Saving Seafood

Interior wrote proclamations scuttling ocean sites — emails

July 24, 2018 — Senior Interior Department officials prepared last fall to eliminate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument — even as they had yet to agree on the public justifications for doing so, according to newly disclosed internal documents.

Interior last week accidentally released thousands of pages of unredacted internal emails in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Copies of those emails, provided to E&E News by the Center for Western Priorities, detail Interior’s strategy — including a focus on timber harvesting, mineral rights, and oil and gas extraction — as it reviewed the boundaries of more than two dozen national monuments under an executive order from President Trump.

The documents also disclose internal deliberations over the future of some marine monuments, including reintroducing commercial fishing to some sites and reducing the boundaries of others.

In [a] September email, [Interior official Randy Bowman] advised that Interior strike data on commercial fishing in the [Northeast Canyons and Seamounts monument]. A deleted sentence states that four vessels in 2014-15 relied on the monument area for more than 25 percent of their annual revenues, while the majority of ships generated less than 5 percent of their revenues from the area.

“This section, while accurate (except for one sentence) seems to me to undercut the case for the commercial fishing closure being harmful. I suggest in the attached deleting most of it for that reason,” Bowman wrote.

Saving Seafood Executive Director Bob Vanasse disputed the idea that data didn’t support the repeal of the commercial fishing ban but said it instead was removed because it could be taken out of context.

“While it is generally accurate, if one looks at the entire fishing industry in the region, to make the statement that only a small number of vessels derive more than 5 percent of their revenue from the Monument area, for those vessels and fisheries that conduct significant portions of their operations in the monument area, the economic harm is significant,” Vanasse said in a statement.

He added in an interview: “The suggestion is that the administration is hiding the facts, and I don’t think that’s the case.”

Read the full story at E&E News

 

US Congress delays vote on Magnuson-Stevens Act renewal

June 28, 2018 — U.S. Congress delayed taking action this week on a bill that would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

H.R. 200, which would have extended the fishery management law until fiscal year 2022, has been held up in Congress by more than two-dozen amendments to the bill. Instead of a vote this week, multiple seafood industry and environmental representatives told Seafoodsource they now expect a vote after the House of Representatives returns from its Fourth of July break.

At a House Rules Committee hearing regarding the bill on Monday 25 June, lawmakers introduced 27 amendments to it.

What the delay means for the bill’s chances remains unclear. However, both the bill’s advocates and its opponents will use the time to continue their full court press on lawmakers.

The bill, formally titled the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” would extend the MSA through the 2022 fiscal year. However, in its current form, it would also make substantial changes to the act.

Among those who support the bill are members of the East Coast and West Coast of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities. They say the bill will create a fisheries management program that is both flexible and conservation-focused.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Balancing the Needs of People and Marine Ecosystems: Saving Seafood Looks at Aquaculture Sustainability

June 12, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Leading aquaculture experts discuss what sustainability looks like in farmed fishing and how we achieve it in the latest episode of Saving Seafood’s video series, Aquaculture Today. 

“One thing that’s true is the aquaculture industry is here to stay, has a very bright and important future for food security on the planet,” says Corey Peet, Managing Director of the Asian Seafood Improvement Collaborative. “But that has to be grounded in an objective view of how do we develop it sustainably.”

According to the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s 2017 overview of reduction fisheries – fisheries used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil – just over 83 percent of global catch from reduction fisheries comes from stocks that are reasonably well managed or better. Only an estimated 17 percent of reduction catch comes from poorly managed fisheries.

“20 years ago we were obsessed by this issue of fishmeal sustainability and inputs,” says Dan Lee, Standards Coordinator for the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices Program. “We’ve pretty much solved that and it’s been through economic forces largely.”

According to Manuel Barange, Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the goal of sustainability should not be maintaining the status quo, but ensuring that aquaculture will be able to feed the world’s growing population while protecting marine ecosystems.

“Sustainability means to understand the needs of the people for this generation and in future generations, and therefore how to protect the marine environment and the freshwater environment so that they keep producing,” says Mr. Barange.

Experts also stressed the importance of more data to help fisheries managers make informed decisions about aquaculture, as well as the need for continued industry involvement.

“Fishery management is better the more data we can get, the more accurate modeling that we can get,” says Neil Auchterlonie, Technical Director at IFFO.

“Doing good science, having good industry participation, and recognizing that when there are challenging issues, that collaboration within the industry is probably one of the best ways to solve them,” says Tim Fitzgerald, Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Impact Division.

