EDFish

By Monica Goldberg

A recently-filed bill with the upbeat title “The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” H.R. 2023, would unfortunately do just the opposite.  By gutting one of the most important improvements of modern fisheries law, we believe that this bill would move us backwards to a time of widespread overfishing.

Congress first banned overfishing in 1976, but a provision permitting “optimum” yield above sustainable levels led to widespread declines in fisheries.  Lawmakers eliminated that loophole in 1996 with the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA).[1]

A decade later, the Senate Commerce Committee described the results:

“The SFA attempted to address overfishing by capping fish harvests at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) …. However, recent evaluations of stock status have shown that ten years after enactment of the SFA, overfishing is still occurring in a number of fisheries, even those fisheries under a rebuilding plan established early in the SFA implementation process.

“Establishing a scientifically-based total allowable catch (TAC) for each managed fishery was a unanimous recommendation from all of the Council chairs, a recommendation of the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries Conference II final report, and a recommendation of the U.S. Ocean Commission. Requiring routine adherence to an annual catch limit or TAC is a well-known management approach that has been utilized effectively by several Councils, but failure to adopt this technique more broadly has contributed to continued overfishing.”[2]

Following this advice, the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act established three innovations that greatly strengthened the longstanding ban on overfishing:

1. Putting scientists in the driver’s seat by requiring regulators to respect the overall biological limits established by each regional council’s science and statistical committee;
2. Requiring TACs or quotas, known as annual catch limits (ACLs), on virtually all managed species; and
3. Ensuring catch stays below the ACLs.[3]

The results have been striking. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) most recently reported that 91% of species are fished at sustainable levels.  41 have recovered to a healthy population size after having been driven below the overfished level. Ten years after the 2007 reauthorization, we have achieved significant progress.

Despite the demonstrated value of ACL management, some recreational fishermen have contested its use in their portion of the fishery.  H.R. 2023 would amend the MSA to make clear that:

“Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are fundamentally different activities, therefore requiring management approaches adapted to the characteristics of each sector”[4]

and specify that regulators:

“have the authority to use alternative fishery management measures in a recreational fishery (or the recreational component of a mixed-use fishery) in developing a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations, which may include extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities.”[5]

It is abundantly clear that (1) recreational and commercial fishing are different undertakings and (2) managers can and do use different methods to regulate them.  But under current law those different approaches play out under the auspices of sustainable quotas that form a backstop against overfishing.  H.R. 2023 would remove those safeguards, exempting every fishery which the Secretary determines is not subject to overfishing.[6]  And since ending overfishing has been the goal of fisheries management for the last 40 years, that category includes 286 stocks –the vast majority.

The bill also would exempt stocks where fishing takes place below the target threshold (i.e., overfishing is not occurring) and there has been no peer-reviewed stock assessment and stock survey in the last five years.  This provision appears redundant, but in any event would be nearly as problematic; for example 30 of the 199 high priority stocks tracked by NOAA were last assessed in 2010 or earlier.  While frequent stock assessments and surveys are valuable, lack of them should not waive fundamental safeguards against overfishing.

Similar to previous bills, H.R. 2023 also includes an exception for so-called “ecosystem component” species, a category defined broadly as to include every “non-target, incidentally harvested stock of fish in a fishery.”[7]  This provision would remove protections for key species like sharks that are caught while fishermen target other species.  Nor does the bill clarify whether the exception covers a species like yellowtail flounder that is bycatch for scallopers but targeted by other fishermen.

The bill contains other problematic provisions,[8] but H.R. 2023’s most striking feature is its wholesale rejection of quota management without any indication of what we would use in its place to prevent overfishing.  This approach, which risks a return to considerable overfishing and accompanying harm to fisheries and the Americans who depend on them, is not one we should take in the name of “modernizing” a very functional fishery management law.

Citations:

[1] Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559 (1996).

[2] S. Rep. No. 109-229 at 6 (2006).

[3] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(6) (ACLs may not exceed recommendations of SSCs), 1852(a)(15) (fishery management plans must include ACLS and measures to ensure accountability with them).

[4] Sec. 3(a)

[5] Sec. 102(b)

[6] Sec. 105 (establishing new section 302(m)(2)(D))

[7] Secs. 105 (establishing exception and defining “ecosystem component species”).

[8] Precluding fishery management councils from adopting specific management measures, as section 103 would, runs counter to the regionally-based logic of the MSA as a whole.  And putting up roadblocks in front of exempted fishing permits (section 106) would stymie fishermen-driven innovation.

By Guest Author

By: Erik Lindebo

Calm seas or stormy waters? Well, we are only three months into 2017 and, for a number of reasons, it's already looking like a tumultuous year – calling to mind the ancient Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”.

Around the world, we are seeing dramatic political shifts. In Europe, Brexit has sent shockwaves through political establishments and, regardless of the final outcomes, we now face years of political uncertainty, and highly complex and no doubt emotive negotiations. Brokering a deal around fisheries will certainly be no exception, if past is prologue; only time will tell how access to waters, resources and markets will look in a divorce settlement with the EU. These changing times require new, adaptive ways of thinking about fisheries management. 

Chokes and complexity in the CFP

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) continues, of course, and we continue moving closer towards the full Landing Obligation coming into force in 2019. With this, pressure on Member States (and their fishermen) is building – with questions on how to tackle the most challenging issue of ‘choke’ species at the forefront of many people’s minds. This step-change policy has already thrown up some concerns over the rigidity of founding measures of the CFP; challenging the way quotas are being allocated in the face of changing fish stock distribution and fishing patterns. In parallel to this 2019 goal, we have the task of achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) objectives by 2020. The delays in adopting a North Sea mixed fishery plan and a new technical measures framework will only add further complexity to the European picture.

Climate change: a new frontier for fishery management

At the same time, a warming climate is causing changes to global ocean ecosystems at an unprecedented rate: triggering profound impacts on species distributions, with subsequent shifts in fishing patterns and preferences. Recent collaborative research between the Environmental Defense Fund, University of California Santa Barbara and Oregon State University shows that even though total global production of seafood may not be severely impacted by climate change, shifts in fish stock distribution at a regional level will be significant. Critically, the research findings underline that with effective management most fisheries could yield more fish and more prosperity, even with the challenging backdrop of a changing climate.

In Europe, the effects of climate change on fisheries and marine ecosystems, is something that – like recent political shocks – we are hearing a lot more about. Recent shifts seen in commercially important pelagic species has resulted in conflict around quota allocation between coastal states responsible for management of these stocks. Dubbed ‘the herring and mackerel wars’, regional governance structures such as the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) were not able to overcome the unilateral decision-making of individual nations, putting into question the strength of these over-arching agreements in the face of intense competition for shifting stocks. When unilateral decisions are taken on quota, this does nothing for fish stocks, nor for the collective livelihoods of fishermen, which depend on collaborative governance of an interconnected ecosystem. With climate change expected to exacerbate future fluctuations in fish stock distributions, such governance challenges can only be expected to intensify. We therefore urgently need to absorb and harness relevant research and consider its application through a regional European lens. Applying sound analytics through a regional focus will aid in our prediction of future shifts in stocks, as well as help map out smart management responses to these challenging and complex issues.

Building a shock-resistant future for fishing

Comprehensive and inclusive discussions on how our ecosystems and fisheries will respond to management decisions in the coming years need to start now. We must find a way to absorb and balance the many systemic ‘shocks’ that fisheries may face in the near and distant future. It is critical that everyone contributes their knowledge to offer the best chance of a successful cooperative outcome. If we don’t get it right, the research points to the possibility that we may see widespread ‘fish wars’, a return to overfished and collapsed fish stocks, decimated marine ecosystems, and perhaps a squandering of a critical food and economic resource. Europe can lead the way, and lead by example: with the best available science and research at hand, and collaboration with all stakeholders, we can begin to explore adaptive options for regional fisheries management and develop meaningful solutions that provide a solid future for European fisheries in an ever-changing environment.

Only by building resilient, adaptable management systems can we secure sustainable, prosperous fisheries and protect the livelihoods that depend on them, both now and well beyond our current ‘interesting times’.

