Saving Seafood

ISSF Report Shows Many Tuna Stocks Not Meeting Criteria for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Sustainability Standard

January 25, 2019 — The following was released by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation:

Only five out of 19 major commercial tuna stocks are being managed to avoid overfishing and restore depleted fish populations — and have earned a passing score for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principle 1 — according to independent scientists in a report published by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF).

ISSF 2019-02: An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria attributes this failure to poor stock status, the lack of well-defined harvest control rules (HCRs), and the lack of effective tools to control harvest. Only three of the stocks have well-defined harvest control rules from Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), which continue progressing slowly in this area.

The January 2018 version of the report had found that six out of 19 stocks were being managed to avoid overfishing, meaning the situation has not improved in the last year. While South Pacific albacore Principle 1 score has improved thanks to further progress by WCPFC on this stock’s harvest strategy workplan, two other stocks have seen their overall Principle 1 scores worsen: eastern Pacific bigeye due mostly to uncertainties in its latest stock assessment, and Atlantic yellowfin tuna due to weak tools in place to control exploitation that may be hindering its rebuilding plan.

About the Report

An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks takes a consistent, comprehensive approach to scoring tuna stocks against certain components of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard. The MSC is a global certification program for fisheries.

The report — updated four times since first published in 2013, and organized by individual tuna stock and tuna RFMO — is designed to:

  • Provide a basis for comparing between stock scores and tuna RFMO scores as assessed by the same experts.
  • Become a useful source document for future tuna certifications or in the establishment of tuna Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs).
  • Prioritize ISSF projects and advocacy efforts against initiatives that will improve low performance indicator scores.

The scores in the report focus on stock status (MSC Principle 1) and the international management aspects relevant to RFMOs (part of MSC Principle 3) and are based on publicly available fishery and RFMO data. Each of these Principles is evaluated in relationship to Performance Indicators (PIs) within each Principle. The Evaluation report also includes detailed remarks on each stock, evaluations of the four RFMOs, and comprehensive reference citations.

The report does not address bluefin tuna stocks.​

MSC Principle 1

The MSC Principle 1 states: “A fishery must operate in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.”

Regarding stocks receiving passing scores:

  • Among seven tuna stocks in the Atlantic Ocean, one received an overall principle-level passing score: Northern albacore.
  • Among eight tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean, three received overall principle-level passing scores: Western skipjack, Eastern yellowfin and Southern albacore.
  • Among four stocks in the Indian Ocean, one received an overall principle-level passing score: skipjack.

Regarding stocks receiving failing scores:

  • In the Pacific, five stocks received overall principle-level failing scores: Western yellowfin, Northern albacore, Eastern bigeye, Eastern skipjack and Western bigeye.
  • In the Indian Ocean, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore all received overall principle-level failing scores.
  • In the Atlantic, yellowfin, bigeye, Western skipjack, Eastern skipjack, Southern albacore and Mediterranean albacore all received principle-level failing scores.
  • Stocks that require rebuilding include Atlantic yellowfin, Atlantic bigeye and Indian Ocean yellowfin.

See a graphic showing MSC Principle 1 averages from February 2013-January 2019.

MSC Principle 3

The MSC Principle 3 states: “The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.”

  • One RFMO —IATTC — received passing scores for all seven performance indicators under Principle 3.
  • All four RFMOs received overall principle-level passing scores from the authors.

See a graphic showing MSC Principle 3 averages from December 2013-January 2019.

While the report focuses on tuna stock status and sustainability as well as on RFMO policies, it does not address national or bilateral fishing jurisdictions, gear- or fleet-specific ecosystem impacts, or specific fisheries’ ecosystems — all of which are also considered within the MSC assessment methodology.

Since 2011, ISSF has been an active stakeholder in MSC tuna fishery assessments and certifications. ISSF’s strategic objective is to develop and implement verifiable, science-based practices, commitments and international management measures to help all tuna fisheries become capable of meeting the MSC certification standard without conditions.

Bumble Bee, FCF partner on albacore improvement projects

January 17, 2019 — Bumble Bee Foods and Taiwanese trader Fong Chun Formosa Fishery Company (FCF) are to partner with Ocean Outcomes on an initiative to improve fishing practices of the albacore longline tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean and Western and Central Pacific Ocean, from which Bumble Bee sources.

“As we procure a significant amount of albacore tuna annually to meet demand for our products, we are in a unique position to help ensure the long term sustainability of longline albacore fisheries,” said Mike Kraft, vice president for sustainability at Bumble Bee.