The video is the fourth and final in a series, Aquaculture Today, in which Saving Seafood interviews leading aquaculture experts about advances in farmed fishing and what the industry will look like in the future. Previous episodes of Aquaculture Today covered its role in feeding the world, its efficiency, and the nutritional benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.

Interviews for Aquaculture Today were conducted by Saving Seafood at the 2017 SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Seattle, Washington.

 

‘Extracting Value from the Right Amount of Fish’: Saving Seafood Looks at Aquaculture Efficiency

June 6, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Through new techniques and technologies, farming fish is becoming increasingly efficient, leading aquaculture experts tell Saving Seafood in a new video.

“With a whole range of factors – improved nutritional knowledge, better management techniques of feeding on the farm, and all of that – [the fish in–fish out] ratio has gone down,” says Andrew Jackson, Chairman of IFFO RS.

“For every 0.7 kilos of fish in, you get a kilo of fish out,” says Dan Lee, Standards Coordinator for the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices Program. “So that’s becoming very favorable towards aquaculture productivity.”

In the case of salmon farming, nutritionists are using alternative ingredients, including plant proteins like soy, and mixing canola and other vegetable oils in with pure fish oil. This has helped lowered the percentage of marine ingredients in fish feed to about 25 percent of farmed salmon diets, and projections are that this will drop below 10 percent by 2025.

“They’ve figured out that the key to being successful and profitable and sustainable is not necessarily to catch more fish, it’s to extract as much value as possible out of the right amount of fish,” says Tim Fitzgerald, Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Impact Division.

These improvements have made farming fish one of the most sustainable forms of protein production, experts tell Saving Seafood.

“When you’re growing chickens or pigs or cattle, the transformation between the feed and the [farmed product] is much more inefficient than with fish,” says Manuel Barange, Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “So if we have to feed any animal for us to eat, it makes sense to do that with fish. It’s more efficient.”

The video is the second in a series, Aquaculture Today, in which Saving Seafood interviews leading aquaculture experts on the latest advances in farmed fish, and its role in the world. Saving Seafood released a video yesterday on aquaculture’s role in feeding the world’s growing population.

In addition to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Barange, the video also features Julien Stevens, Researcher at Kampachi Farms, and Neil Auchterlonie, Technical Director at IFFO.

Interviews for Aquaculture Today were conducted by Saving Seafood at the 2017 SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Seattle, Washington.

 

How Aquaculture is Feeding a Growing World: Saving Seafood Takes a Closer Look

June 5, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Global poverty and malnutrition are falling worldwide, and the availability of affordable, healthy protein is a key reason why. Aquaculture, as one of the world’s fastest growing sources of food production, has been an essential part of this development.

Saving Seafood is taking a closer look at the role that aquaculture plays as a source of food, nutrition, and employment for millions of people around the world in a new series, Aquaculture Today. We interview leading aquaculture experts on the latest breakthroughs and developments in farmed seafood, and the role it plays in the future of human health and the global food supply. 

Worldwide, protein consumption has more than doubled in the past 50 years, going from 9 kg per person per year to nearly 20 kg per person per year. Fish, as a cheap and readily accessible food source, has made up a large share of global protein consumption. As the demand for affordable sources of protein grows along with the world’s population, these fish are increasingly being produced through aquaculture.

“Aquaculture has been the fastest [growing] food production industry in the world for the last four decades,” says Manuel Barange, Director of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “We need to make sure that is maintained, perhaps not at the same growth, but that it is maintained because it provides not just nutrition, but actually livelihoods and economic opportunities in places where there are not many other opportunities for economic development.”

The importance of aquaculture to global seafood production is only expected to increase, with the production of farmed seafood expected to dwarf that of wild-caught seafood in the next 15 years.

“The projections are that we’ll reach 62 percent of food fish coming from aquaculture by around 2030,” says Dan Lee, Standards Coordinator for the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices Program.

This growth presents an opportunity for fishing communities, which have a chance to diversify to meet the needs of the global seafood market.

“One thing that I would really like to see the industry support [NOAA] stepping up with is dealing with this sort of issue, trying to help these communities start to either diversify their fisheries or thinking more about how they can move into aquaculture,” says Richard Merrick, former Chief Scientist at NOAA Fisheries.

Aquaculture Today comes from interviews conducted by Saving Seafood at the 2017 SeaWeb Seafood Summit in Seattle, Washington.

View the video here.

 

Senate Should Confirm Barry Myers to Lead NOAA

May 14, 2018 — NOAA – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – needs its leader! President Trump nominated Barry Lee Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, to the post in mid-October. The Senate Commerce Committee has twice advanced Myers’ nomination to the full Senate. All that’s needed to fill this important job is a majority vote on the Senate floor, which both Democrats and Republicans expect to happen. Unfortunately, partisan politics keeps getting in the way, delaying the vote.