By Shems Jud

Trawl gear modifications produce reductions in bycatch, fuel use and seafloor contact – all with increased catching efficiency.

Over the past couple of years EDF’s Pacific team has been privileged to work with fishermen, scientists, fishing net manufacturers and many others on a three-stage project to demonstrate the feasibility of improved trawl net designs on the West Coast. The video shown here describes the amazing progress we’ve made together and indicates a path-forward for disseminating our results to fishermen everywhere.

Our video tells the story of:

• Trawl gear innovations developed by fisherman Giuseppe Pennisi, of Monterey, California
• The work of Dr. James Lindholm, of Cal State University, Monterey, along with his team of remote operated vehicle (ROV) consultants and a hardy band of grad students.
• The Trawl Gear Modifications Workshop we convened last summer, which brought together researchers, fishermen, regulators and gear manufacturers from the West Coast and Alaska to view underwater fishing footage and share their expertise.

That workshop was so well received that a second one is already being planned.

Please feel free to share this video with your family, friends or colleagues. There are lots of good stories in U.S. commercial fisheries these days, and the more people who learn about them the better!

P.S. Many people contributed to this project, but our special thanks go out to NOAA Fisheries and the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program.

By Rafael Ortiz

Before curvina fishing starts, the Government and fishing sector must urgently adopt additional measures to differentiate legal and orderly fishing from illegal activities, and to demonstrate that the curvina fishery does not interact with neither vaquita nor totoaba.

Fishing for curvina could start earlier than expected in the Upper Gulf of California, without the necessary management measures in place to demonstrate that this fishery does not affect the critically endangered vaquita. EDF has advocated (2016, 2017) for significantly improving management measures, has advised officials and has offered help with implementation. Allowing any fishing activity in the Upper Gulf without necessary measures in place has serious implications. We urge the Government of Mexico and the fishing communities to adopt them as soon as possible.

The curvina fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in Mexico, thanks to measures that ensure the sustainable use of the resource. These include selective fishing methods and a rights-based management system, which together have managed to protect the resource by reducing the total catch to half the historic maximum, while increasing economic performance, stabilizing prices and reducing costs.

Despite these advances, the outlook for the curvina fishery has become very complex due to the increase in illegal poaching of totoaba and the impact poaching has on the vaquita population. According to the latest report from the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita (CIRVA) there are only 30 vaquitas left, an extremely delicate situation, about which EDF is extremely concerned. Although there is no evidence that the fishing gear used specifically for the curvina fishery interacts directly with vaquita or totoaba, there is a perception that this fishery could serve as cover for totoaba poaching.

We agree with other experts that poaching has been occurring year-round, regardless of what legal fisheries are on the water. Hence, to ensure the future of any and all legal fishing in the Upper Gulf, there is a critical and immediate need to have management and monitoring measures in place to differentiate legal activities from those that are illegal.

While the Mexican Government has implemented measures to protect vaquita, including increased enforcement and surveillance and a temporary suspension of most of the fishing activity of the Upper Gulf, illegal poaching of totoaba has persisted. Faced with this situation, scientists, NGOs and the fishing sector have called on both federal and state authorities to deploy more effective enforcement and monitoring, and to find ways to ensure legal fishing can continue in the Upper Gulf through both fishing gear development and management measures.

It is critical that a system is implemented that can allow officials to differentiate legal fishing activities from illegal poaching in the Upper Gulf. EDF, together with the fishing sector, authorities, scientists and key partners, developed and validated a series of measures to achieve this objective; including a roadmap for their implementation that has not yet been applied in a timely manner. These measures include:

• Mandatory use of location devices 24 hours a day on all fishing boats.
• A reliable boat census with clear and unambiguous registration.
• Transparent and accessible information so that everyone, including authorities involved in the enforcement of the Upper Gulf of California, can quickly differentiate between those conducting illegal activities and those who are complying with the law.
• Spatial and temporal segregations to ensure that there are no fishing boats in areas with the highest concentration of illegal poaching.
• Rapid action contingency protocols that in the case of observing a vaquita the curvina fleet as a whole halts fishing in that area.

These measures do not replace, but complement existing regulations, including the total allowable catch, the Official Standard for Responsible Fishing of Curvina (NOM-063-PESC-2005), the Curvina Golfina Fishery Management Plan, the curvina temporal closure, as well as the Management Plan of the Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve.

Failure to implement these additional measures puts responsible curvina fishing at risk. Without transparent mechanisms and commitments to ensure protection of the vaquita, and which can provide evidence that fishery does not interact with illegal activities, the progress achieved so far could be reversed at the expense of species and communities in the region.

EDF can only support the curvina fishery if it adopts the necessary measures that demonstrate it does not interact with totoaba or vaquita. Therefore, we urgently appeal to the Mexican Government and fishing sector that catches curvina to commit to these measures. Otherwise, the future of this fishery will be at risk. We are convinced that if authorities, the fishing sector and NGOs take immediate action, we can stay on the path to sustainability and prosperity. With everyone’s commitment we can continue to work in favor of legal and orderly fishing, securing a thriving future for the Upper Gulf species and its communities.

By Laura Rodriguez

This piece was originally published in Spanish on February 5, 2017 in El Universal.

The future of the vaquita – a porpoise endemic to the Upper Gulf of California – and the jobs of thousands of people living in the region are in jeopardy.

In recent weeks numerous reports have made public that rampant illegal poaching of the endangered totoaba fish continues – sought for its valuable swim bladder and sold for thousands of dollars in the Chinese black market.

Experts in fishing and environmental issues concur that totoaba poaching in the region is not only threatening the endangered totoaba, but is also the main source of mortality of the vaquita, which is on the brink of extinction. Environmental Defense Fund is seriously concerned about this situation and the equilibrium of the marine ecosystem in the Upper Gulf.

Efforts have been undertaken by several Mexican agencies to increase enforcement and surveillance on the water to protect these endangered species. Despite these efforts, poaching continues to be a serious threat. We are convinced that short-term actions are needed to eliminate this illegal activity, otherwise the rich biodiversity of the Upper Gulf and the jobs of legal fishermen, who abide by the rules, will be at risk.

Mexico – its fishermen, government and civil society – has the opportunity to secure a thriving future for the Upper Gulf by implementing new solutions to ensure legal fisheries do not have any impact on vaquita or totoaba.

EDF has worked with federal and state authorities, fishermen, other NGOs and researchers to develop solutions to safeguard protected species and ensure a more responsible fishing, including management measures and a road map for implementation that should be adopted by all fisheries in the Upper Gulf.

We are certain that new monitoring technology, spatial and temporal segregation and gear restrictions must be part of the solutions. It is also fundamental to have mechanisms to verify that fishermen are complying with the rules. These solutions are designed to harness technology to support the critical surveillance and enforcement measures and ensure compliance with the law and with environmental and fishery regulations. Delaying the implementation of these solutions will jeopardize fisheries and endangered species.

These solutions and innovations must become the norm for any fishery in the Upper Gulf. EDF stands ready to help the government and the fishery sector implement them.

On numerous occasions Mexico has shown its commitment to environmental protection. This progress must continue. The Mexican government – in partnership with fishermen and stakeholders – needs to take meaningful action immediately to eradicate illegal activity, promote healthy fisheries and secure a future for the vaquita, totoaba and the fishing communities in the Upper Gulf.

By Katie Westfall

Photo: Noel Lopez-Fernandez

By: Katie Westfall & Melissa Mahoney

Across the globe, populations of many highly migratory species of fish, turtles and marine mammals have hit dangerously low levels. For example, Western Pacific leatherbacks have declined more than 80 percent, and their Eastern Pacific counterparts have declined by more than 97 percent. Many of these species play vital roles in maintaining balanced ocean ecosystems full of diversity and life. As we work to reverse these declines, environmentalists have to ensure that everything we do has the greatest positive impact. This means that we’ll need smart management at home and solutions that protect highly migratory species wherever they roam.

New research suggests that well-intentioned U.S. regulations designed to help species like sharks and sea turtles may actually create a net harm to imperiled sea life.