“All of that tuna comes from healthy stocks. This initiative will launch two fishery improvement projects (FIPs) to help ensure those stocks remain healthy, while working to close identified gaps between current fishery operations and other MSC [Marine Stewardship Council] principles.”

A positive transformation of tuna management and tuna fishing practices is gaining momentum, especially in the purse seine sector — but not all harvesting sectors are as far along, the firms said.

Recent catch sector engagement initiatives – such as the Global FIP Alliance for Sustainable Tuna (GFAST) – have made progress in addressing the challenges of international management of tuna fisheries, but there is clearly an opportunity to increase participation from Northeast Asian longline fleets, they added.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

UK parliamentary inquiry calls for independent review of MSC

January 17, 2019 — The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) needs to address major concerns raised during an inquiry that looked into the effectiveness of the eco-label and the fishery certification scheme, recommends a new report published by the United Kingdom’s House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).

EAC opened its Sustainable Seas inquiry in April 2018 to consider the future of oceans. The inquiry focused on how marine life can be protected from climate change, overfishing, and pollution, and how the U.K. government can create a more sustainable blue economy. One of its oral evidence sessions focused specifically on the MSC, with the participation of MSC CEO Rupert Howes.

In the inquiry, the MSC was criticized for recertifying a tuna fishery where there had been evidence of illegal shark finning dating back as recently as 2015.

“To ensure continued consumer confidence in the MSC certification, we recommend the MSC addresses specific criticisms raised… into its five-year review and strengthens its standard accordingly. These criticisms include its unit of assessment, the need to factor in carbon from ships into its standard, concerns about shark finning (where we look forward to the publication of data verifying the reduction of this practice in 2019) and barriers to entry for small scale fisheries. The review should be transparent and ideally independently evaluated,” stated the report.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Bycatch an Issue in 2018 Pacific Hake Fishery; Uncertainty Lies Ahead Amid Shutdown

January 10, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — None of the three sectors in the U.S. Pacific hake fishery attained its specified sector allocation in 2018 and all reported problems with bycatch — either smaller sizes of whiting or other species.

The catcher-processor sector achieved the highest percentage of its allocation, catching 116,074 mt of its 139, 612 mt allocation, or 85 percent. The shoreside sector harvested 76 percent of its 169,127 mt allocation for a total of 129,180 mt in landings. The mothership sector struggled the most last year and attained only 69 percent of its 96,614 mt allocation for 67,096 mt in landings.

“It was one of our better seasons,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said, noting that the company’s Newport plant did exceptionally well while the Astoria plant had adequate production. “There was a greater amount of nice fish off of Newport this year, so fishermen didn’t have to travel far.”

Similarly, the Arctic Storm Management Group, a mothership company based out of Seattle, generally had a good season but that was not representative of the whole mothership sector, said Sarah Nayani, Arctic Storm’s director of compliance.

“In 2018 our company processed 38 percent of the mothership catcher vessel catch and 26 percent of the total mothership sector allocation. Unfortunately, 31 percent of the mothership sector allocation went uncaught, which is more than any single company processed,” Nayani said. “For next year we’ve planned additional trips to improve attainment and provide more MSC-certified sustainable product to the market.”

Around the Columbia River and into Washington, particularly near Willapa Bay, fishermen struggled to find larger fish, around 450 to 500 grams. The CPs and motherships, like shoreside fishermen, traveled north or south of the Willapa area to find bigger, more marketable hake.

However, traveling north led to other problems. The CP and mothership sectors said a lot of other species were mixed with whiting schools and many of those other species had hard caps. Pacific ocean perch rockfish bycatch was an issue as was sablefish, so both sectors continually moved their operations to avoid those other species. Southern areas were problematic as well, since Chinook salmon were frequently prevalent. Both of the at-sea sectors stopped fishing in November to avoid bycatch interactions.

“2018 was a good year for Arctic Storm overall,” Nayani said. “We saw demand and prices up for Pacific hake and a strong spring fishery with minimal bycatch. However, even with extra processing capacity from putting Arctic Fjord out on the water this fall (in addition to Arctic Storm) the fall fishery was slow for us due to patchy fishing, higher bycatch rates, and frequent movement to avoid bycatch.”

Now, everyone is looking forward to this year’s season, but any uncertainty now is due to the U.S. government shutdown and the inability of U.S. scientists to contribute to the stock assessment routinely done collaboratively with Canadian scientists. The stock assessment draft is due to be released Feb. 6, so scientists would normally be assimilating data and running models right now.

