EU Common Fisheries Policy reform, from the inside

by Frédéric Le Manach

In 2009, the European Commission initiated the third reform of its Common Fisheries Policy. Although the basic principles of this new framework – which will stay in place for the next 10 years – were adopted in early February by the Parliament, the Commission is still regularly hearing experts on various topics. This process aims to propose specific amendments to this basic framework, before the final decision around June, once the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers reach a consensus (yes, this is a rather complex system). One of these hearings was held in Brussels on 19 February, and it focused on deep-sea fishing. Claire Nouvian invited me to attend, and although I was expecting a vivid debate, I was not expecting such vividness.

Claire Nouvian – a Pew Fellow, journalist, director/producer, director of BLOOM (www.bloomassociation.org), but principally woman of action – was one of eight experts heard by European Union (EU) members of parliament (MPs) during a special session on deep-sea fisheries. Other names in this group of experts included Tom Blasdale, chair of the ICES Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP); Phil Weaver from the UK’s National Oceanography Centre; Pascal Lorance from the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (Ifremer); and Matthew Gianni, co-founder of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. I will not go into much detail about these seven talks. To put it in a clamshell, everybody sort of agreed that deep-sea trawling is harmful to many long-lived species (such as fish, sponges and corals) and fragile ecosystems, and that we know very little about them (there are analytical assessments for only three species, and footage is very rarely available).

Claire introduced the French deep-sea fishery, and the bottom-line of her talk was that despite rather important subsidies, the three companies involved in French deep-sea fishing are all in deficit! The example of Scapêche, which takes between 60 and 86% of the total French deep-sea catch, is staggering: between 2002 and 2011 it received €9.34 million from the state, plus an additional €16.9 million cash-injection from Intermarché, the supermarket chain to which it belongs [1]. (If you are looking for a definition of vertically integrated systems, here you go.) Yet during this 2002-2011 exercise, it had €0.1 million of cumulated net losses after tax. A French MP, co-chair of the fisheries committee, then said something along these lines: “Are you saying that such companies are philanthropic? That they give away money to something that is not worth it? I don’t buy it!”

That was it. At this point the extremely politically correct way of telling white lies or saying nothing too controversial was abandoned for a much spicier and polarized argument. A couple of MPs started to shout, accusing each other of being blind or deaf. Others tried to be more constructive, as one British MP and another French MP said that we should start inquiring upon the use of EU citizens’ money, and further refuted the co-chair’s argument that because some fishers were relying on this fishery, we should maintain it despite a high risk of collapse for most stocks.

Then, we ran out of time. Big surprise. My personal feeling is that this hearing was designed to restrict the debate. Controversial topics were kept for the end, whereas they should have been at the forefront. As a result, I am actually quite confused about the outcome of this meeting. Of course, its aim was not to make decisions, but rather to propose amendments to the Common Fisheries Policy proposal that is currently being reformed. However, I cannot guess what these amendments will be. Some MPs are definitely pro deep-sea fishing, others are firmly against it, but a number of them remain undecided and they will likely base their vote on who shouts the loudest. (Please remember that empty vessels make the most noise.)

Isabella Lövin, Swedish MP and author of the must-read book Silent Seas, managed to get the deadline for these amendments postponed to mid-March. I will follow-up with a report on the progress.

You can listen to the entire meeting at:
www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20130219-1500-COMMITTEE-PECH

References
[1] http://www.bloomassociation.org/download/Accounts_Scapeche_Eng.pdf

On using catches to predict abundance

Factions among the fisheries community disagree on whether catch data – the amount of fish drawn from the sea – can be used to assess the health of fish stocks. In a comment piece published in Nature today, the Sea Around Us Project’s Principal Investigator Daniel Pauly shares his views, emphasizing that catch data are often the only type of data we have to tell anything about the status of fisheries.

