Saving Seafood

CFOOD: New Study Sheds Light on Relationship Between Forage Fish, Predators, and Fishing

April 18, 2017 — The following was published by CFOOD. Founded by Dr. Ray Hilborn from the University of Washington, CFOOD is a network of scientists formed to study the science of fisheries sustainability, and to correct erroneous stories about fisheries in the mainstream media:

A paper published earlier this month shows a new understanding of how commercially fishing forage fish impacts forage fish predators like sea birds, marine mammals, and pelagic finfish.

Forage fish are small, silvery, bottom-of-the-food-chain fish that eat plankton and small invertebrates. They are eaten by seemingly everything in the ocean, providing “forage” for many other animals—you’ve probably heard of the two most common forage fish: sardines and anchovies. If asked their favorite marine species, not many people would choose a forage fish, but many would choose a forage fish predator: Penguins and puffins are endearing, dolphins and seals are adorable, and tuna and swordfish are delicious. Forage fish help sustain these populations, but are also favorite foods for many cultures.

With a high oil and protein content, forage fish are also the perfect species for conversion to fishmeal and fish oil. The largest fishery in the world, Peruvian anchovy, is such a fishery. Fish oil provides essential fatty acids and is sold in drugstores as a nutritional supplement. Fishmeal is food for several of our favorite edible animals. It is especially important in farmed fish production (like most of the salmon eaten in the US), but is also fed to terrestrial livestock like cows and pigs. Essentially, forage fish fisheries take a renewable resource and turn them into protein that people eat.

But how do these fisheries affect the marine predators that feed on forage fish? This is an important question that has only recently been investigated. A paper published in 2012 used mathematical models to estimate the impact of fishing forage fish populations on their predators and recommended that commercial reduction fishing be cut by 50-80% to ensure forage fish predators get enough food. However since then, several papers—including some by the authors of the original—have recognized that the models used in the 2012 research were not suitable for the questions asked, and further studies are needed.

The latest, Hilborn et al. (2017) published earlier this month (open access), shows that environmental variability, left out of the original models, is actually the most important factor affecting forage fish populations. Commercial fishing often has little effect on forage fish populations and their predators. Instead, ocean conditions and nutrient cycles (things humans have no control over) dictate how many forage fish survive each year.

The new paper also suggests that the relationship between forage fish and their predators is complicated by several factors. Forage fish predators often rely on specific, high-density locations where the abundance may be largely unrelated to the total abundance of the population. Basically, instead of predators relying on the total number of forage fish, they rely on forage fish appearing in certain locations, such as near breeding areas. Predators are also not singularly reliant on commercially harvested forage fish to survive—most consume a wide variety of prey. Indeed, Hilborn et al. (2017) found no link between larger forage fish populations and increases in predator populations.

Forage fish provide a wonderful service to humans. They are tasty, nutritious, and their harvest provides food for animals that we enjoy and eat, both above and below the surface. Understanding their ecological role is important to ensure sustainability.

Read the story at CFOOD

Watch a video about the study here

Read an infographic about the study here

D.B. Pleschner: Study: No correlation between forage fish, predator populations

April 10, 2017 — On April 9-10, the Pacific Fishery Management Council is meeting in Sacramento to deliberate on anchovy management and decide on 2017 harvest limits for sardine, two prominent west coast forage fish.

Extreme environmental groups like Oceana and Pew have plastered social media with allegations that the anchovy population has crashed, sardines are being overfished and fisheries should be curtailed, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Beyond multiple lines of recent evidence that both sardines and anchovy populations are increasing in the ocean, a new study published this week in the journal Fisheries Research finds that the abundance of these and other forage fish species is driven primarily by environmental cycles with little impact from fishing, and well-managed fisheries have a negligible impact on predators — such as larger fish, sea lions and seabirds.

This finding flies directly in the face of previous assumptions prominent in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, heirs of Sun Oil Company. The Lenfest study concluded that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators and recommended slashing forage fishery catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

However, in the new study, a team of seven internationally respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, discovered no correlation between predator populations and forage fish abundance. The new research also found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. For instance, it — and other previous studies — used ecosystem models that ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year-to-year.

Read the full opinion piece at the Santa Cruz Sentinel

When is menhaden like a mortgage?

April 7, 2017 — What do forage fish and real estate have in common? Location, location, location.

