Saving Seafood

Nils E. Stolpe/FishNet USA: “Fish Wars” or a Regime Shift in Ocean Governance?

October 2, 2017 — The reasons for Big Oil’s (now more accurately Big Energy’s) focus on fisheries – and on demonizing fishing and fishermen – has been fairly obvious since a coalition of fishermen and environmentalists successfully stopped energy exploration on Georges Bank in the early 80s. Using a handful of ocean oriented ENGOs as their agents, the Pew Charitable Trusts and other “charitable” trusts funded a hugely expensive campaign that the domestic fishing industry is still suffering from, but that campaign has paid off handsomely to the entities that participated in or funded it.

However, the entry of Philadelphia’s Lenfest Foundation into the fray, particularly considering that operational control was delegated to Pew, appeared to put the participation of other foundations with roots in the high tech area in a different light. Packard, Moore and Lenfest all working together with Pew et al to scuttle the public image and “revolutionize” the financial and social underpinnings of an entire industry in an apparently coordinated way started to make some sense (read more here).

But my thinking on this was further crystallized after reading a recent article in the New York Times. From the February 22, 2016 Fishnet:

“The authors (of the most recent Daniel Pauly assault on commercial fishing) acknowledge, and it will probably come as no surprise to most readers, “that The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, funded the Sea Around Us from 1999 to 2014, during which the bulk of the catch reconstruction work was performed.” However, it might be news that “since mid-2014, the Sea Around Us has been funded mainly by The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.” If anyone wonders why one of the founders of Microsoft might be interested in supporting research by Daniel Pauly, from an article in the NY Times last week  – Microsoft Plumbs Ocean’s Depths to Test Underwater Data Center)

“REDMOND, Wash. — Taking a page from Jules Verne, researchers at Microsoft believe the future of data centers may be under the sea. Microsoft has tested a prototype of a self-contained data center that can operate hundreds of feet below the surface of the ocean, eliminating one of the technology industry’s most expensive problems: the air-conditioning bill. Today’s data centers, which power everything from streaming video to social networking and email, contain thousands of computer servers generating lots of heat. When there is too much heat, the servers crash. Putting the gear under cold ocean water could fix the problem. It may also answer the exponentially growing energy demands of the computing world be-cause Microsoft is considering pairing the system either with a turbine or a tidal energy system to generate electricity. The effort, code-named Project Natick, might lead to strands of giant steel tubes linked by fiber optic cables placed on the seafloor. Another possibility would suspend containers shaped like jelly beans beneath the surface to capture the ocean current with turbines that generate electricity.”

Of course this needs to be coupled with Microsoft’s commitment to the future of “cloud computing” (for those readers who have successfully avoided advanced nerdhood up until now, the “cloud” is just a lot of web-connected servers housed in what are called server farms. Server farms are becoming increasingly expensive to operate shoreside – see the NY Times article linked above) and do a Google search on “Microsoft cloud future” to see where the tech industry thinks Microsoft is heading vis a vis cloud computing.

Is it possible that in the near future we’ll be reading foundation-funded research reports from our neighbors in British Columbia “proving” that submerged server farms put in place by the well-known Redmond conservationists provide much needed shelter for a myriad of marine creatures that are threatened by those rapacious fisher-men? Or that Marine Protected Areas are a really logical place to put those submerged servers?”

If you haven’t fully embraced the high-tech, internet-based wonders that are now easily and affordably available to virtually all of us – how about a Brita water purifier that will automatically order another filter before the old one needs replacing? – the major impetus for this seems to be to get folks to spend money without consciously deciding to do so. Propping this all up, making it possible, is “cloud computing” enabling you to receive a Brita filter and to get Amazon and Brita handsomely paid for getting it to you without you being involved.

With the increase in web-connected, web-enabled, web-anythinged appliances, processes, monitors, alarms, lighting and who knows what else in the future, and in hi-definition video and music streaming, a rapid growth in the capacity of the so-called cloud, which is going to become increasingly crowded, is guaranteed. That means that the demand for server farms will be increasing as well – and the closer those server farms are to the demand (population centers), the more efficient they will be.

As the Microsoft interest clearly demonstrates, alternatives to land based server farms in close proximity to population centers are going to become a high priority, and the only alternative is going to be siting them in the ocean – which offers the additional benefit of significantly reducing, or perhaps eliminating, cooling costs.