Why is moving this along important? The Atlantic Ocean’s hurricane season begins June 1; tornado season has already started. In the first few days of May alone, 18 tornadoes were reported in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. In addition, 117 severe storms ravaged the Plains. The experienced professionals at NOAA can deal with the daily challenges of severe weather. But bigger decisions to carry out congressionally mandated improvements in hurricane and tornado forecasting require the authority of a Senate-confirmed nominee. As does putting a new hurricane-hunter plane into operation and prioritizing seasonal forecasts for farmers and ranchers. The nation also has a huge seafood trade imbalance that needs the attention of top NOAA leadership.

Few people are as qualified to head NOAA as Barry Myers. He has successfully headed a large, complex, science-based organization that is one of the country’s – and the world’s – leading creators and distributors of weather forecasts, data and scientific information. In other words, Myers is a veteran executive in the areas in which NOAA operates.

Myers also has worked for more than 30 years to make NOAA a better, stronger and more transparent organization. He helped establish the American Weather Enterprise, which combines the resources of NOAA, academic and research institutions, and America’s private-sector weather companies. The federal government works with industry leaders including Myers to distribute weather data free of charge to the American people. In fact, Myers has been repeatedly honored for helping to bring to the nation these major advancements, making the U.S. the envy of the world in how it provides weather information to its citizens.

Senate offices have received more than 60 letters from individuals and organizations supporting his confirmation, including strong backing from the past four leaders of the U. S. National Weather Service who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In addition, the seafood industry has overwhelmingly advocated his confirmation with letters of support from seafood processors and others in the fisheries industry ranging from ship captains to sport fishermen.

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities consider Myers’ experience at the helm of a family-based business to be a special asset for his role at NOAA. They recognize this connection as a skill set no other leader of NOAA has had. Many American seafood-harvesting and processing companies are multi-generational, family-based businesses and his understanding of them is unique. While individuals with impressive scientific credentials have led NOAA in the past, the coalition believes Myers brings to the agency much-needed leadership, vision and managerial skills.

Read the full op-ed at Real Clear Politics

Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren packs a town hall meeting, sits with Markey, Keating over fishing

May 14, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., came to the city Saturday to hear the concerns of fishermen who wanted a faster resolution to the Carlos Rafael problems that have closed two fishing sectors, maybe throwing fishermen permanently out of their jobs.

These cases of licensing and ownership, and repayment of overfishing, “need to be resolved as quickly as possible,” Warren said later.

Warren also heard from Mayor Jon Mitchell and fishing representatives who contend that the wind energy companies that are the finalists for an exclusive contract are not listening to the concerns of the fishing industry, mainly scallopers.

Warren along with U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., listened about these matters in a meeting at the Wharfinger Building on City Pier 3, organized by Bob Vanasse of the industry lobby Saving Seafood.

They parted ways when Warren and her campaign staff went to the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School to conduct a town hall style meeting.

The event had an atmosphere much like a campaign rally, with Warren on stage answering questions from attendees who signed up in a lottery.

She touched on a dozen topics, taking her talk where the questions went, on everything from her late mother, poverty, and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who rejects a bill that would insulate special prosecutor Robert Mueller from being removed from office by President Donald Trump.

She also condemned the recent trillion-dollar tax cut while Medicaid recipients are threatened by cuts and 90 percent of Americans claim zero percent in the rise of the economy in the past several decades.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times 

 

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy Asks for More Time to Analyze Offshore Wind Impacts on Commercial Fishermen

May 10, 2018 — WASHINGTON — New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy is asking the federal government for more time to analyze the potential impacts of offshore wind development, specifically on the state’s important commercial fishing industry.

In a letter last week to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Gov. Murphy wrote that the 45 days allotted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for comments on wind development in the New York Bight “is simply not enough time” for New Jersey to conduct the extensive outreach to fishermen it needs. Citing the year of stakeholder outreach conducted by New York, Gov. Murphy requested a 180-day extension of the public comment period.

“New Jersey and its fishing industry need ample time to collect and provide to BOEM more detailed information to enable BOEM to do a responsible job during the next stage of its wind energy leasing process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy called input from New Jersey fishermen “particularly critical” because the state’s main fishing grounds are in areas that New York has submitted to BOEM for potential wind energy development, including two vital areas that are closest to New Jersey’s coast.

“While New Jersey believes that wind energy and the fishing industry can coexist productively, it is critical that potential conflicts from these multiple uses be identified and planned for early in the process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

According to the letter, New Jersey is “only now beginning [its] review and stakeholder process,” in contrast to New York, which has had four years to conduct studies of offshore wind areas. It pointed out that New York did not effectively engage with New Jersey fishermen or other stakeholders as part of this process.