A new study led by University of Washington fishery science Professor Ray Hilborn reveals some surprising relationships between predator success and prey abundance.

The paper, “When does fishing forage species affect their predators?” was published Monday in the journal Fisheries Research in response to the 2012 Lenfest Report, which set the recent standard for forage fish management by asserting that an across-the-board reduction in the commercial harvest of forage fish would result in higher numbers of fish species that prey on them.

“It looked reasonable that if you appropriate half of the production of a prey species by a fishery that you can’t support so much production of predators,” said Carl Walters, professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. “That seemed perfectly reasonable. It was just wrong.”

According to this study, prey species follow the real estate principle of investing in prime locations. When forage fish are abundant, the research shows, their population spreads over a wider area, creating smaller subpockets around a core reproduction zone. When they’re in low abundance, they retract to the core region. Successful predators keep their breeding grounds close to that core region, maintaining access to food even in times of low prey biomass.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

New Study Challenges Earlier Findings Regarding Link Between Predators, Forage Fish

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – April 3, 2017 – A new study published today in Fisheries Research finds that fishing forage fish may have a smaller impact on their predators than previously thought. The study, authored by a team of marine scientists led by renowned University of Washington fisheries expert Dr. Ray Hilborn, calls into question previous forage fish research that may have overestimated the effect of fishing of forage fish on their predators.

The study, “When does fishing forage species affect their predators?,” finds that changes in predator populations are largely unrelated to the abundance of forage fish. It also shows that the distribution of forage fish is more important to predators than their overall abundance, and that many predators prefer smaller forage fish that are largely unaffected by fishing. Based on these results, the authors recommend that forage fishing policies be created on a case-by-case basis.

The paper’s findings point to issues with previous forage fish research, most notably a five-year-old study funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program, managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which it says failed to consider important variables like the spatial distribution of forage fish. Arguably the largest oversight in past research was the high natural variability of forage fish populations, even in the absence of fishing, the authors write.

“There is little evidence for a strong connection between forage fish abundance and the rate of change in the abundance of predators,” the authors write. “The fact that few of the predator populations evaluated in this study have been decreasing under existing fishing policies suggests that current harvest strategies do not threaten the predators and there is no pressing need for more conservative management of forage fish.”

The authors suggest that the lack of a strong relationship between forage fish and their predators is the result of “diet flexibility” – the idea that predators can switch between prey species, helping them defend against the high natural variability of forage fish populations.

This finding contradicts the widely reported conclusions of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force in 2012. The study, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” claimed that forage fish are twice as valuable to humans when they are left in the water, rather than fished, because of their great importance to predator species. Based on this conclusion, the Lenfest group recommended cutting forage fish catch rates across the board by 50 to 80 percent.

But Dr. Hilborn and his coauthors advocate for a more nuanced approach, writing that previous models “were frequently inadequate for estimating impact of fishing forage species on their predators” and that “a case by case analysis is needed.” The team explicitly calls into question the Lenfest study’s recommendations, which it says are “not appropriate for all species.”

“Relevant factors are missing from the analysis contained in [the Lenfest] work, and this warrants re-examination of the validity and generality of their conclusions,” the authors write. “We have illustrated how consideration of several factors which they did not consider would weaken the links between impacts of fishing forage fish on the predator populations.”

These missing elements include how fishing mortality compares with the natural variability of forage species, the spatial structure of forage fish populations, and the overlap between the sizes of forage fish eaten by predators and size taken by the fishery.

“It must be remembered that small pelagic fish stocks are a highly important part of the human food supply, providing not only calories and protein, but micronutrients, both through direct human consumption and the use of small pelagics as food in aquaculture,” the paper concludes. “Some of the largest potential increases in capture fisheries production would be possible by fishing low trophic levels much harder than currently.”

Read an infographic about the study here 

Watch a video about the study here 

Hilborn-led study: Predators less affected by catch of prey fish than thought

April 3, 2017 — Stocks of predatory fish may be less affected by the catching of their prey species than has previously been thought, according to new research published on April 3.

The study – published in journal Fisheries Research and led by well-known University of Washington professor Ray Hilborn – suggests previous studies on this topic overlooked key factors when recommending lower catches of “forage fish”.

Said forage fish include small pelagic species, such as anchovies, herring and menhaden.