These sub-surface server farms will be as compatible with fishing as offshore power generation or the petroleum industry are. Would there be a more rational solution to what has already become a significant problem, given hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank, than for these high tech industries that are committed to a future in the oceans, than to marginalize fishermen.

Read the full opinion piece at FishNet USA

Nations Will Start Talks to Protect Fish of the High Seas

August 2, 2017 — UNITED NATIONS — More than half of the world’s oceans belong to no one, which often makes their riches ripe for plunder.

Now, countries around the world have taken the first step to protect the precious resources of the high seas. In late July, after two years of talks, diplomats at the United Nations recommended starting treaty negotiations to create marine protected areas in waters beyond national jurisdiction — and in turn, begin the high-stakes diplomatic jostling over how much to protect and how to enforce rules.

“The high seas are the biggest reserve of biodiversity on the planet,” Peter Thomson, the ambassador of Fiji and current president of the United Nations General Assembly, said in an interview after the negotiations. “We can’t continue in an ungoverned way if we are concerned about protecting biodiversity and protecting marine life.”

Without a new international system to regulate all human activity on the high seas, those international waters remain “a pirate zone,” Mr. Thomson said.

Lofty ambitions, though, are likely to collide with hard-knuckled diplomatic bargaining. Some countries resist the creation of a new governing body to regulate the high seas, arguing that existing regional organizations and rules are sufficient. The commercial interests are powerful. Russian and Norwegian vessels go to the high seas for krill fishing; Japanese and Chinese vessels go there for tuna. India and China are exploring the seabed in international waters for valuable minerals. Many countries are loath to adopt new rules that would constrain them.

Read the full story at the New York Times

Western Pacific Council Director Says MPAs Must Be Targeted and Scientifically Supported

January 31, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Targeted and scientifically established Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in Pacific waters would have a better chance of attaining specific environmental goals according to Kitty Simonds, the Executive Director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Simonds comments explaining this position were published last week on Professor Ray Hilborn’s Cfood blog.

They were in response to three specific questions CFOOD posed to fishery scientists about the US government’s use of MPAs.

The questions were:

What is the utility of setting MPA targets?
Do MPAs need to be No Take Zones (NTZs)?
What is the utility and wisdom of creating large ocean MPAs?

Following are Simond’s complete responses to each question.

1: The utility of targets — specifically 30%, but also the creation of appropriate targets for MPAs:

In the Western Pacific, 53% of the collective EEZ or 26% of the total US EEZ has been made through Presidential authority intono take MPAs, as blue legacies for Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. The issue of targets for us in the Western Pacific has thus become moot. These areas were established with little scientific evidence, and with promises of jobs and tourist dollars, all of which have failed to materialize.

Further, most of the vulnerable habitats in the Western Pacific have been protected for a long time by smaller MPAs that were part of the management of coral reef and associated ecosystems by State, Federal and Territorial Governments. Thus the target percentage becomesmeaningless, unless expressed as percent of a given habitat type, and the objectives of the closure.

2: The need for MPAs to be “No Take Zones” (NTZs):

Current MPA theory indicates that NTZs will typically accumulate biomass but from a fisheries management standpoint there should be a payoff from spillover and recruitment enhancement. Unfortunately, recent research using a number of different techniques shows that the Main Hawaiian Islands are isolated in terms of resource management and will not receivesubstantial subsidy from the large MPA in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The MHI must stand alone in management of marine resources.

This nicely illustrates the need for a much more intensive process to implement MPAs, with clearly defined goals, realistic expectations of benefits, review schedules and mechanisms to modify the MPA. Most of the large MPAs in the Western Pacific are isolated by distance and remote from most of the population. Only foreign fishing vessels, government vessels, or expensive well-equipped ocean going private vessels have the ability to reach these areas, so increased tourist traffic is highly unlikely.

3: The utility and overall wisdom of large ocean MPAs:

Largeopen ocean MPAs have been tried in the Western Pacific, when two large high seas pockets were closed, by the Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission but fishing mortality for tunas did not fall as the effort did not decline but moved into neighboring EEZs. Further, highly migratory species by virtue of their life history will move through large ocean MPAs and thus become vulnerable to fishing.

Moreover, with climate change, the static nature of MPAs, large and small, may be called into question if they have no mechanism to be modified or relocated if species distributions change. Establishing an MPA is often seen as the target gain, with no real consideration apart from vaguely defined benefits, nor with the dynamic aspects of ecosystems in mind.