Gov. Murphy was also critical of BOEM’s own lack of engagement with New Jersey’s fishing industry, stating that they have “not yet been meaningfully involved in the process.” He pointed to two letters from New Jersey to BOEM late last year, which highlighted the lack of stakeholder outreach and requested meetings between fishermen and BOEM before moving forward with a public comment period.

However, BOEM scheduled just one fisheries-based meeting on the New York Bight in one location after its call for comments.

“This minimal level of outreach and limited time frame for response from New Jersey’s stakeholders are simply not adequate or equitable,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy’s letter is the latest effort to ensure that the concerns of fishing communities are properly considered in the development of offshore energy projects. In April, members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities wrote to Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, expressing their concerns over several proposed offshore projects and calling for more robust stakeholder engagement.

 

U.S. Shark Fin Ban “Will Not Work,” Would Likely Hurt Shark Conservation Efforts, Expert Tells Rep. Doug Lamborn

May 2, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In response to a question from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), shark expert Dr. Robert Hueter wrote that a U.S. ban on the trade of shark fins would not work and would potentially lead to more unsustainable or finned shark fins in the global market.

Dr. Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, previously testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on April 17 in favor of a sustainable shark trade bill and against a fin ban. His most recent comments came in response to a follow-up question from Rep. Lamborn about the message a fin ban would send to other nations.

“U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a terrible message to send the world.”

John Polston, a fisherman and representative of the Sustainable Shark Alliance, also testified in April in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act and in opposition to the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

The full text of Rep. Lamborn’s question and Dr. Hueter’s response is reproduced below:

Question from Rep. Doug Lamborn for Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory

  • Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message do you think this ban would send?

RESPONSE FROM DR. HUETER [emphasis added by Saving Seafood]:

The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the U.S. will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.  This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market, eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.  Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade and in commercial whaling.  But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman’s and my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy, this approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons.  Unlike in the case of elephant ivory where the U.S. was the world’s major consumer, we are only a 1% player in the world shark fin market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory trade.  In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude that the small market share of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.  Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks—that is, they do not remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins still “naturally attached” (with the exception of the northeast dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat).  So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong.  That is a terrible message to send the world.

Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we withdraw from the fin market.  The message we will be carrying to that forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest the fins, in our view.  This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S. attempts to advance shark conservation around the world.  In addition, consider today’s realities with elephants and whales: elephants are still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground, meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade routes, and elephants are still declining.  And whales are still being hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our preservationist beliefs about marine mammals.  Along these lines, a domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of fins to make soup is unethical.  This creates a clash of cultural values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position will be difficult to defend.

Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin trade in the U.S., we send a message to American citizens that we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public thinks the problem has been solved.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in foreign fisheries.  This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as the sharks worldwide.

Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:  The U.S. does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks, we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided and ineffective message for shark conservation.   

 

Massachusetts Business Leaders Call for Wind Development that Works with Fishing Industry

April 30, 2018 — A group of leading Massachusetts executives have endorsed a call from Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities to ensure that the commercial fishing industry is protected in any offshore wind power development. The group, a standing committee of the New Bedford Economic Development Council’s (NBEDC) know as the “Regeneration Project,” made the recommendations as part of an April 19 letter to Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to ensure on the ongoing offshore wind solicitation process.

The Regeneration Project is a coalition of New Bedford-area business and community leaders with c-level experience in industry, finance, communications, and public affairs whose goal is to “articulate a strategy for the city’s economic regeneration.” In the letter, the Council touts New Bedford as a liaison to the region’s important commercial fishing industry, and positions the city as a future hub of offshore wind development.

The NBEDC emphasizes the need for the Commonwealth to work closely and cooperatively with the commercial fishing industry to avoid negative impacts from offshore wind projects. The letter states that offshore wind must be “developed in such a way that it ‘fits in'” with commercial fisheries, and must not “exacerbate unintended consequences of negative impacts to commercial fishing and ongoing maritime trades.”

To avoid these impacts, the letter asks that initial wind development be limited to 400mw, to allow for study of its impact on other ocean users. The NBEDC further recommends that the Port of New Bedford serve as the main facilitator between offshore wind and commercial fishing interests.

The letter also highlights New Bedford’s previous experience with wind energy, and the city’s plans to be become “the central cluster of offshore wind for the east coast.” According to the NBEDC, the city “includes all major facets of the industry such as port services, construction training, research, engineering and manufacturing.”

Read the letter here