The team of seven fisheries scientists found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force at that time argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by up to 80%.

For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (the Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Hilborn Study Redefines Forage Fish Predator Relationships; Suggests Fishing Pressure Lesser Factor

April 3, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — New research published today in the journal Fisheries Research finds that fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought, challenging previous studies that argued forage fish are more valuable left in the ocean.

In 2012 a Lenfest study got wide play claiming that models showed fishing pressure on prey species had big impacts on the abundance of predator species, such as cod and tuna.  However, some of the authors of the original model have now joined with other researchers to say it is out of date.

A team of seven respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph. D., of the University of Washington, found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies including a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program is managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

However, the new research found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. “When you review the actual models that were used [by Lenfest], there are a few key elements on the biology of these animals that were not represented, ” said Dr. Ricardo Amoroso, one of the study’s co-authors. He added that one of the authors’ approaches was to “look for empirical evidence of what is actually happening in the field. ” Previous studies relied on models which took for granted that there should be a strong link between predators and prey.

Specifically, the Lenfest study and another study using ecosystem models ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year to year. It also failed to account for the fact that predators tend to eat smaller forage fish that are largely untouched by fishermen. Because of these oversights, the new study concluded that the Lenfest recommendations were overly broad, and that fisheries managers should consider forage species on a case-by-case basis to ensure sound management.

“It is vital that we manage our fisheries to balance the needs of the ecosystem, human nutrition and coastal communities, ” said Andrew Mallison, IFFO Director General. “These findings give fishery managers guidance based on science, and update some of the inaccurate conclusions of previous reports. ”

The Lenfest findings were largely based on a model called EcoSim, developed by Dr. Carl J. Walters, one of the co-authors of the new paper. Dr. Walters found that the EcoSim models used in earlier studies had omitted important factors, including natural variability, recruitment limitations and efficient foraging of predators.

Dr. Walters noted that there were “very specific” issues with previous uses of the EcoSim model. “It was predicting much higher sensitivity of creatures at the top of the food webs to fishing down at the bottom than we could see in historical data, ” he said.

This is not the first time ecosystem models used in earlier studies have been questioned. One year after the Lenfest study was completed, two of its authors, Dr. Tim Essington and Dr. Éva Plagányi, published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science where they said, “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion. ” The new study reaffirmed this finding, noting “several reasons to concur with the conclusion that the models used in previous analysis were insufficient. ”

In addition to its critiques of previous research, the researchers found further evidence of the lack of fishing impact on forage fish. Their research indicated that environmental factors are often much more important drivers of forage fish abundance. They also found that the distribution of forage fish has a greater impact on predators than simply the raw abundance of forage fish.

The authors concluded by noting the importance of forage fish as a part of human food supply chains, praising their high nutritional value, both through direct human consumption and as food in aquaculture, as well as the low environmental impact of forage fishing. Cutting forage fishing, as recommended by the Lenfest group, would force people to look elsewhere for the healthy protein and micronutrients provided by forage fish – likely at much greater environmental cost, the authors wrote.

“Forage fish provide some of the lowest environmental cost food in the world – low carbon footprint, no water use, ” Dr. Hilborn said. “[There are] lots of reasons that forage fish are a really environmentally friendly form of food. ”

It is also well-established that forage fisheries provide substantial health benefits to human populations through the supply of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, both directly through consumption in the form of fish oil capsules, and indirectly through animal feed for farmed fish and land animals.

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

Ray Hilborn study disputes previous findings on forage fish

April 3, 2017 — A new study has been published today by a scientific group led by University of Washington fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn that disputes previous findings on the impact of human and natural predation on forage fish such as anchovies, sardines and herring.

The study, published in the scientific journal Fisheries Research, found that human fishing for forage fish does not have as great an impact on the food chain as previously thought, given that humans typically catch fish of much larger size than those typically hunted and eaten by non-human species. The study also decouples the link between the size of forage fish populations and the populations of species that predate on forage fish.

“What we found is that there is essentially no relationship between how many forage fish there are in the ocean and how well predators do in terms of whether the populations increase or decrease,” Hilborn said in a video explaining the study’s findings.

The study was co-authored by the University of Washington’s Ricardo O. Amoroso and Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen of Rutgers University, Ana M. Parma of the Centro Nacional Patagónico, Cody Szuwalski of the University of California Santa-Barbara and Carl J. Walters of the University of British Columbia. It was funded in part by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities and was supported by the IFFO, the marine ingredients trade group.