This story originally appear on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

JIM MEEK: Sure, let’s protect the oceans, but we still need to fish

November 7, 2016 — Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are getting as common as hipster sightings along the south end of Agricola Street.

Just last week, the world’s largest MPA (600,000 square miles) was announced for Antarctica’s Ross Sea.

The new MPA was the result of a multilateral negotiating marathon involving nations that don’t get along — like Russia and the U.S. — so let’s hope it all works out for the environment.

Speaking of the Americans, their outgoing president has burnished his legacy by using executive orders to announce two massive “national marine monuments” off Hawaii and New England.

By massive, I mean 5,000 square miles of MPA territory. We’re not talking the Sailors’ Monument in Point Pleasant Park here, or the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen.

Normally, Americans declare marine sanctuaries instead of marine monuments, but the former would involve pre-consultation with a bunch of noisy people including disgruntled fishermen — who can raise an awful ruckus once they’re riled up.

So Barack Obama got around all that “let’s-listen-to-the-people-first” nonsense by declaring marine monuments under a century-plus old piece of legislation called the Antiquities Act.

So, you’re asking yourself, who can blame a president for using an executive order or two during his last months in office?

New England fishermen, that’s who.

David Borden, who represents offshore lobstermen, goes straight and smart to the heart of the matter.

Environmental groups keep saying the neglected waters are pristine, but ignore the inconvenient truth that they remain blue, serene, and contented after decades of continuous fishing.

Borden’s argument: If the water’s pure, why kick the lobster and crab fishermen out while oil tankers still crisscross the North Atlantic without swearing allegiance to Greenpeace?

Read the full story at The Chronicle Herald

Skepticism About Marine Protected Areas

October 24th, 2016 — When looking at proposals for marine protected areas (MPAs) – such as the Biscayne National Park marine reserve and Our Florida Reefs proposals – it’s important to analyze all of the threats to our fisheries. MPAs can be an important tool in fisheries management, but they do nothing to address temperature rise, ocean acidification, pollution or invasive species. In a recent video by University of Washington Professor Ray Hilborn, he discusses why he is an MPA skeptic:

“The only threat that marine protected areas protect the ocean from is legal, regulated fishing, and we have a whole range of ways of regulating fisheries that are much more effective than marine protected areas.”

Unfortunately, the plans for the Biscayne marine reserve and Our Florida Reefs are based on an over-generalized assumption that MPAs will work in every situation – but that’s simply not the case. That’s why we must continue to stand up for sound, science-based fisheries management and voice our opposition to fishing closures that lack scientific evidence.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire 

California is cracking down to prevent illegal fishing off the coast

September 28, 2016 — California is embarking on a new effort to shield ocean waters from overfishing.

Law-enforcement officials have embraced a statewide ticketing system aimed at poachers and unwitting anglers who illegally catch bass, yellowtail, lobsters and other types of marine life within these zones, which are commonly called MPAs.

California’s continued push to police its network of underwater state parks comes as government officials and scientific leaders from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C., last week for a conference on a wide range of marine issues, including climate change, pollution and restoring diversity of sea life.

Initially spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014, the Our Ocean conference has since drawn commitments to expand or form new preservation zones in sensitive ocean habitats from more than a dozen countries, including Morocco, Thailand and Canada, as well as the European Union and the United Kingdom. Most recently, the Obama administration expanded the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii — now the world’s largest marine protected area.

Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times

Hawaii Prepares Plan to Help Coral Recover From Bleaching

September 9, 2016 — KANEOHE, Hawaii — Hawaii officials proposed a series of steps to fight coral bleaching that’s threatening the state’s reefs, including new marine protected areas, limits on fishing and controlling polluted runoff from land.

Hawaii’s ocean temperatures have been rising as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased, forcing corals to expel algae they rely on for food. Vast stretches of reef have turned white over the past two summers, increasing the risk that the coral will get sick and die. Some already have died.

It’s a serious concern for the health of the ocean because coral reefs provide habitat for fish and other marine life, scientists say. Severe or concurrent years of bleaching can kill coral reefs, as has been documented over the past two years in oceans around the world. Scientists expect a third year of bleaching to last through the end of 2016.

Bruce Anderson, the state Division of Aquatic Resources administrator, said addressing polluted runoff is difficult, noting it would cost millions of dollars to create artificial wetlands that would help control runoff. Fishermen in the past have also resisted moves to limit their catch.

But Anderson said the coral bleaching crisis presents an opportunity.

