Saving Seafood

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.   

 

MSC discusses future of certification program during conference at Seafood Expo Global

April 26, 2018 — A panel of key industry members, NGOs, and Marine Stewardship Council officials met on 25 April to discuss what the future has in store for the MSC.

MSC CEO Rupert Howes was on hand to discuss the future of the program and the challenges it will need to face – and is already facing – after over 20 years of existence. Key to the discussion was the United Nation’s framework known as Sustainable Development Goals, and how MSC has had to adapt to a changing climate. Warming oceans have led to challenges for the environment, and in turn for fisheries that have seen drastic changes in the patterns of fish they harvest.

“Are our oceans in trouble? I think they are. You look at the impacts of acidification and climate change devastating coral reefs,” Howes said. “A number of MSC fisheries have lost their certificate as fish change their migration patterns.”

A theme throughout the discussion was the idea of striking a balance between pushing sustainability in response to new science and environmental challenges, without raising the bar so high that industry leaders decide the cost isn’t worth it.

Read the full story at the Seafood Source

 

For 50 Years, Deep-Water Trawls Likely Caught More Fish Than Anyone Thought

April 23, 2018 — Long before it lands on a restaurant menu, Chilean sea bass takes quite a journey to arrive on land. To catch these deep-sea dwellers, fishers usually drag nets along the ocean floor a quarter of a mile, or more, beneath the ocean’s surface — a form of fishing called bottom trawling.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization tries to keep tabs on bottom trawling, which rakes in juvenile fish and lots of other ocean species that are not the desired catch, depleting future fish stocks. It asks member countries to adhere to quotas and report fishing statistics.

But recent research, published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science, suggests that millions of tons of fish caught in deep-water trawl nets have gone unreported in the last 50 years.

Read the full story at National Public Radio

 

Caribbean looks to add climate change adaptation protocol into fisheries policy

March 20, 2018 — The Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) is seeking to put in place a protocol for climate change adaption in fisheries and aquaculture before the start of this year’s hurricane season.

Under an agreement signed with the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the CRFM will oversee the development of a regional protocol that will integrate climate change adaptation and disaster risk management into the Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy.

The development of the protocol forms part of the FAO-led Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Sector (CC4FISH) Project, which is being funded by the Global Environment Facility.

The focus of the Caribbean Community fisheries policy is to integrate “environmental, coastal and marine management considerations, in a way that safeguards fisheries and associated ecosystems from human-induced threats and to mitigate the impacts of climate change and natural disasters.” The purpose of the CC4FISH Project is to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts in the eastern Caribbean fisheries sector.

To develop the protocol, the CRFM has retained the services of Leslie John Walling, a Caribbean consultant with expertise in coastal resources assessment and management, disaster risk-reduction planning, and climate change adaptation planning. Walling, will “be consulting with government and non-government stakeholders in fisheries/aquaculture, climate change, and disaster risk management, including the Caribbean Community Climate Change Center and the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency as he puts together the draft document,” the CRFM said in a press release.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Marine Stewardship Council Celebrates 20 Years of Keeping Oceans Wild

March 6, 2018 — SEATTLE — The following was released by the Marine Stewardship Council:

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the world’s most recognized, science-based seafood certification program, marks 20 years of working to keep the world’s oceans wild with a new campaign. “Keep It Wild” celebrates the people who love wild seafood and who have been instrumental in partnering with the MSC to protect the world’s oceans over the past two decades. The MSC has launched a new website – 20.msc.org – to better highlight its work and mission and to encourage consumers to continue choosing seafood with the organization’s blue fish label that denotes wild, certified and sustainable seafood.

“Since the MSC’s establishment in late 1997, we have engaged numerous stakeholders – from fisheries and processors to restaurants, retailers and consumers – in our vision to see the world’s oceans teeming with life to ensure a healthy seafood supply for today, tomorrow and always,” said Brian Perkins, regional director for the Americas at the Marine Stewardship Council. “As we embark on the next 20 years, and beyond, we want to celebrate those who have turned that vision into a reality. While much work remains, we are proud of our collective accomplishments thus far and look forward to continuing our momentum.”

A mission translates into milestones

Conceived in response to global fisheries challenges such as overfishing and habitat destruction, the MSC was established as a nonprofit by Unilever and WWF to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans. The MSC uses its blue fish label and strict fishery certification standards to support its mission in three ways: recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood, and working with partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis.