It takes particular fault with the methods used by a 2012 study on forage fish by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

“The Lenfest conclusion that predators rise and fall with their prey populations is simply not true. It’s not empirically true,” Walters, one of the authors of the original Lenfest study, said. “One of the things we did in this study was collect together a lot of time-series patterns of predator abundances and forage-fish abundances, and we just didn’t see the correlation, nor have other scientists who have looked at this objectively.”

Predators “have developed some strategy of how to cope with the natural variability” of forage fish populations, according to Amoroso, the study’s second author.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Predators may be less affected by catch of small fish than previously thought, new study says

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – April 3, 2017 – New research published today in the journal Fisheries Research finds that fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought, challenging previous studies that argued forage fish are more valuable left in the ocean.

A team of seven respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

However, the new research found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. “When you review the actual models that were used [by Lenfest], there are a few key elements on the biology of these animals that were not represented,” said Dr. Ricardo Amoroso, one of the study’s co-authors. He added that one of the authors’ approaches was to “look for empirical evidence of what is actually happening in the field.” Previous studies relied on models which took for granted that there should be a strong link between predators and prey.

Specifically, the Lenfest study and another study using ecosystem models ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year to year. It also failed to account for the fact that predators tend to eat smaller forage fish that are largely untouched by fishermen. Because of these oversights, the new study concluded that the Lenfest recommendations were overly broad, and that fisheries managers should consider forage species on a case-by-case basis to ensure sound management.

“It is vital that we manage our fisheries to balance the needs of the ecosystem, human nutrition and coastal communities,” said Andrew Mallison, IFFO Director General. “These findings give fishery managers guidance based on science, and update some of the inaccurate conclusions of previous reports.”

The Lenfest findings were largely based on a model called EcoSim, developed by Dr. Carl J. Walters, one of the co-authors of the new paper. Dr. Walters found that the EcoSim models used in earlier studies had omitted important factors, including natural variability, recruitment limitations and efficient foraging of predators.

Dr. Walters noted that there were “very specific” issues with previous uses of the EcoSim model. “It was predicting much higher sensitivity of creatures at the top of the food webs to fishing down at the bottom than we could see in historical data,” he said.

This is not the first time ecosystem models used in earlier studies have been questioned. One year after the Lenfest study was completed, two of its authors, Dr. Tim Essington and Dr. Éva Plagányi, published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science where they said, “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion.” The new study reaffirmed this finding, noting “several reasons to concur with the conclusion that the models used in previous analysis were insufficient.”

In addition to its critiques of previous research, the researchers found further evidence of the lack of fishing impact on forage fish. Their research indicated that environmental factors are often much more important drivers of forage fish abundance. They also found that the distribution of forage fish has a greater impact on predators than simply the raw abundance of forage fish.

The authors concluded by noting the importance of forage fish as a part of human food supply chains, praising their high nutritional value, both through direct human consumption and as food in aquaculture, as well as the low environmental impact of forage fishing. Cutting forage fishing, as recommended by the Lenfest group, would force people to look elsewhere for the healthy protein and micronutrients provided by forage fish – likely at much greater environmental cost, the authors wrote.

“Forage fish provide some of the lowest environmental cost food in the world – low carbon footprint, no water use,” Dr. Hilborn said. “[There are] lots of reasons that forage fish are a really environmentally friendly form of food.”

It is also well-established that forage fisheries provide substantial health benefits to human populations through the supply of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, both directly through consumption in the form of fish oil capsules, and indirectly through animal feed for farmed fish and land animals.

The paper was authored by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, and Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi from the University of Washington; Dr. Olaf P. Jensen from Rutgers University; Dr. Ana M. Parma from Center for the Study of Marine Systems -CONICET, Argentina; Dr. Cody Szuwalski from the University of California Santa Barbara; and Dr. Carl J. Walters from the University of British Columbia.

Read the full study here

Watch a video about the study here

Read an infographic about the study here

Predators may be less affected by catch of small fish than previously thought, new study says

April 3, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities and IFFO: 

New research published today in the journal Fisheries Research finds that fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought, challenging previous studies that argued forage fish are more valuable left in the ocean.