This unintentional negative dynamic can occur when a country, like the United States, unilaterally adopts a regulation to protect an imperiled species such as sea turtles or sharks caught as bycatch. If the regulation leads to decreased fishing domestically and shifts fishing internationally to countries where bycatch rates are higher, the net result can be a higher number of bycatch deaths for the very species the regulation intended to protect. This phenomenon has been called the “transfer effect.”

Taking a closer look at the transfer effect

A group of experts gathered last fall at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) to explore this phenomenon. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UCSB convened natural resource economists, biologists, ecologists and fisheries managers during a two-day workshop to discuss research related to the transfer effect, also referred to by other terms such as the “spillover effect” or “leakage.” Participants discussed ways to advance the research and incorporate it into decision-making.

To ensure healthy and abundant populations of these important animals, we must fully understand the real impact of the choices we are making, especially when it comes to species that cross political boundaries and are subject to international agreements. In the United States, we can avoid worsening the overall environmental impact of fishing by crafting domestic regulations that result in avoiding imperiled species and maximizing catch of target species.

Fishermen are crucial to the solution

In order to both reduce bycatch in U.S. fisheries and avoid the negative transfer effect, we need to find solutions that achieve conservation goals while keeping U.S. fishermen on the water. Avoiding heavy-handed conventional management measures that cripple U.S. fishermen, while holding them accountable to bycatch limits and advancing the use of cooperative approaches and science-based bycatch avoidance tools, allows both sustainable and profitable fishing. Electronic monitoring and other technologies will be key to widespread accountability at lower costs. Improved management as opposed to large-scale closures can thus protect both imperiled marine resources and fishing communities.

There are parallels to be drawn from examining approaches to natural resource management from other sectors such as forestry. One researcher estimated that after the implementation of forest conservation policies in a country or a region, a significant portion (42%–95%) of the reduced forestry production can be transferred elsewhere, offsetting environmental gains. If illegal logging—rampant in many tropical timber producing countries, often targeting rare and valuable timber species, and prosecuted with far less care than legal operations— increases as a result of reduced production from better-regulated areas, transfer effects will produce a net harm to forest ecosystems.

With respect to fisheries, one participant summarized this dynamic by asking, “Can the United States have its fish and eat it too?” The reference in their research to the 16th century proverb speaks to whether unilateral regulations in countries with high consumption rates actually achieve their conservation goals. The authors of the paper point to several studies suggesting that U.S. regulations to protect depleted or endangered species like leatherback sea turtles has resulted in increased interactions with the very species intended for protection.

Case studies

In Hawaii, researchers assessed the impacts of a litigation-driven closure of the longline swordfish fishery from 2001 to 2004 to reduce sea turtle bycatch. The fishery reopened later in 2004 with new regulations, including the use of circle hooks, an annual sea turtle bycatch cap and limits on the number of sets fishermen could make. The result was a 90% reduction in the bycatch rate for loggerheads and an 83% reduction for leatherbacks, but also a 50% reduction in Hawaiian swordfish landings. Analyzing this shift, researchers found that if the U.S. fleet had continued to fish at peak levels rather than the gap being filled by other countries, overall we’d have 260 fewer sea turtle interactions per year. Further, they found that if North and Central Pacific countries had the same level of bycatch reduction as the U.S. fleet, we’d have an 83% reduction in sea turtle bycatch (1,878 fewer interactions).

Researchers also assessed the impacts of a large time area-closure encompassing a substantial portion of fishing grounds for the west coast drift gillnet swordfish fleet off the coast of California to protect endangered leatherback sea turtles. They found that the closure transferred effort to other Pacific Rim nation swordfish fleets, which is estimated to have caused the additional bycatch of 1,457 endangered sea turtles compared to 45 turtles had the area remained open.

For species across the coast in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, Bren researchers are assessing what would happen if the U.S. pelagic longlining fleet went out of business and transferred quota abroad. Preliminary findings indicate that the transfer of U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota to the majority of countries receiving swordfish quota from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) would result in higher levels of bycatch of species like blue sharks, dusky sharks, blue marlin and loggerhead sea turtles.

Potential confounding variables include other market forces like marketing campaigns, the substitution for and by other products and government influences like subsidies. More research is needed, but overall enough data and analyses exist to give fisheries scientists and managers a more comprehensive perspective when making decisions about how to protect animals like sea turtles and sharks that are inadvertently affected by fishing operations.

Potential solutions

It’s crucial to remember that the food retail industry (i.e. restaurants, grocers, etc.) can play a role in this issue as well. Increasingly, more information is available to major buyers as well as consumers to make informed seafood choices, like EDF’s Seafood Selector and Eat These Fish! campaign to highlight key species in U.S. fisheries that are making a comeback and represent sustainable and delicious choices.

Workshop participants also discussed regulatory efforts to ensure that global fisheries are also operating at high standards. Our nation’s top fishery law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, along with other existing authorities allow the United States to prohibit imports from countries that do not have equivalent conservation standards for reducing bycatch. Often, imports outcompete U.S.-harvested products and can put U.S. fishermen at a disadvantage. In August, the National Marine Fisheries Services took another important step and issued import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which aims to prohibit seafood imports from countries where fisheries kill more marine mammals than U.S. standards allow. Requiring the same standards to access U.S. markets provides strong incentive for countries to reduce bycatch and can help to level the playing field for U.S. fishermen.

Incorporating the transfer effect into decision-making when evaluating alternatives can also help us to evaluate unintended consequences of unilateral policies. In the same way that a National Environmental Policy Act document considers impacts to surrounding local communities, these analyses can also consider whether a transfer effect is likely to result from the policy and whether it will be positive, neutral, or negative for the species requiring the conservation measure. Having global perspective, especially for highly migratory species that transect boundaries, is critical to making every management decision as effective as possible.

Protecting species like sharks and sea turtles requires getting management right at home by implementing the right incentives and flexible, cooperative approaches to ensure that we are not transferring bycatch problems elsewhere. Eating sustainable, U.S.-caught fish promotes fisheries making significant conservation strides. Smart management, together with working with other countries to protect these charismatic ocean voyagers, can reduce or eliminate the transfer effect and help us protect our most loved sea creatures.

By Melissa Mahoney

The second national electronic monitoring workshop was held in Seattle, Washington late last year. Hosted by NOAA Fisheries, the goal was to bring together fisheries monitoring and management experts to share what’s working in EM implementation projects, what’s not, and to develop solutions and paths forward.

The workshop was also a celebration of significant progress taking place. Since the first national workshop held in January 2014, there has been a large scale EM regulatory program implemented in the Atlantic HMS fishery and regulations authorizing EM programs developed through Regional exempted fishing permit and cooperative research projects are scheduled for implementation in 2017 and 2018 in several different fisheries around the country.

These new programs all provide examples of one or more ‘best practices’ for EM, such as user-centered design approaches, clear goals established at the outset, and consistent collaboration among stakeholders.

The workshop allowed participants who may have felt ‘siloed’ in their own region to learn what is happening across the country, and provided a forum to talk about tough issues in an open, constructive manner. Fisherman Mike Russo from New England shared his perspective, “I see EM as giving fishermen more power, because their data is no longer anecdotal.” This is a strong signal that some in the commercial fishing industry are increasingly supportive of EM as an accountability tool with more opportunities and less cost (than traditional observers). Many participants agreed on the need for improved communication pathways to share EM related information between meetings. For now, EMinformation.com was suggested as a good hub for sharing EM/ER related information.

This year’s workshop highlighted successes from around the country:

• In Alaska, an ‘all hands at the table’ EM working group established in 2014 has developed two new pre-implementation programs that are being rolled out for the small boat fixed gear sector of the groundfish fishery through cooperative research and regulations implementing the program is anticipated in 2018
• On the West Coast, in spring 2016 the Pacific Fishery Management Council approved the first non-pilot EM program in the nation for two of three sectors of the Pacific groundfish trawl fishery. Program implementation is expected this year.
• In New England, 2016 was the first year EM was allowed in lieu of observers on groundfish vessels under an EFP, and two collaborative pilot projects are in process
• In the Atlantic, the pelagic longline fishery is coming up on a three-year review of their EM program to monitor Bluefin tuna bycatch with 100% compliance by more than 100 vessels
• NOAA Pacific Islands center staff are testing smaller-scale EM projects to protect sea turtles in Mexico, Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines using low-cost hardware on small coastal vessels.