In an email to some Pacific hake stakeholders and U.S. fishery managers and scientists, Canadian stock assessment author Joint Technical Committee member Chris Grandin wrote Tuesday that Canadian scientists would produce the whiting stock assessment on time — but without the U.S. fishery dependent age composition data.

“If the government comes back online before Jan. 14, and U.S. JTC members are back at work we will be producing the hake assessment as usual without any changes,” Grandin wrote.

“If not, Andy and I will be producing a hake assessment on time for delivery Feb. 6. It will consist of adding 2018 catch to the base model from last year’s assessment, and some common sensitivity cases. Unfortunately, we cannot get access to the U.S. age composition data due to the shutdown and therefore will not include any 2018 age composition data in the models. Note that the assessment will be of the standard format with an executive summary, and all decision tables and projections in place for the base model.

“We realize the importance of this assessment to the fishery, and will endeavour to do as much as is possible given the constraints placed before us.”

U.S. industry representatives and scientists remain hopeful the shutdown will end soon so the stock assessment and management process will get back on track.

“We’re hoping we get a good quota this year, but won’t really know until we see the stock assessment,” Okoniewski said.

This story was originally published by SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

Omega Protein’s Menhaden Fishery Passes MSC Assessment; Public Comment Period Initiated

December 4, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS —  The US purse seine menhaden fishery operated by Omega protein has been recommended for MSC certification by SAI Global.

Today the assessment body released its draft report for public comment.  Scores for the three principal areas were quite high.

The MSC system is based on the target fishery achieving a score of 80 or above in a range of criteria, organized under 3 principles:  health and sustainability of target species; the status of the ecosystem and the environmental impact of fishing, and the management system in place.

Scores are averaged, and a fishery must exceed a score of 80 in each of the three main areas to be recommended for certification.

The menhaden fishery was scored at 82.5 on the target species health; at 87.4 on the ecosystem health, and at 92.2 on the management system in place.

Within these areas there were three specific issues that scored below 80, which will become conditions that need to be addressed in the five year plan for improvement following a successful certification.

The three issues identified by SAI Global as conditions are first, that Omega Protein must provide evidence of a harvest strategy that is designed to take into consideration the role of menhaden as a forage fish in the overall Northwest Atlantic ecosystem, meaning that if ecosystem impacts are identified, there must be a mechanism to reflect those impacts in the harvest strategy.

The second issue is that the client must implement a harvest control rule that ensures the exploitation rate is kept below a level where serious ecosystem impacts could occur, and the client will be expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with ecosystem needs.

The third condition is that every five years there must be a review of alternate measures related to bycatch.  The certifier recommends that more work be done on bycatch in the fishery.

The overall conclusion is to strongly recommend certification.  Under the MSC process, stakeholders have the right to lodge objections or suggest changes to the report.  Normally these types of suggestions are negotiated between the parties, and if no agreement can be reached, a stake holder may appeal the certification decision to a review board.

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

SAI Global recommends MSC certify the Atlantic menhaden fishery

December 4, 2018 — SAI Global, one of the leading certification bodies for the Marine Stewardship Council, announced on 4 December that it’s recommending the Atlantic menhaden fishery be certified as sustainable.

The recommendation is a key step in the fishery attaining MSC certification. Now, the certification will go to a 30-day public comment period.

Omega Protein, by far the largest fisher of menhaden, has been the company leading the drive for MSC certification.

The recommendation comes amid some rising controversy over the fishery as competing groups – such as recreational fishermen and whale-watchers – claim that the fishery has been negatively impacting the environment. One nonprofit, Gotham Whale, has developed a petition directly targeting Omega Protein called the “Gotham Whale Action Plan.”

The petition calls for the Omega Protein fleet to be forced to fish 20 miles from New York or New Jersey. Currently, the vessels legally fish outside the three-mile limit.

Gotham Whale’s issue with the fishery largely relates to menhaden’s role as food for humpback whales in the region surrounding New York Harbor near New York City.

“Gotham Whale has been documenting humpback feeding in this area since 2011 and we would like it to continue,” the organization’s petition states. “We are also appealing to the owners of Omega Protein to further persuade them to leave the bunker for the whales.”

The conflict has already gained some attention from media. A New York Times article interviewed several recreational fishing and sightseeing boat captains, many of which claimed that the large Omega Protein boats were causing problems.

“We have a major issue with a fishing fleet coming in and taking all the food from the whales,” Tom Paladino, a whale watching boat captain, told the Times.

Omega Protein has also butted heads with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission after the management organization put Virginia on notice for not implementing a reduced menhaden catch limit for Chesapeake Bay. While the overall limit for menhaden was raised for the 2018 and 2019 seasons to 216,000 metric tons (MT), the Chesapeake Bay limit – where Omega Protein does a lot of its fishing – was set for just 51,000 MT.