“We are going to have future bleaching events, and the water is going to get warmer. And it’s going to happen again and again,” he said Thursday. “So our challenge is to prevent the impacts of bleaching as much as we can and also to help the reefs recover.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Closing parts of the ocean to fishing not enough to protect marine ecosystems

July 18, 2016 — A University of Washington fisheries professor argues that saving biodiversity in the world’s oceans requires more than banning fishing with marine protected areas, or oceanic wilderness areas. In a three-page editorial published in the journal Nature, he argues that this increasingly popular conservation strategy is not as effective as properly managing recreational and commercial fisheries. “There’s this idea that the only way you can protect the ocean is by permanently closing parts of the ocean to fishing, with no-take areas,” said Ray Hilborn, a professor in the UW’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. “You protect biodiversity better by regulating fisheries over the country’s entire economic zone.”

Marine protected areas have grown in popularity since the early 2000s. Recent examples include an area twice the size of Texas in the central Pacific established in 2014 by President Barack Obama, and a proposal to close 25 percent of the Seychelles’ exclusive economic zone, an island nation off Africa’s east coast.

Several environmental organizations have set a longer-term goal of making 30 percent of the world’s oceans into no-take marine protected areas by the year 2030. But Hilborn believes this is not the best way to protect global marine ecosystems.

“If the problem is overfishing or bycatch, then fisheries management is much more effective than establishing MPAs because you regulate the catch over the entire economic zone,” Hilborn said. “I don’t see how anyone can defend MPAs as a better method than fisheries management, except in places where you just can’t do management.”

In countries with functioning fisheries management systems, Hilborn believes, conservationists and the fishing industry should work together on large-scale protection of marine biodiversity and sensitive marine habitats.

Read the full story at Science Daily

Petition: Save Hawaii Fisheries

June 2, 2016 — Petition the President of the United States to Not expand the outer boundary of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Moument from 50 nautical miles out to 200 nautical miles around the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.   This will have a devastating impact on small business, fisheries, and culture without justification or public input. Our Kauai Fishermen run the risk of loosing middle bank and key fish grounds.

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM).

Established in 2006 by Pres. George W. Bush, this marine protected area (MPA) currently encompasses the Northwestern Hawaiian Island (NWHI) chain, covering an area 100 miles wide and 1200 miles long. It sits within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Hawaii’s waters, a swath of ocean that’s 400 miles wide and includes both the PMNM and the Main Hawaiian Islands.

Half of the bottomfish for Hawaii and most of the lobster came from the area within the PMNM, prior to the establishment of the monument. Fishing boats operated in that area for decades with very little ecological impact. Early in the 21st Century, it was decided that the near-pristine condition of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands should be protected indefinitely, and that was the rationale for creating the PMNM.

Now there are groups that are asking Pres. Obama to expand the PMNM to include the entire EEZ around the NWHI. Imagine an area that would be as long as the distance between the borders of Canada and Mexico, and wider than the state of California.

Read the full petition at Change.org

Tiny Island Chain Wants To Create The World’s Largest Ocean Sanctuary

April 5, 2016 — In an effort to protect fisheries and preserve one of the planet’s healthiest marine ecosystems, communities in a remote archipelago south of Tahiti are working to establish the largest fully protected marine reserve on the planet.

The proposal, which municipalities in the Austral Islands presented to the French Polynesian government on Monday, would ban fishing in more than 385,000 square miles of ocean surrounding the island chain and establish sustainable coastal fishing areas around each of its five inhabited islands.

The Pew Charitable Trusts, which helped the communities draft their proposal, said in an announcement on Tuesday that islanders hope the reserve will “help maintain healthy fish stocks to feed their families and support local fishermen while maintaining Polynesian customs that date back hundreds of years.”

The reserve, if approved, would be roughly the size of California, Nevada and Arizona combined.

Jérôme Petit, director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy campaign in French Polynesia, told The Huffington Post that the 6,000-plus residents of Rimatara, Rurutu, Tubuai, Raivavae and Rapa are concerned about the environmental damage affecting the world’s fisheries.

“They say, ‘We fish now in one day what we could fish 20 years ago in one hour,’” Petit said.

The reserve would extend roughly 200 nautical miles around each island, with the exception of the islands’ northern coasts. Sustainable coastal fishing areas extending 20 miles from each island would allow local anglers to fish from boats that are less than 25 feet long, according to the proposal.

Read the full story at the Huffington Post