While developed countries such as the US, Australia and those in Europe are able to use a variety of data, such as size, growth and migration information, as well as survey data, to conduct expert stock assessments, Pauly points out that these come at a cost: anywhere from US$50,000 to millions of dollars per stock. Such costs are not feasible for the majority of developing countries. Furthermore, for 80% of maritime countries, catch is the only data available.

In a second comment piece, Ray Hilborn and Trevor Branch from the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, argue that there are other factors beyond the health of a fish stock that can account for changes in catch. Used on their own, catch data can create confusion and alarm about the abundance of fish stocks, they say.

Pauly agrees that catch data should be used with caution, but adds there is danger in undermining the value of this information. In most countries, the amount of fish caught is the only information available to assess stock health. “If resource-starved governments in developing countries come to think that catch data are of limited use, the world will not see more stock assessments; catch data will just stop being collected,” says Pauly.

The Sea Around Us Project, under the guidance of Pauly, is currently conducting a global evaluation of catch data, from 1950 to present, collated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Results so far reveal that many countries have underreported their catches. The extent of the underreporting is larger in developing countries (about 100-500%; Zeller et al. 2007) than in developed ones (30-50%; Zeller et al. 2011).

To see the full article, please go online to Nature.com: Pauly D (2013) Comment: Does catch reflect abundance? Yes, it is a crucial signal. Nature 494: 303-305.

Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: The last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105: 266-277.

Zeller D, Rossing P, Harper S, Persson L, Booth S and Pauly D (2011) The Baltic Sea: estimates of total fisheries removals 1950-2007. Fisheries Research 108: 356-363.

Jellyfish in the Mediterranean

Jellyfish (Cotylorhiza tuberculata) with juvenile fish near Hvar Island, Croatia. (Photo © Tihomir Makovec)

A new journal article from the Sea Around Us Project reviews knowledge of jellyfish in the Mediterranean Sea, including how the abundance of a number of native and invasive species has changed over time, and what could be causing the changes. In addition, the authors offer advice on how to manage jellyfish blooms – a challenge given the high levels of uncertainty and variability.

Lucas Brotz, a PhD student supervised by Dr Daniel Pauly, is the lead author on the paper, which is published in Acta Adriatica.

You can access the paper here.

Brotz L and Pauly D (2012) Jellyfish populations in the Mediterranean Sea. Acta Adriatica 53(2): 211-230.

A journey to South America

A fishing boat at Taganga, a village in Colombia. (Photo: Robin Ramdeen)

by Robin Ramdeen

In the first week of November 2012, the 65th Annual Conference of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI) took place in Santa Marta, Colombia. GCFI facilitates the exchange of experiences and ideas in fisheries science, management, governance, conservation and education. The conference was a testament to the region’s commitment to the stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and the marine resources therein. The Caribbean Sea is a special place for me, because I grew up in Trinidad and because I discovered my niche in Caribbean fisheries while doing my Master’s thesis on the fishing of queen conch in Tobago. The theme of this year’s conference was “Artisanal fisheries: importance, implications and challenges for management,” a topic which is familiar to many of us. Artisanal fishing is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as fishing carried out by individuals or households requiring low investment in technology and gear. By this measure, the majority of Caribbean fisheries operations are artisanal or small-scale.

The conference’s keynote speaker was Dr Ratana Chuenpagdee, who is no stranger to the Sea Around Us Project. Dr Chuenpagdee completed her PhD under Dr Daniel Pauly’s supervision in 1998 and is now the Canada Research Chair in Natural Resource Sustainability and Community Development at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. She urged the GCFI conference participants to consider ways to elevate the profile of small-scale fisheries, which – in terms of providing employment for fishers and catches for human consumption – are simply “too big to ignore” [1]. Dr Chuenpagdee is a powerhouse, and I was eager to chat with her at a socio-economic café where I got the opportunity to ask whether we erroneously mislabel our fisheries as small.