In addition to providing regional summaries, the workshop sessions covered four major cross-cutting themes: program design, costs, enforcement and data. Group dialogue and discussions resulted in a consolidated list of issues that participants plan to give close attention going forward, including:

• Balancing the needs for both regional flexibility and national guidance
• Integrating EM data into current fisheries monitoring data streams
• Streamlining program requirements for fishermen using EM
• Getting an accurate cost picture of future regulatory EM programs and who pays for what
• Clarifying who owns data, confidentiality, security, and storage costs at the national level
• Developing a well-tested and trusted audit-approach as well as third-party reviewer models

• Building capacity of EM infrastructure in foreign countries to establish long term EM programs in those countries
• Improving outreach and communications within the EM research sector, and between NOAA and industry

A link to the full workshop report will be posted on EMinformation.com as soon as it is available.

By Kendra Karr

Workers help grow and maintain soft crabs that are purchased by surrounding mangrove islands within the Myeik archipelago.

Myanmar is a nation with a diverse array of ecosystems, each contributing significantly to local livelihoods, food security and culture. There is tremendous potential for Myanmar’s fisheries, if sustainably managed, to support the ecological, economic and social welfare of its people. The transition to sustainability will require an overarching plan that includes the use of new data collection and fisheries management tools to overcome the challenges these fisheries face and help them reach their full potential.

New science and collaborations among EDF, WCS and Cornell build on efforts of the Thriving Marine Fisheries in Myanmar initiative, offering solutions to support Myanmar’s efforts to steward sustainable and productive fisheries.

Myanmar’s essential fisheries:  

Having the best tools and management possible is needed because marine habitats, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests are key resources that support this nearshore food base, as well as livelihoods to the citizens of Myanmar. This is because fisheries are an essential part of Myanmar’s economic development, poverty alleviation and social stability.

It is the world’s tenth largest fishing nation and more than 90% of coastal communities in Myanmar rely on nearshore fisheries for food and income. Furthermore, fisheries represent 3.5% of Myanmar’s GDP and provide 43% of all protein consumed. With fisheries crucial role in Myanmar’s economy, managers need innovative ways to manage fisheries resources effectively and sustainably.

Fortunately, there are tools designed to empower managers and resource users to address the challenges these fisheries face and develop solutions that support objectives for their fisheries.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Myeik Archipelago

In order for these tools to be effective, comprehensive sustainable management plans are needed to ensure that all those who rely on fisheries in Myanmar can make a living. This is especially true of the Tanintharyi district, particularly the Myeik (or Mergui) Archipelago, which has a particularly high socio-economic dependence on the marine resources of the mangrove ecosystem, especially the fisheries found there.

The Myeik Archipelago contains approximately 800 islands and is situated in the north-eastern Andaman Sea. There is a long history of migration of people from other regions of Myanmar to the Myeik Archipelago, creating a rapidly evolving fishing industry. Both migratory fisherman and the ‘sea gypsy’ peoples (Moken and Salone) – who have lived off the sea for centuries – are contributing to the now rapidly growing commercial fisheries of Myanmar.

The range of fishing activities is extensive, and there is evidence of high fishing pressure, especially in the inner islands of the archipelago where both commercial and subsistence fishing is common.

Many of the villages of Myanmar rely on diverse fisheries for finfish, spiny lobster, sharks, mantis shrimp, squid and soft mud crabs as a major source of income. However, since many of the region’s fisheries generate limited data, they remain unassessed. This creates challenges for the long-term sustainability of these important resources.

Guiding effective management in fisheries with limited data:

Soft mud crabs of all sizes are captured in cages and either sold directly to international buyers or delivered to growing ponds.

Insufficient data is an obstacle to effective management of small-scale fisheries worldwide.  Myanmar will be facing these challenges as it develops new management approaches for its fisheries.

An expedition to Myeik region by a team of scientists from the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future of Cornell University and the Smithsonian Institute provided the opportunity to visit some villages that depend on inshore fisheries within the coastal mangrove system. Using the findings from this expedition, scientists were able to suggest new tools to help the region more effectively and sustainably manage their fisheries resources.

Some management efforts are already in place in target areas that are within ten nautical miles from the shore of Taninthayi’s Coasts where boats fishing in these areas can be no more than 30 feet long and use engines of no more than 25 horsepower. Typical fishing gears used by these fisherman include drift nets, gill nets and longlines.

However, new tools and approaches will be important to move the country to long-term sustainable fisheries management. This includes innovative methods to assess and manage fisheries with limited-data. When you have good data to assess the health of the stock, management becomes more effective and both managers and fishermen can make better decisions for sustainability and their livelihoods.

Local stewardship and collaboration will be essential:

Bait fish drying on King Island.

One option for Myanmar’s entire coast is to employ co-management of local fisheries – empowering communities to sustainably steward their fisheries with collaboration between government, scientists and civil society organizations. Moving toward management that prioritizes the sustainable use of identified high-value marine habitats results in networks of no-take reserves and fishing zones and establishes a science-based framework for fisheries management.

Using sustainable fishing practices and effective management tools, Myanmar can turn the tide for coastal mangroves resources and use through collaborations that increase access to data, effective management and development of science-driven and sustainable policies.

By Andrea Giesecke

Sweden, along with the rest of the EU, is tackling the challenge of phasing out the discarding of fish. While Sweden is a relatively small fishing nation in relation to our Scandinavian neighbours, the conditions for sustainable fisheries and co-management structures are strong. This is especially true after a recent fishermen-led collaboration resulted in recommendations for a new management plan designed to meet the challenges of the discard ban while ensuring a prosperous future for their businesses.

The word “co-management” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. This is especially true when it comes to policymaking processes. I have been working closely with fishermen to improve fisheries management for three years. In this blog post I want to illustrate what co-management means to me and my work and why I believe it is so important to recognize that fishermen are at the centre of lasting solutions.

Setting the stage for collaboration:

With EDF looking to drive positive change in fisheries management across Europe, and strong prospects for meaningful reform in Sweden, I recently moved back to my home country to lead this work. Before this, Environmental Defense Fund had organised a fisheries exchange to British Colombia for Swedish fishermen and managers, showcasing the local methods of fishery management and offering an opportunity for our Swedish group to quiz Canadian fishermen on their experiences with their system.

Building on this exchange, and from my new base in Gothenburg, we held follow-up meetings with all those who took part to identify key take-home messages and next steps as well as how these ideas might be applicable in the Swedish context. One important take-home message from the exchange, for fishermen and managers alike, was how well the managers and the fishermen in British Colombia worked together. Fishermen were seen as natural partners and critical participants in the decision-making process.

With this experience in mind, Peter Olsson—a Swedish fisherman partner who is well known within the industry—and I, with huge support from EDF staff and associates, initiated a co-management process in Sweden.

The challenge: successfully implement the European Union’s Landing Obligation

The landing obligation (or ‘discard ban’) requires the fishermen to keep and land all quota species, including catch that would have previously been discarded due to lack of quota or value. To ensure input from fishermen when figuring out how to comply with this obligation, whilst maintaining sustainable, profitable businesses, we asked the fishermen’s organisations to identify members that represented a wide variety of gear types, areas and vessel sizes from four key Swedish fisheries.

These members then constituted four working groups that were given a weighty task: develop recommendations for a quota management system that – crucially – didn’t put the small-scale fleet at risk while also ensuring that large-scale vessels, subject to the landing obligation, could secure a future in fishing.

Government participation was vital to ensuring a fruitful outcome to the co-management process, so it was of huge importance that the Swedish Marine Agency took part in meetings with the group throughout. They offered valuable insight into what was legally possible, and were able to share experiences from previous quota management changes.