Chesapeake Bay’s quota was previously 87,216 MT. While the state of Virginia’s total quota was 170,000 MT, that represented little to no increase, something that didn’t add up for Omega Protein.

“We feel that it’s targeting one company, which is what this provision applies to Omega,” Ben Landry, Omega Protein’s director of public affairs, told SeafoodSource in May, noting that there are no caps for the bait fishery. “It’s not in accordance with the best available science. It’s not necessary for the conservation of the species because it’s not overfished.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

MSC gives Gulf of Mexico menhaden fishery six more months to deliver report

November 29, 2018 — The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has granted independent auditor SAI Global an extra six months — until June 6 — to finish its final report on whether to grant certification to the menhaden fishery in the US’ Gulf of Mexico.

The report was due Dec. 6, in a little more than a week. However, in requesting more time, SAI Global had noted unforeseen delays that included “a new benchmark stock assessment”, “additional consultation”, “substantial stakeholder submittals” and the “development and revision of the client action plan”, reveals MSC’s letter approving the delay, sent Monday to lead auditor Ivan Mateo.

If the new June 6 deadline is not met, the MSC warns, the application must be withdrawn.

The note about receiving a “substantial” number of stakeholder comments is interesting as several groups, including the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) and Recirculating Farms Coalition (RFC), have let their opposition to MSC certification of the Gulf menhaden fishery be known. The fishery currently maintains no limits on its harvest of menhaden, which is a forage fish relied upon heavily by numerous other fish and bird species.

“Notably, the MSC label has become a well-known marker for fisheries that strive for sustainability,” said Marianne Cufone, RFC’s executive director, and Cynthia Sartou, GRN’s executive director, in a jointly signed letter sent earlier to the accrediting organization. “To certify gulf menhaden, with its lack of transparency and information, would most certainly tarnish MSC’s reputation and weaken public confidence in the label.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

MSC grants more time to menhaden fishery audit, but might not be needed

November 20, 2018 — The Marine Stewardship Council has granted auditors an extra three months – until March 6 — to finish their final report on whether to grant certification to the menhaden fishery on the Atlantic coast of the United States.

However, Ben Landry, public affairs specialist for Houston, Texas-based Omega Protein, the US’ largest harvester of menhaden and a division of the Cooke group of seafood companies, said he doesn’t think the extra cushion will be needed as the audit is expected to be wrapped up within weeks.

By certifying both the menhaden fisheries on the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, MSC looks to bolster its presence in the US significantly. Combined, the two fisheries account for nearly 800,000 metric ton of fish — about 11% of all of the wild-caught fish in the US – second only to the already MSC-certified Alaskan pollock fishery, responsible for 1.5 billion metric tons, or 30%, based on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

According to assessment reports by third-party assessors and NOAA data, roughly 70% of US landings by volume have been certified by MSC, including Alaskan pollock, and another 16% are currently under review, including the two menhaden fisheries, an MSC official told Undercurrent.

The menhaden fisheries are also North America’s largest source of fish for meal and oil, providing Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, Canada-based Cooke with a large source of omega-3-enriched feed for its considerable salmon aquaculture operations. Cooke completed its acquisition of Omega Protein almost exactly one year ago.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

MSC: “Life Below Water” lagging behind other Sustainable Development Goals

November 19, 2018 — In an effort to spotlight marine conservation and the millions of livelihoods that depend on seafood around the world, the Marine Stewardship Council and research consultancy firm GlobeScan have teamed up with Nomad Foods Europe to host a text-based discussion surrounding “Life Below Water” – one of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

“Life Below Water” refers to Sustainable Development Goal No. 14 (SDG14), which focuses on ending overfishing, restoring fish stocks, protecting ecosystems, and eliminating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

As with each of the other Sustainable Development Goals, SDG14 is ultimately aimed at ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring prosperity for all. However, unlike its counterparts, prioritization of “Life Under Water” and SDG14 is universally lacking, recent findings from multiple surveys suggest.

For instance, just 5.4 percent of the 3,500 respondents participating in AidData’s 2017 Listening to Leaders Survey said SDG14 was among their top six priorities. Findings from GlobeScan’s separate survey of 500-plus sustainability experts across governments, NGOs, the commercial sector, and academia tell a similar story: When asked to rank the Sustainable Development Goals in order of importance, respondents placed SDG14 last on the list.