Since its inception, the MSC has created highly specialized certification standards and traceability systems, which are continually refined and updated with the latest fisheries science. Organizations that seek certification do so voluntarily, and independent third-party entities determine whether those organizations meet the MSC’s stringent requirements before awarding certification. To meet the MSC’s standards, applicants must demonstrate alignment with three core principles: guaranteeing sustainability of fish populations, committing to minimal ecosystem impacts, and implementing effective management practices that respond to environmental changes.

The MSC’s rigorous approach has attracted stakeholders from around the world – including fisheries, processors, restaurants, retailers and consumers – in its efforts to achieve significant milestones in sustainability:

  • 12 percent of all global catch is now certified to MSC standards
  • 300 fisheries are certified globally, and 22 of those are in the U.S.
  • More than 33,000 companies around the world, representing every level of the supply chain, are MSC certified
  • More than 23,000 products carry the MSC’s blue fish label in about 100 markets
  • The U.S. market has more than 1,000 products with the blue fish label

Keeping the world’s oceans teeming with life is a collaborative effort, and the MSC has reached out not only to fisheries, but to businesses with global impacts. For instance, in 2006, Walmart committed to sourcing all fresh and frozen seafood from organizations certified to the MSC standard. In 2011, McDonald’s restaurants in Europe adopted blue fish labeled products, and the following years saw a similar movement by its U.S. and Canadian operations. In 2015, IKEA pledged to serve only sustainable seafood throughout its markets.

The MSC has also earned the respect of sustainability-focused organizations around the world. It was the first global seafood certification to achieve recognition from the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative for its credibility and rigor. Additionally, the MSC was recognized for best practices by ISEAL Alliance and UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

MSC maintains focus to ‘Keep It Wild’


As the MSC looks to the future, it is working to fold more individuals and organizations into its mission. With a new Keep It Wild campaign, the nonprofit is celebrating the people – known as “the Wild Ones” – who have turned their love of wild seafood into a solution for the world’s at-risk oceans. The campaign will highlight the fishers, processors, fish mongers, grocers, restaurateurs, chefs, consumers and even pets who enjoy seafood carrying the blue fish label, which is affixed to products ranging from fresh, frozen, canned and preserved items to supplements and pet food.

The Keep It Wild campaign will be featured online at 20.msc.org, in retailers, on the Food Network’s “Food Quest” show, and at the Environmental Film Festival in Washington, D.C. In addition to celebrating the people behind the organization’s success, Keep It Wild will provide consumers with guidance on how to find and select sustainable and traceable seafood products so they can do their part in keeping the oceans wild for generations to come.

Read the release here.

 

IFFO’s Andrew Mallison responds to National Geographic article

February 9, 2018 — The following was released by the IFFO:

Following an article published this week in National Geographic, I would like to address a few points on behalf of IFFO, The Marine Ingredients Organisation. The article titled ‘Why Salmon Eating Insects Instead of Fish Is Better for Environment’, published on 5th February 2018, discusses fishmeal and fish oil replacement in salmon feed by a Netherlands based company but quotes information that is both out-of-date and incorrect. Although we agree with the need for additional feed options in aquaculture to ensure the growth of this vital industry, the total replacement of fishmeal and fish oil, as called for in this article, is unjustified and damaging to the fish farming industry.

The practice of feeding fish to fish is labelled as both inefficient and unsustainable in the article, but I would argue that responsibly sourced and used strategically, fishmeal and fish oil are both an efficient and sustainable feed choice. The growing management of wild capture fisheries has ensured that in recent years stocks are in fact steady and not declining (UN FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016). While catches of some small pelagic species used to produce fishmeal and fish oil are volatile, this is due to environmental fluctuation with permitted catches being varied in line with biomass abundance to protect the stocks. These small pelagic species are often not as palatable, spoil quickly and are less popular compared to other local fish, but can be turned into highly nutritious feed. Further evidence of sustainability in the production of marine ingredients is that over 45% of the global production of fishmeal and fish oil is now independently certified as being safe and environmentally responsible, including in its sourcing of raw materials, a figure that far exceeds any other source of feed ingredient.

Regarding the efficiency of the use of fishmeal and fish oil, our latest FIFO ((Fish In:Fish Out ratios) using 2015 data show a conversion rate of 1kg of wild fish used in feed creates 1.22kg of farmed salmon, demonstrating that farmed salmon now produce globally more consumable protein than is used in feed. This ratio is significantly lower than the out-of-date figures quoted in the article and shows how fishmeal and fish oil are now being more strategically used at key points in aquaculture production cycles with a trend towards optimising their nutritional contributions. In fact, looking at the FIFO ratio misses the rationale for the inclusion of fishmeal and fish oil in feeds as their contribution to growth and health of farmed fish goes well beyond the supply of mere protein and energy.