In terms of technological capacity, small-scale fisheries are certainly “small” compared to industrial ventures, but they are rather large in terms of the employment they provide for fishers as well as the quantity of catch they supply for human consumption [2]. Undoubtedly, the dearth of quantitative catch data associated with small-scale fishing sectors perpetuates this false notion of their size. As Dr Pauly plainly states in his foreword to the book “World small-scale fisheries: contemporary visions” (edited by Dr. Chuenpagdee), “countries cannot be bothered with the logistical and administrative nightmare that monitoring and reporting on small-scale fisheries often represents” [3]. As a native of the Caribbean and a research assistant with the Sea Around Us Project, I feel it to be my duty to reconstruct this historical fisheries information.

During my presentation at the conference, I explained how using information on catch, effort and seafood demand (i.e., consumption, as per household surveys) allowed me and my colleagues to reconstruct total marine fisheries catches for 10 Caribbean island countries from 1950 to 2010. Unsurprisingly, these catch reconstructions illustrated a substantial level of under-reporting in the Caribbean. For example, the reconstructed catches of Haiti and Jamaica were 3 and 4.3 times higher, respectively, than catches reported by these countries to the FAO, where the data become part of the world “catch” database. Overall, approximately 5 million tonnes of unreported catches were estimated for these 10 Caribbean countries during the 60-year period that we examined, with an average of 54,000 tonnes of unreported catches each year. The main discrepancy was due to unreported and under-reported catches from the artisanal, subsistence and recreational sectors. However, reporting seems to be improving as unreported catches in the early time period accounted for 80% of reconstructed catches, as opposed to 50% in the present time period.

The presentation was well-received and I had a number of scientists and fishers as well as an anthropologist interested in learning more about the Sea Around Us Project. Despite the English-Spanish language barrier, the GCFI spirit demonstrated that we are just one planet, working together for our precious oceans – questioning, sharing and improving things.

References
[1] “Too big to ignore” is a research network and knowledge mobilization partnership which aims to address the issues and challenges facing small-scale fisheries; http://toobigtoignore.net/
[2] Jacquet J and Pauly D (2008) Funding priorities: big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conservation Biology 22(4): 832-835.
[3] Chuenpagdee R, editor (2011) World small-scale fisheries: contemporary visions. Eburon, Delft. 400 p.

Sea Around Us contributes to one of Smithsonian Magazine’s Top 10 Ocean Stories of 2012

The Ocean Health Index is the first global quantitative assessment of ocean health (Map credit: Halpern, et al, Nature)

In 2012, Kristin Kleisner, Dirk Zeller, Rashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly with the Sea Around Us Project were part of an international team that undertook the first global comprehensive assessment of ocean health – and gave it a passing grade of 60 out of 100.

This achievement – the first “grading” of ocean health – has been recognized as one of the top 10 ocean stories of 2012! You can read more about this research and the other top ocean stories highlighted by Smithsonian Magazine here.

Find out more about the Ocean Health Index at this website and see the paper published in Nature.

New database of marine aquaculture launched

The new Global Mariculture Database (GMD), released by the Sea Around Us Project, offers detailed information on the where and what of mariculture around the world since 1950. By mapping the production of marine aquaculture at smaller scales than the usual national scale and by digging deeper into the species being farmed, the GMD provides room for new insights into marine aquaculture.  And all of this information is now available online for anyone to browse on the Sea Around Us Project website!

The GMD confirms reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) that the amount of seafood produced by marine aquaculture has tripled since 1950 – a massive increase. During this time, there has also been a shift in the type of seafood produced globally, with a larger percentage of predatory species, such as salmon and tuna, farmed around the world today compared to 1950. In the past, the relative production of species lower on the food chain, like mussels and oysters, was higher. This phenomenon has been described as “farming up the food web” a term derived from the concept of fishing down marine food webs.

In keeping with the Sea Around Us Project’s goal of improving public access to global fisheries and aquaculture information, this Global Mariculture Database (GMD) is freely available online at www.seaaroundus.org.