“Life Below Water” shouldn’t keep flying under the radar, according to the MSC, GlobeScan, and Nomad Foods, which is why the  collective will focus on SDG14 during its upcoming SDG Leadership Forum taking place on Wednesday, 28 November.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

JOHN FIORILLO: A Retraction is Not Enough

November 1, 2018 — The following editorial was originally published by IntraFish. It was written by IntraFish Executive Editor John Fiorillo:

Patience may be a virtue but how long must we wait for a scientific journal to decide if it is going to retract a controversial paper that the US government, eminent fisheries scientists and industry executives say is a bunch of crap?

It has been more than a year – yes, I said a year – since US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Chris Oliver requested a retraction of the controversial scientific paper published in the journal Marine Policy that alleges a significant portion of Alaska salmon, crab and pollock is entering the Japanese market from illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries.

Last October, Oliver challenged the veracity of the scientific paper and asked that it be retracted to avoid damaging the reputation of the US fishing industry and its fisheries management. In December, a team of top US fisheries scientists, led by preeminent fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, joined the US government in demanding a retraction of the paper. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), under which the fisheries are certified sustainable, also came out in support of the industry.

In June, Hance Smith, editor of the journal Marine Policy, told IntraFish: “The status is simply that we have been waiting for additional reviews of the paper. I expect we shall be able to progress shortly.”

Shortly?

On Monday, I asked Smith again for an update on the status of the paper and its possible retraction. I was told: “We are still waiting for a response from the corresponding author.”

Umm. OK. What?

Anyway, this is about more than getting a retraction. This is a scientific paper, that critics — bonafide critics, not crackpots — say is fundamentally flawed. And if that is not bad enough, it is eerily similar to a 2014 paper by the same researchers — Tony Pitcher, Katrina Nakamura, and Ganapathiraju Pramod — that provided estimates for IUU fish entering the US market. This report has been cited at least 59 times in academic reports and countless times in government and NGO reports. In other words, repeat the story enough times and it becomes unquestioned gospel.

The 2014 study was cited regularly by those supporting the creation of the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was indeed launched in January and requires a new level of record keeping by US importers aimed at eliminating IUU fish from the US seafood supply chain.

Made up

Hilborn, in December, said the paper at the heart of the current controversy cites several dozen published papers as sources yet none have any mention of IUU fishing. “The paper also lists a number of ‘sources’ of IUU such as ‘unreported catch in artisanal fisheries’ which do not exist,” said Hilborn. “As near as we can tell, the paper made up all of its results without any data on IUU fishing.”

NOAA’s Oliver, in his October 2017 letter to the report’s authors, said the “allegations made in the paper, are absent of transparency regarding the data, and assumptions supporting them are irresponsible and call into question the authors’ conclusions.”

The Japan study claims that an estimated 15 percent of the US pollock entering Japan is from IUU fisheries. Further, the study says between 10 and 20 percent of the salmon and crab coming from Alaska fisheries is IUU. In the paper, Pitcher and the other authors argue for the creation of a seafood traceability program in Japan to thwart what they claim is the importation of seafood produced by IUU fishing activity.

The paper was funded by the Walton Foundation, which has largely skirted the fray. “Independently, we are reaching out to talk with all of the parties to ensure we fully understand the issues,” Barry Gold, director of Walton’s Environment Program, said a year ago.

But Pitcher told me Tuesday in an email that “neither the Walton Foundation nor the Marine Stewardship Council has been in touch with us to ascertain the truth of the matter.”

He also said he has a revised table showing “only 2 percent IUU from that US pollock fishery,” and he says that the revised table “has been waiting to be inserted [into the paper] for almost a year now.” In other words, the original 15 percent IUU estimate is wrong.

“The editor wants us to retract and then resubmit to include the new table, and despite our arguing that is not necessary as they can easily insert a correction, Ray Hilborn in Seattle has queered the pitch by a ridiculous letter accusing us of data fraud and absurd unprofessional threats that the journal will be ‘exposed on his blog,'” Pitcher said in his email to me.

“My co-author has been travelling extensively (earning his living!), and so have I, so neither of us have had the time required to deal with this. We are aiming to get it done before Xmas.”

What a mess.

Look, we need to be able to trust science, especially in this Trumpian era where science is dismantled, devalued and dismissed.

It’s time for the editors of the Marine Policy journal to settle this issue so we don’t allow flimsy science to contribute to the potentially unnecessary creation of another new traceability program in Japan, as it did for the new SIMP program in the US market.

Marine Policy editors need to retract the report, and while they are at it they need to look at the authors’ 2014 report. And stop being careless with fisheries science.

Read the editorial at IntraFish