A new management plan designed by fishermen:

A testament to the success of this process: recommendations jointly developed, in a process led for and by fishermen, have formed the foundation of a public consultation on a new demersal management system for key Swedish fisheries. This was published last month by the Marine Agency for public comment, and the new system is expected to be introduced on the water from January 2017. This case was successful because fishermen saw a challenge that needed to be resolved, and they realized that their participation in finding a solution was the best way forward for everyone involved.

Looking ahead to the new management system, we know it won’t be perfect, and not every fisherman will be happy, but it is now far more accepted in the fishing community than it would have been because fishermen were involved from the beginning, were assured that no fleet segment was overlooked or disadvantaged in the creation of this policy, and gained a sense of ownership over it. This is a huge positive step forward because not only will this increase understanding and acceptance as well as the probability of compliance with the new system, it will also likely perform better as it is grounded in what fishermen know works on the water, not on what sounds good within the four walls of an office.

That to me is co-management: putting the practitioners front and centre in crafting the solution, and enabling them to work together with managers to address challenges facing a fishery. This collaboration, with clear mandates and high level objectives, leads to more efficient and successful fisheries management.  I am now relishing the challenge of seeing this system operate successfully on the water, and supporting Swedish fishermen in a sustainable future, built on their own terms.

By Sarah O'Brien

Tuna are one of the most iconic fish species, recognized all over the world for their importance ecologically, economically and culturally. As top predators, tuna—like sharks—are extremely important in structuring and regulating marine ecosystems, which in turn helps make the ocean more resilient to a changing climate and other stressors.  Tuna are one of the most popular seafood products consumed around the world, but at present almost half (46%) of global tuna stocks are overfished or are slightly overfished[1].

Given the importance of the species, and the challenges facing them, setting clear management goals and mechanisms to achieve these goals is necessary to ensure the long term viability of Pacific tuna fisheries.

EDF’s global initiative is to reform the world’s fisheries, and tip the global seafood system towards sustainability.   A key part of this initiative involves active support for the sustainable management of Western and Central Pacific tuna fisheries.   This region is a priority because over 50% of the world’s tuna catch comes from this part of the Pacific Ocean.  Managing tuna fisheries in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner is challenging because tuna are highly migratory, moving across ocean basins and among the exclusive economic zones of numerous different countries.   Successful management therefore requires close coordination among all of the countries fishing for tuna to ensure compatible measures are adopted and enforced.

During the first week of December, the 13th annual meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) will bring together representatives from over 25 countries to consider new management measures for several species of tuna, sharks, rays and sea birds. One of the key opportunities WCPFC members[2] will have during this meeting is the implementation of a science-based management approach, referred to as “harvest strategies” for each species of tuna.  In the WCPFC, harvest strategies include a suite of tools such as reference points, which are guideposts that tell managers how the fishery is performing, and harvest controls rules that outline what actions to take if the fishery is over or under performing. In combination, these management tools create a framework for timely and responsive action to changing conditions in a fishery, thereby helping to improve fisheries management and support sustainability.

In order to successfully manage Pacific tuna fisheries, the WCPFC must take a number of steps to ensure the sustainability of the stock. These important objectives are outlined in the Work Plan for harvest strategies. They include: establishing clear management objectives for each of the tuna species; agreeing to timeframes to rebuild the bigeye tuna stock; adopting a target reference point for south Pacific albacore; and an initiation of a harvest control rule framework for skipjack and south Pacific albacore tuna.

Taking steps like these to establish a specific management framework can be challenging in a regional fishing management organization (RFMO), such as WCPFC, as decisions are made by consensus and some representatives fear harvest strategies will negatively impact the economic viability of their fisheries in the future.  In reality, setting out clear management goals and mechanisms to achieve those goals is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of Pacific tuna fisheries.  It is equally important to note that managing fisheries under a harvest strategies approach is not a new concept, harvest strategies have been under discussion in some form at WCPFC since 2007. In fact, many countries and other RFMOs already use reference points and harvest control rules to successfully manage various types of fisheries all over the world.

The implementation of harvest strategies at WCPFC is not just a priority for NGOs like EDF.  This year over 20 different organizations, representing both environmental organizations and the fishing industry, jointly submitted a letter to the WCPFC calling for immediate action on this issue.  Reference points and other associated management tools are important because they prevent subjective decisions regarding what amount of catch is sustainable and ensure timely, science-based management responses to changes in the status of a particular fishery.  With the decline of bigeye tuna, the declining economic viability of the south Pacific albacore fleet, and concerns about the status of other important tuna species, the time is right for action.

EDF urges WCPFC members to support the full and timely implementation of the Work Plan for harvest strategies. The steps outlined in the Work plan are crucial for getting Pacific tuna fisheries on track so they can securely provide greater economic, ecological and social benefits to communities for generations to come.

[1] ISSF. 2016. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2016: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2016-05B. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA

[2] WCPFC members: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu. WCPFC Participating territories: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna.

By Melissa Mahoney

One of the keys to effective fisheries management in the 21st century is accountability. Accountability requires having timely and accurate data. Electronic monitoring (EM) is gaining momentum in U.S. fisheries and abroad as an efficient means of meeting accountability requirements. Yet the ‘recipe’ for implementation of EM has not been perfected, and the price tag – and who pays – is not always clear. These challenges partly explain why the rate of uptake has been painfully slow, even as industry increasingly bears the brunt of human observer costs without any cheaper alternatives.

Recognizing the need to better understand the costs associated with EM, EDF’s Pacific team engaged a group of experts – Dr. Gil Sylvia, Dr. Michael Harte and Dr. Chris Cusack of Oregon State University – to analyze the costs of fishery monitoring systems such as EM and traditional At-Sea Observers (ASO). The goal of this research is to describe the state of EM in U.S. fisheries with both agency and industry stakeholders to better enable them to compare costs and tradeoffs between EM and ASO programs.  If monitoring costs go down, profitability goes up, and everyone wins.

The report includes a comprehensive review of EM literature and interviews with fisheries stakeholders around the U.S. with experience using this technology. The team also analyzed EM cost data and developed both a financial model and an interactive financial forecasting tool. Users can input monitoring goals, system needs, fishery characteristics, program standards and indicate who pays for several cost categories, resulting in fishery-specific cost projections.

Researchers concluded that fully operational EM programs in fisheries are still uncommon, but that the use of EM technology is rapidly gathering momentum and there is potential for growth in the market for EM services. Analysis from the available literature shows that EM cost varies across fisheries and fleets, and could fall anywhere between 50% and 150% of the costs of human observers. Costs ultimately depend on monitoring program objectives, fishery characteristics, and the management system in which it operates. Generally, EM systems become more cost-effective with greater levels of fishing effort (i.e. more vessels, trips, etc.), but cost savings may be diminished by high levels of video review, or when vessels are geographically isolated and hence more costly to service.

A path forward for success

Interviews conducted by the research team revealed several important elements for a well-designed and implemented EM program, including:

• Having clear goals and a complete program framework;
• Including industry in program design; and
• Ensuring that EM is aligned with the capacity, regulatory environment, and culture of management agencies and industries.

Another key takeaway is that collaboration and trust across industry and agencies is key to a successful implementation. If fishermen see this as a cost-effective and efficient monitoring tool they will embrace it. Given how expensive fishing is today, successful implementation of EM is essential to getting the costs down and realizing long term profitability and durability of commercial fisheries.

Please click here to access the report.

By EDF Oceans

This World Fisheries Day, we’re optimistic about the future.

Despite major challenges facing our oceans, fishing communities around the world can be thriving and abounding in fish within our lifetimes. Improving management and practices can lead to healthier oceans that in turn support more fish in the water, more food for communities and improved livelihoods for fishermen.

We are optimistic that this brighter future is within reach.

