be enacted, rule-following U.S. fishermen would be economically harmed, the authors write in their paper, noting that nearly a quarter of the total value of shark meat sales comes from shark fins. Forcing fishermen to throw out fins from sustainably caught sharks would be wasteful, contradicting a United Nations plan of action to create “full use” in global shark fisheries, they write.

Instead of a fin ban, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Hueter support policies focused on sustainable shark fisheries management. Dr. Hueter recommended five ways fishery managers could pursue this goal: increase penalties for those caught finning sharks, which Florida did earlier this year; stop imports of shark products from countries that don’t practice sustainable shark fishing; incentivize the domestic industry to process shark fins within the U.S. and provide for the domestic demand; closely monitor U.S. shark populations and support strict measures for sustainability; and increase public education about the problems facing global shark populations.

“Banning is always the easiest thing,” Dr. Hueter said. “Making the fishery so it’s regulated and sustainable and smart, that’s hard. But we shouldn’t be choosing things based on what sounds good or what feels good. We should be doing things based on what works.”

There is broad support in the scientific community for sustainable shark fisheries. In a recent survey of over 100 members of scientific research societies focusing on sharks and rays, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Neil Hammerschlag, a marine ecologist at the University of Miami, found that 90 percent preferred sustainable management to a total ban on the sale of shark products. Dr. Shiffman believes that sustainable fisheries can go hand in hand with shark conservation.

“I am glad to see that the best available data, over and over again, is showing that we can have healthy shark populations while still having sustainable, well-managed fisheries that employ fishermen and provide protein to the global marketplace,” said Dr. Shiffman, who also writes for the marine science blog Southern Fried Science and frequently comments on shark conservation issues on Twitter. “We don’t need to choose between the environment and jobs in this case if we do it correctly.”

New Study Reveals High Risk of Illegal Seafood Imports Entering Japanese Market

August 1, 2017 — TOKYO, Japan — A new paper published in the journal of Marine Policy estimates that 24–36% of 2.15 million tonnes of wild-seafood imports to Japan in 2015, valued at $1.6 to $2.4 billion, were of illegal or unreported origin.

The investigation, conducted by a team of leading researchers from the University of British Columbia (UBC), assessed 27 seafood products coming from 9 leading source countries to Japan; some products such as imported Chinese eel were found to be up to 45-75% illegally harvested. Although Japan has taken recent steps to address the illegal seafood problem including the ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement, stronger actions must be taken to prevent illegal products from entering one of the world’s largest markets.

The current import control system in Japan—one of the top three seafood markets globally—poses very little deterrent to the entry of illegal seafood. Japan has yet to implement the same anti-IUU and traceability standards as the US and Europe, including a lack of import regulations to verify product legality. Although a limited catch documentation scheme is implemented for Bluefin tuna, Russian crab, and Patagonian Toothfish, as part of Japan’s commitments to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) and other international agreements, such arrangements do not apply to the bulk of its seafood imports.

Read the full story at Ocean Outcomes