Many fed farmed fish species have evolved to digest fish protein and much of the modern fish farming industry has been built on feeds using fish based ingredients. An increasing amount (currently 35%) of fishmeal is produced from recycled by-product and waste from fish processing.  Fishmeal and fish oil are rich in many of the micronutrients that are required for health, many of which are classed as essential. Even reducing levels of fishmeal in feeds has resulted in feed companies having to supplement with specific materials that are both costly produce, and carry their own environmental impacts. Removing fishmeal as an ingredient to feed could therefore compromise the health of the fish and close an environmentally friendly way of recycling waste products. Production of marine ingredients like fishmeal and fish oil do not require the same levels of fresh water for irrigation, treatment with agricultural chemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides, or use land needed to grow crops. While insect meal may be a theoretical alternative, the production of the millions of tonnes needed to replace fishmeal is currently not viable. When it is clear that the amount of fishmeal and fish oil is not sufficient to meet the growing demand for feed manufacture and, in the best interests of the fish farming industry, the raw material sources for feed should be maximised, it makes little sense to exclude these valuable, responsibly sourced and highly effective ingredients. Although not such a punchy selling message, the reality is that there is an opportunity for alternative ingredients like insect meal without needing to displace fishmeal.

Read the release at IFFO here

 

Bering Sea Crab Fisheries Receive Certifications Recognizing Their Sustainability

February 7, 2018 — Five Alaska crab fisheries, including two Bering Sea ones, have met the Alaska Responsible Fisheries Management (RFM) Standard.

According to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), the Eastern Bering Sea tanner crab is newly certified under the Alaska RFM for this year. Aleutian Islands’ golden king crab also received a new certification.

In terms of re-certified crab fisheries, Bristol Bay red king crab, St. Matthew Island blue king crab, and the Eastern Bering Sea snow crab all completed the assessment process successfully.

ASMI’s RFM model is based on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations code and guidelines for credible certification, which assures buyers that the crab is sourced from responsibly managed, sustainable fisheries.

Read the full story at KNOM

 

Mistake in fisheries statistics shows false increase in catches

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full story at PHYS

 

Alaska: Five crab fisheries meet stringent criteria

January 26, 2018 — Five crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands have met the stringent requirements for certification under the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute’s Alaska Responsible Fisheries Management program, two of them for the first time.

The newly certified fisheries were identified by ASMI on Jan. 18 as the Eastern Bering Sea Tanner crab and Aleutian Islands golden king crab. The recertified fisheries were the Bristol Bay red king crab, St. Matthew Island blue king crab and Eastern Bering Sea snow crab.

“Both the reassessed crab fisheries and the new additions scored high in each of the assessment criteria exemplifying their fisheries management excellence,” said Susan Marks, sustainability director for ASMI.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times

 

Marine Insurers Join the Fight Against Illegal Fishing

October 11, 2017 — Environmental NGO Oceana and a group of leading marine insurers have released a statement on safeguards to reduce the threat of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The group has commited to implement and promote due-diligence processes that will make it harder for blacklisted fishing vessels to find insurance coverage.

According to the UN, IUU fishing costs the global economy between $10 billion and $24 billion annually, which translates to 11-26 million tonnes of fish. “IUU fishing has ramifications for all of us and contributes to overfishing. It takes away jobs from honest fishers and supplies the unsuspecting public with illegally-caught food,” said Lasse Gustavsson, the executive director of Oceana Europe.

Researchers have identified marine insurance as one of the main sources of leverage in the fight against IUU fishing. Just like the legal fishing fleet, many IUU vessels are required by law to have insurance, and many operators prefer to have it even if it isn’t required. In a 2016 paper, Dr. Dana Miller and Dr. Rashid Sumaila of the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Economics Research Unit argued that many IUU fishing firms would be exposed to catastrophic risk if they could not insure their ships. Miller and Sumaila found that dozens of known IUU fishing vessels were listed on publically acessible insurance databases, demonstrating that some commercial insurers (and occasionally some P&I clubs) were extending coverage to blacklisted operators. They concluded that some insurers did not have adequate safeguards in place to ensure that vessels suspected of illegal fishing are kept off the rolls. The researchers did not name the firms involved.

Read the full story at Maritime Executive