Here are 5 reasons why: 

1. The Tremendous Potential of Our Oceans: Our oceans can support more harvests, more profits and more fish biomass in the water if managed sustainably. New research undertaken with our partners at the University of California – Santa Barbara and the University of Washington shows we can have more fish in the water, more fish to feed a growing planet and more money to support the world’s fishing communities in our lifetimes under a management system of improved policies and practices. The research shows that the most gains can come from establishing secure fishing rights, which ends the desperate race to overfish, and empowers fishing communities to be stewards of their resource. Learn more about our global work.
2. Belize Adopts Fishing Rights, Nationwide: In June 2016, Belize made history by becoming the first country in the world to adopt a national, multispecies secure fishing rights program for small-scale fisheries. This groundbreaking policy came after years of struggling to address illegal fishing and the threat of overfishing in Belize. In order to protect the vital barrier reef ecosystem along with the livelihoods of local fishermen and the food security for all Belizeans, two pilot sites were launched in July 2011 to explore secure fishing rights options. The results were incredible. Fishermen enjoyed better catches and decreases in illegal fishing activity, all while reef fish populations started to recover. The pilot programs were so successful that fishing communities worked to get “Managed Access” implemented nationwide. Learn more about this historic milestone.
3. Celebrating 12 fish that are delicious and sustainable: Knowing which fish are good sustainable choices can sometimes be difficult, even for the most informed fish buyers. That’s why the Eat These Fish Campaign highlights twelve US fish species that have come back from the brink and are ready for menus and plates all over the country. The campaign aims to raise awareness and appreciation for the comeback of U.S. fisheries and many underutilized fish in order to help fishermen, energize chefs and strengthen the supply chain for sustainable seafood. The campaign has been a great success with events in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and beyond that bring together fishermen, chefs and others across the seafood industry. Learn more about the Eat These Fish Campaign.
4. Fishing Rights in Sweden’s Demersal Fishery:In 2013, the countries bordering the Skagerrak in the North Sea (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) discussed implementing a ban on throwing, or “discarding” fish overboard when they caught too many fish or fish that were too small. This ban, or “landing obligation,” became a cornerstone of the reformed EU’s Common Fisheries Policy which was finalized in 2014. This policy created controversy in Sweden because their collective quota allocation system uses weekly allowances, meaning the implementation of the landing obligation could cause the shutdown of the entire fleet if a quota for one species is exhausted. It was clear that a new management system was needed. Thanks to key leaders in the Swedish fishery, Swedish fishermen were able to come together to identify challenges and recommend new management options. The new system—which most likely will be implemented in January 2017—will enable fishermen to swap quotas so they can balance their catches with their quotas, avoiding shutdowns for the country’s most important fisheries in 2017. Learn more about our work in Sweden.
5. The State of US Fisheries is Strong: We have a lot to be proud of when it comes to fisheries management in the United States. This year’s NOAA Status of Stock Report confirmed that the management reforms implemented over the last decade are delivering remarkable results across the country. For example, it showed that the Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) – the composite index that tracks the health of key commercial and recreational stocks that account for 85% of total catch – is continuing to increase and hit an all-time high in 2015. These promising numbers are a result of fishermen, managers and conservationists working to end unsustainable management and implement reforms that incentivize conservation. Find out more about the positive state of U.S. fisheries.

By Erin Priddle

(Reposted from cfoodUW.com) The ‘Brexit’ vote to leave the European Union (EU) represents an unprecedented step-change in EU and United Kingdom (UK) politics.  In the fisheries sphere, what came as a blow for many, especially those who worked to secure environmental gains from the last reform round of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), was seen as a big victory by others: particularly fishermen, many of whom view Brexit as an opportunity to take back control of their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to catch and land more fish within Britain, and to help shape a new political framework specifically tailored to the UK for effective management of the marine resource.

Whatever side of the fence you sit on, one thing is certain: the UK is a big player in EU fisheries. Politically, the UK is a top voting power in the European Parliament, with a strong reputation for pushing through ambitious environmental policies. Economically, the UK boasts the largest processing sector in the EU and has the third largest fleet in terms of catching power. The UK will continue to be a substantial fishing power post-Brexit, so it is important that countries come together to ensure that policies and practices are coherently designed to work for fish and fishermen, regardless of the political situation.

So what does all this mean for the fish? Since fish do not follow geo-political boundaries, international cooperation with other European countries will be crucial. Additionally, key marine conservation mandates of the CFP, such as fishing to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and ending quota discards, must not be lost.  The CFP is beginning to demonstrate results with signs of some European commercial stocks improving under a more coherent EU framework. It is critical then that we keep up this momentum to ensure effective management of the resource through sound stock advice. Should Scotland break away from the UK (Scotland holds nearly 80% of the UK quota share), the political landscape will change again.  But the need for cohesive management of internationally shared stocks must remain intact.

And what does this mean for fishermen? The political capital yielded by fishermen throughout the Brexit debate has given many in the industry a feeling of optimism. Quota management will be the top priority for most fishermen and they will want Government to negotiate UK fishing opportunities in a way that is fair and advantageous to British fishermen. Cross-sector collaboration (including fishermen, processors, scientists, governments and environmental groups) will be essential to achieve a coherent vision for the future and provide a unified voice for fisheries as a priority area under Brexit.

Let’s not also lose sight of the bigger picture. The potential for EU fisheries to increase profits through secure, science-based quota systems that respect environmental limits is within reach. The UK must not be left behind in yielding these gains. Countries, such as Norway and Sweden, can lead the way by offering models and lessons to help establish best practice to secure ambitious, robust UK fisheries management with strong buy-in from industry and others. Any new system should also consider our changing climate to ensure that important flexibilities, (such as adaptive management in response to changes in stock distribution), are effectively built in. Now could not be a more opportune time to seize the moment and drive positive change for UK fisheries.

By Shems Jud

On October 7, in a first-of-its-kind event honoring Champions of Change for Sustainable Seafood, our friend Brad Pettinger was honored for helping to turn around a fishery that was declared a federal disaster in 2000. Brad serves as director of the Oregon Trawl Commission and was a driving force behind the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) landmark 2014 certification of the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery as well managed and sustainable.

Brad’s recognition as a Champion of Change is an acknowledgement of the tough times that he and many other West Coast fishermen endured as their fishery failed and they struggled to bring it back. Brad often recalls when it hit rock bottom, and his wife suggested one day that maybe it was time to sell their boat. “Honey, I said to her, there’s nobody to sell the boat to!” remembers Brad. “You see, nobody wanted to buy the boats, because they couldn’t see a future for the fishery. It was a rough, rough time for everyone involved.”

From that point forward Brad put his shoulder to the wheel, attending every meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for years, helping to hammer out the framework for a catch share fishery management program. That program – which launched in January of 2011 – allocated specific annual quota amounts to trawl fisherman based on their catch history, eliminated the “race for fish” culture of the groundfish fleet, dramatically reduced bycatch, and ushered in a new era of accountability and cooperation among fishermen and regulators.

Although the historic nature of MSC’s June 2014 announcement may be lost on people who aren’t fish wonks, its opening lines bear repeating:

“The most diverse, complex fishery ever to enter assessment against the MSC standard anywhere in the world today was awarded MSC certification as a sustainable and well-managed fishery, following an independent, scientific assessment and significant stakeholder involvement.”

That certification – and the dramatic turnaround of the fishery over the past 15 years – owes much to the leadership of Brad Pettinger. While there is more work to be done in ensuring these sustainability gains translate to stable and profitable markets for West Coast fishermen, the Champions of Change event was a great reminder of how far the fishery has come.

By Phoebe Higgins

photo credit: pengrin™ origami fish – made by June via photopin (license)

Investing in the ocean is essential to ensuring life thrives on our planet. Three billion people depend on seafood for their survival, and hundreds of millions depend on the oceans for their livelihood. With climate impacts threatening this critical resource, now is the time to bring investment capital to accelerating the transition to sustainable fishing.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. urged worldwide consensus on the need for large-scale private financial investments to cover the costs of combatting climate change. He points out that “there is a global abundance of private capital” that should be tapped to develop clean technologies rather than relying exclusively on the relatively small supply of capital available from governments. Mr. Paulson also asserts that governments can lead the way to a low-carbon future by creating policies and tools to enable the flow of capital into critical projects.

The same is true for sustainable fishing. We already have the tools to increase the amount of fish in the sea, food on the plate and financial return for fishing communities in as little as ten years. EDF, together with the Prince of Wales’s International Sustainability Unit and 50in10, found that fish and people thrive, and investment risk is lower, when harvests are at sustainable levels, fishers have secure access rights and there is robust monitoring and enforcement of fishing activity. These enabling conditions make it possible for investors to focus on investments in seafood supply chains, infrastructure, and technology.