A team of seven respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

 For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

 However, the new research found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. “When you review the actual models that were used [by Lenfest], there are a few key elements on the biology of these animals that were not represented,” said Dr. Ricardo Amoroso, one of the study’s co-authors. He added that one of the authors’ approaches was to “look for empirical evidence of what is actually happening in the field.” Previous studies relied on models which took for granted that there should be a strong link between predators and prey.

 Specifically, the Lenfest study and another study using ecosystem models ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year to year. It also failed to account for the fact that predators tend to eat smaller forage fish that are largely untouched by fishermen. Because of these oversights, the new study concluded that the Lenfest recommendations were overly broad, and that fisheries managers should consider forage species on a case-by-case basis to ensure sound management.

 “It is vital that we manage our fisheries to balance the needs of the ecosystem, human nutrition and coastal communities,” said Andrew Mallison, IFFO Director General. “These findings give fishery managers guidance based on science, and update some of the inaccurate conclusions of previous reports.”

 The Lenfest findings were largely based on a model called EcoSim, developed by Dr. Carl J. Walters, one of the co-authors of the new paper. Dr. Walters found that the EcoSim models used in earlier studies had omitted important factors, including natural variability, recruitment limitations and efficient foraging of predators.

Dr. Walters noted that there were “very specific” issues with previous uses of the EcoSim model. “It was predicting much higher sensitivity of creatures at the top of the food webs to fishing down at the bottom than we could see in historical data,” he said.

This is not the first time ecosystem models used in earlier studies have been questioned. One year after the Lenfest study was completed, two of its authors, Dr. Tim Essington and Dr. Éva Plagányi, published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science where they said, “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion.” The new study reaffirmed this finding, noting “several reasons to concur with the conclusion that the models used in previous analysis were insufficient.”

In addition to its critiques of previous research, the researchers found further evidence of the lack of fishing impact on forage fish. Their research indicated that environmental factors are often much more important drivers of forage fish abundance. They also found that the distribution of forage fish has a greater impact on predators than simply the raw abundance of forage fish. 

The authors concluded by noting the importance of forage fish as a part of human food supply chains, praising their high nutritional value, both through direct human consumption and as food in aquaculture, as well as the low environmental impact of forage fishing. Cutting forage fishing, as recommended by the Lenfest group, would force people to look elsewhere for the healthy protein and micronutrients provided by forage fish – likely at much greater environmental cost, the authors wrote.

“Forage fish provide some of the lowest environmental cost food in the world – low carbon footprint, no water use,” Dr. Hilborn said. “[There are] lots of reasons that forage fish are a really environmentally friendly form of food.”

It is also well-established that forage fisheries provide substantial health benefits to human populations through the supply of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, both directly through consumption in the form of fish oil capsules, and indirectly through animal feed for farmed fish and land animals. 

The paper was authored by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, and Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi from the University of Washington; Dr. Olaf P. Jensen from Rutgers University; Dr. Ana M. Parma from Center for the Study of Marine Systems -CONICET, Argentina; Dr. Cody Szuwalski from the University of California Santa Barbara; and Dr. Carl J. Walters from the University of British Columbia.

Read the full study here

Watch a video about the study here

Read an infographic about the study here

About the NCFC

The National Coalition for Fishing Communities provides a national voice and a consistent, reliable presence for fisheries in the nation’s capital and in national media. Comprised of fishing organizations, associations, and businesses from around the country, the NCFC helps ensure sound fisheries policies by integrating community needs with conservation values, leading with the best science, and connecting coalition members to issues and events of importance. For more, visit www.fisheriescoalition.org.

About IFFO

IFFO represents the marine ingredients industry worldwide. IFFO’s members reside in more than 50 countries, account for over 50% of world production and 75% of the fishmeal and fish oil traded worldwide. Approximately 5 million tonnes of fishmeal are produced each year globally, together with 1 million tonnes of fish oil. IFFO’s headquarters are located in London in the United Kingdom and it also has offices in Lima, Peru, and in Beijing, China. IFFO is an accredited Observer to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). To find out more, visit www.iffo.net.

PRESS CONTACT

Robert Vanasse

National Coalition for Fishing Communities

Washington

+1 (202) 333-2628

bob@savingseafood.org

Georgie Harris

IFFO, The Marine Ingredients Organisation

London

+44 (0) 2030 539 195

gharris@iffo.net

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.