With the right policies in place, capital will follow:
Already, private capital suppliers like the Althelia Ecosphere Sustainable Ocean Fund and Encourage Capital recognize the value in sustainable fisheries investment. Conservation finance is a hot topic, and there is no doubt the capital supply for sustainable investments is growing. Beyond the desire to support healthy oceans and livelihoods, new impetus for countries to act comes from the UN Sustainable Development Goals, aimed at reducing poverty and protecting the planet. Countries will have to demonstrate how they will achieve these goals by 2030, and better stewardship of ocean resources is directly in service of several of the goals.

If countries act now to implement policies that make sustainable fishing the standard, they will not have to bear the financial burden alone; private capital will join in, ultimately making key investments to support the oceans’ ability to provide food and livelihoods for millions.

By Rod Fujita

The coast of Galicia, Spain where octopus, goose barnacles, and many other species are harvested by small-scale fishermen and women.

Fishery managers, scientists and NGOs from all over Spain gathered in Madrid on a warm spring morning at a workshop convened by EDF and World Wildlife Fund Spain, eager to learn about how to collect, analyze, and use data to manage fishing mortality so that they could achieve their goal of good yields sustained over many years and even generations.

Like many people struggling to improve fishery outcomes around the world, the participants in this workshop felt like they couldn’t use the complex fishery assessment models they had learned in school because the data they actually had in hand were quite limited – and the models required rich streams of data.  The vast majority – probably over 80% – of the world’s fisheries appear to be in this situation.  The participants also felt like they had to make important management decisions with limited expertise by wading through a mass of technical papers on a variety of topics, none giving clear and specific guidance for the specific fisheries they care so much about.

Over the course of three intense days, participants worked together to synthesize guidance from the literature and from other fisheries on how to monitor fisheries, choose appropriate analytical methods and use the results to manage fisheries.  Together, we worked out how this guidance could be applied to specific fisheries.

We were thrilled to read the evaluations afterward.  Participants got a tremendous amount out of the workshop, but many of them said that it was too short (even though most of us were exhausted by the long days of thinking hard and practicing various skills).  They wanted to dig deeper and build on the skills that they had learned.  It would have been great to have a large body of international expertise on monitoring, data analysis and how to adjust fishing mortality to achieve fishery management goals in one convenient place that could be tailored to the fisheries that they care most about.

FishPath: Guiding managers in complex, data poor fisheries

Fortunately, a working group of international stock assessment experts convened by the Science for Nature and People program foresaw this need and developed a process called FishPath that does exactly that.  FishPath  elicits key information about a specific fishery and then uses that information to identify monitoring, assessment and harvest control options that will likely be appropriate for that fishery. 

Vast amounts of expertise are hard-wired into FishPath, so that using it is like having a high-powered group of experts advising you.  FishPath users systematically consider the available data, the biological attributes of relevant species, the specific ways in which the fishery operates, socioeconomic characteristics and fisheries governance to make sure that the monitoring, assessment and harvest control options are realistic.

Fisheries have some universal characteristics – for example, they should all be collecting information and data on the status of fish stocks and on how the fishery is doing socially and economically. They should also be analyzing this information and data somehow and they should all be using the analytical outputs to set harvest control measures to prevent fishery collapse and maintain good yields.  At the same time, each fishery is unique – different ways of collecting data will be more or less suitable, local experts and stakeholders will have more or less capacity to use various kinds of analytical methods, and some harvest control measures will work better than others, depending on the fishery.

The FishPath process helps users make good choices among all of the feasible options so that monitoring programs, data analysis, and harvest management have the best possible chances of succeeding.

By Jessica Landman

Credit: John Rae

Cast your mind forward – 10, 15, 50 years. What do you see? The world around us is changing: resource needs are transforming alongside a booming global population. Technology is evolving exponentially, informing how we respond to daily life. Our planet’s climate and the delicate balance of our oceans are under threat.

With over 3 billion people in this changing world relying on oceans for sustenance, where do fish, and fishing, fit into this future?

The world’s oceans have never been higher up the political agenda. Three major international events on ocean governance took place in the last month: the second UN Preparatory Committee on a legally binding instrument for the high seas; the IUCN global congress; and the star-spangled Our Ocean Conference, addressed by President Obama, COP21 President Ségolène Royal, and Leonardo DiCaprio (to name a few). Meanwhile, in London, HRH The Prince of Wales recently convened a meeting – through his International Sustainability Unit (ISU) – to ‘take stock’ of the global transition to sustainable fisheries, and scan the horizon for emerging challenges and opportunities. (Read the full meeting report here).

Fisheries and the future

A keynote speaker at the ISU event projected a global population of 18 billion, and a human life expectancy of 300 years (just around the corner – think your grandchildren, or their children). Another speaker forecast a 60 million ton shortage in seafood products in comparison to demand, within a generation. In a world where billions (often in the most food-insecure nations) rely on protein from fish and other seafood, this vastly increased pressure on resources paints a bleak picture for global fisheries and food security. But we see a brighter future where we can rebuild global fisheries for more fish, more food and more prosperous fishing communities.

Communicating with and for communities

In embracing the big challenges and opportunities in the pipeline (the leaps in technology, population and demand for food), finding the ways that really work for our planet will be about finding solutions that society can get on board with and, better yet, co-creating solutions with communities. The unanimously adopted UN FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small Scale Fisheries point clearly towards the importance of empowering fishermen: ensuring that they fully participate in managing community fishery resources, and that they have secure tenure rights to those resources. This combination of rights and responsibilities recognizes fishing communities’ role in charting the path to sustainable management.

Laying foundations: spreading success  

Credit: John Rae

Using these kinds of systems, Environmental Defense Fund is working across Europe and the world to engage fishing communities in building sustainable management from the bottom-up: around the ideas, innovation and hard-won know-how of fishermen.

In Sweden, small- and large-scale industry, working with government, have designed a system of catch management that will enable them to meet the significant challenge of Europe’s discard ban. Further afield in Belize, fishermen have worked with government and NGOs to design a system to protect local communities’ fishing areas and ensure catches stay within sustainable limits. In the Philippines, local governments and fishermen have designed similar systems – now rolling out across the nation as a whole – and enacted local ordinances that delineate and protect their fishing areas. In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, commercial fishermen have led the way in designing a system of sharing their catch while staying within fishing limits, allowing for a remarkable rebound of the iconic red snapper fishery.

These success stories – about more fish in the water, more food on the plate, and more prosperous communities – share a common theme: active leadership from fishermen.

Research by leading scientists and economists has shown that within 10 years, and under these types of innovative, effective management, 70% of the world’s wild fisheries can recover – an important step in addressing the nutritional needs of an expanding world.

So perhaps the future for global wild capture fisheries, and food security, doesn’t look so bleak. While the challenges posed by the demographics of the future must not be underestimated, real opportunities exist to support communities, harness their experiences, and realize a brighter future for the ocean, fish and fishing communities.

By Priya Sundareshan

Photo Credit: GulfWild

In recent years, the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery has featured both a tremendous recovery and ongoing controversy. Through the stakeholder-driven process outlined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (appointed by Governors from all of the Gulf States) implemented a successful reform of the commercial sector of the red snapper fishery. One of the results has been a near tripling in the fishing quotas for both the recreational and commercial sectors in a matter of years. Despite this dramatic quota increase, federal recreational fishing seasons have shortened. The Council is currently considering proposals to reform and manage the recreational sector to maximize access.

At the same time, some resource users have sought federal legislation exempting the fishery from the very system that helped the red snapper population rebound. Specifically, H.R. 3094 proposes to transfer management for Gulf of Mexico red snapper to a new authority made up of only the directors of the Gulf state fish and wildlife agencies (who already maintain a vote on the current fishery management council). We oppose this approach because it could result in overfishing and make decision-making much less transparent, among other concerns. The bill passed the House Natural Resources Committee in June despite bipartisan concerns that it would undermine the conservation provisions of the MSA, and only after it was modified to prohibit any federal funds from being used by the new management authority. As a result, the Gulf States would have to find the resources to fund the extra work.

How much would it cost? In early July, Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) estimated what it would cost the state to conduct the activities involved in managing the federal red snapper fishery:

Click to enlarge.

LDWF stated that biological sampling (represented by the large “fisheries-independent” cost category) would only be conducted once every five years. Therefore, over five years their total costs would be:

Click to enlarge.

How much would the other Gulf States have to pay for red snapper management? Here’s a simple estimate, using LDWF’s numbers as a starting point and making the following assumptions:

• We assume that the costs of enforcement and collection of fisheries-dependent data depends on the relative length of Gulf of Mexico coastline of each state. To make it simple, we approximate that Texas has the same coastline length as Louisiana, Florida has twice Louisiana’s coastline, and Alabama and Mississippi are each one-eighth of Louisiana.
• We assume each state will still likely be required to employ the same number of biologists and staff as Louisiana estimates in order to perform the necessary data collection and analysis for the other categories.

Therefore, we estimate that the cost of red snapper management over five years to each state will be:

Click to enlarge.

Thus, the combined five-year cost of H.R. 3094 for the five Gulf States would be $111,475,000, with the highest price tag being almost $40 million in Florida.

Gulf red snapper should remain under Council management to continue its successful rebuilding and because recreational innovation can happen under the current structure. But additionally, lawmakers both in the Gulf States and Congress should consider the potentially significant cost of this proposal.

Priya is member of EDF's national policy team working to improve fisheries management in the United States. 

By Laura Rodriguez

Photo: Carlos Aguilera

We are deeply concerned about the future of the vaquita marina, a small porpoise endemic to Mexico’s Upper Gulf of California.  Long on the brink of extinction, the vaquita is facing an additional threat due to rampant poaching of an endangered fish – the totoaba – whose swim bladder is prized in Asian cuisine, and whose future is also imperiled. The situation is now dire with scientists estimating that fewer than 60 vaquita may now exist, escalating the urgency for action. Not only are the futures of vaquita and totoaba at stake, but also the future of thousands of legal fishermen whose livelihoods are uncertain as the government proposes management changes to address the threats to vaquita.

In July, President Peña Nieto and President Obama called for a permanent ban on gillnets in the Upper Gulf region where vaquita are found, the development of alternative gear to ensure that legal fishing in the Upper Gulf does not interact with vaquita, and bilateral coordination on enforcement to eliminate illegal trafficking of totoaba. The Mexican government has made initial strides, and this week the Mexican Senate Fisheries Committee convened Upper Gulf stakeholders to provide a platform for discussion of the critical issues at hand.

We commend both governments for understanding the urgency and importance of these issues, and for announcing efforts focused on fisheries gear improvements. However, these actions alone are not enough. What’s most important is to end the illegal poaching of totoaba. As long as poaching continues, vaquita continue to risk death as a result of entanglement in totoaba nets and further, the already depleted totoaba population will continue to decline.

We are working with a group of committed experts and stakeholders to develop innovative solutions that get to the root of the problem – ending illegal poaching. Systemic changes are needed, including solutions that create consequences for illegal action while rewarding good performance.  Further, solutions are needed to deter poaching, eliminate corruption in the enforcement process, and ensure justice is brought to bear. There also needs to be a reduction of black market trafficking of totoaba swim bladders. Many of these solutions will require changes on the water, while some may also require cooperation across Mexican and U.S. borders and beyond.

While promoting solutions that end poaching, we will also work hand in hand with Upper Gulf communities to develop the strict measures – and means of transparent verification – to ensure that legal fisheries do not cause direct harm to vaquita or provide cover for illegal poaching of totoaba. This will include focus on the curvina fishery, one of the most economically important finfish fisheries in the Upper Gulf which has improved performance through a science-and-rights-based management system.

Now is the time to solve these challenges. With new solutions involving the best science available, technology, and continued government and community commitment to change, we will have a vibrant Upper Gulf supporting a wide diversity of marine life, including the vaquita and totoaba, while providing stable livelihoods for thousands of people.

By Guest Author

Photo: Laurence Hartwell

By: Dr. Erik Lindebo, Senior Consultant, EDF Oceans Europe

For coastal communities across Europe, fishing is both a way of life and a business. It’s an activity rich with tradition, spanning generations within families – but to be passed down from father to son, businesses need to be strong: fishing must stay profitable, and sustainable. Facing a changing policy landscape can challenge fishing businesses of all sizes, and the introduction of a ‘Landing Obligation’ (which requires fishermen to land and account for all of their catch rather than discarding unwanted fish) by the Common Fisheries Policy is certainly one of the biggest policy challenges the industry has had to adapt to.

Whilst many industry members are still reeling at the implications of landing 100% of catch – and worried about their bottom line in a ‘discard free’ future – a dedicated and growing core of active fishermen are seeking new solutions to implementing the Landing Obligation (LO). Their vision is of fishing businesses that waste little, deliver profits and remain sustainable in the long-term. But how can this be achieved?

“We just need to make use of the tools available. With the right combination of tools and policy measures we can create the right conditions for sustainability and strong business.” Peter Olsson, Swedish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation.

No need to reinvent the wheel:

With the LO in place, I believe constructive dialogue between policy makers and those working to practically apply their legislation is more important now than it ever has been. In recent years we have seen a step-change in how fisheries science and management is viewed: the start of a shift from top-down instructions to something more inclusive, which seeks answers and inspiration from the communities affected by legislative change. Using the knowledge already inherent in fishing communities, and giving them the space and correct incentives to experiment and deliver change, we can see existing tools to combat discards put to new uses.

This will have to be the basis upon which a successful Landing Obligation is delivered.

“The collaborative approach to implementation is truly worthwhile. When you give fishermen the ability and incentive to deal with the issues themselves, they are able to come up with the best solutions. Fishermen need the freedom to take control of their fisheries.” David Stevens, Crystal Sea Fishing

Highlighting the range of tools available to achieve low – or no – discards has been at the heart of EDF’s industry-led approach in Europe, with our Discard Reduction Manual offering methods which can be applied in different scenarios, combined, or used in isolation: all of which can play a role in delivering the LO. These tools include options for smart quota management and building accountability, but also look closely at ways to improve selectivity within fisheries.

Industry innovation highlighted at IIFET 2016 in Aberdeen:

Providing a crucial platform for the exchange of knowledge from within fishing communities and debate emerging new ideas, the International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) dedicated a day of its 18th biennial meeting solely to ‘industry and policy’. I was there to host an EDF panel session entitled: ‘Adapt, improvise and overcome: fishermen’s responses to the LO’.

Practical, optimistic approaches to the LO conundrum were at the heart of discussions, with both fishermen and the processing sector detailing their trial, error and triumphs with self-driven gear adaptation. Whilst there was a clear sense of ambition from those present, the vision of the future presented was not without some stark warnings from industry.

With that crucial aim of constructive and mutually respectful dialogue in mind, it’s clear that legislators need to listen and be sensitive to the testimonies of fishermen like Crystal Sea Fishing’s David Stevens. His participation in the Cefas and Marine Management Organisation (MMO)-supported “Catch Quota Trial” enabled him to achieve a 67% reduction in mortality and almost completely erase juvenile haddock discards. This was, however, done at a 19% economic loss. This cannot be ignored.

An important step forward:

I strongly believe that closely examining real life examples, such as David’s, and the others we heard during our panel conversation, is the first step on the path to discovering practical implementation solutions for policies that affect livelihoods as well as ecosystems. It allows us to assess and balance the on-the-water effectiveness of increased selectivity, different forms of smart quota management, and everything else in the toolbox. Such scenarios also let us see potential limitations of policies and the need for further innovation from the bottom-up – as well as increased flexibility from the top-down.

EDF will continue to find channels through which to encourage this kind of dialogue, and to champion the examples of ambitious fishermen generating best practice ahead of the curve. With old knowledge, new innovations and a varied toolbox at hand, Europe can deliver a sustainable future: for fish, fishermen and communities.