To find out more about the GMD and how it was created, you can read the paper recently published in the journal Marine Policy:

Campbell B and Pauly D (2012) Mariculture: a global analysis of production trends since 1950. Marine Policy 39: 94-100.

To everything there is a season

BC spot prawns (Photo: Island Vittles/flickr.com)

by Wilf Swartz

Japanese call it shun (旬), the seasonality of food. It refers to the time of year when a specific type of food is at its peak, either in terms of harvest or flavour. It is not unique to Japanese culture, as The Byrds reminded us in the mid-1960s with their, now classic, rendition of “Turn! Turn! Turn! (to Everything There Is a Season).”

Unfortunately, at least in our modern culture, shun seems to apply to many kinds of food, but not to fish. Although we do enjoy various seasonal foods out of season, often the associations are still there. Strawberries bring to mind the early days of summer. Pumpkins, especially in pies – and sadly, Brussels sprouts – trigger the whisper of falling leaves, thoughts of turkey and Thanksgiving. Yes, turkey itself is seasonal, although in medieval times it might have been venison instead, roasted over a roaring fire on a cold winter’s night. And the list goes on, and on, and on, for all but seafood, or most seafood, which has somehow fallen through
the cracks.

As for the ocean’s bounty, what is the best time of year to eat, or not to eat, herring or cod or tuna, or you-name-it? We’ve stopped viewing fish as seasonal.

And it’s epidemic. Living in Vancouver, which is more attuned to fish and fisheries than most other cities in Canada, many of us are aware when salmon is in season; yet, few of us would hesitate to order salmon rolls at a local sushi joint in the middle of February.

The reality is not that seafood lacks seasonality. In fact, as one of the few remaining, large-scale forms of hunting wild foods, marine fisheries are, without doubt, more susceptible to seasonal variations in productivity than other major food sources. We’ve simply found it convenient to overlook that fact for a number of reasons.

Fish stocks migrate in and out of local fishing grounds. Sometimes they are locally plentiful, and sometimes they’re not. During the spawning season, a fish’s body chemistry changes, e.g. fat content declines, and consequently for the consumer, flavour differs throughout the year. However, with the advancement of freezing technology and the expansion of global distribution networks [1], retail markets are now able to supply select species (and their close substitutes) throughout the year from all corners of the world. This, in effect, masks seasonal variations in local fisheries. Our seafood consumption has gone from “fish of the day” to “fish of whenever” and doesn’t take its bearing from the season.

Furthermore, there are benefits to eating seafood in season that we’re not reaping.

Ecologically speaking, sticking to seasonal seafood would enable fisheries to diversify their target species and distribute fishing impact more evenly across the underlying marine ecosystem. Such a balanced harvest strategy, it has recently been suggested, would be useful in mitigating the adverse ecological effects of fishing, even going so far as to support sustainable fisheries [2].

In terms of economics, matching seafood demand to seasonal availability could moderate the potential for price collapses associated with oversupply during peak catch seasons. By creating a situation in which fisheries could capitalize on the pent-up demand that accrues during periods of little or no catch, the additional supply during seasons of plenty would be absorbed by additional demand. Here the example of BC spot prawns comes to mind.

Diversifying the “portfolio” of fish species targeted by fisheries would also help to mitigate the inherent risks involved with specialized fishing, allowing the fisheries to better cope with fluctuations of specific stocks. Moreover, the promotion of seasonal seafood may present new marketing opportunities for fishes that aren’t “mainstream” and are currently treated as by-catch, thus further enhancing the economics of multi-species fisheries.

What about the benefits closer to home? A shift to consuming locally seasonal seafood would logically lead to consumption of local fish, which would have a positive impact on local fishing communities. The versatility required to shift target species and gears from season to season throughout the year is likely to favour small-scale fishing operations, which are generally perceived to be – though not necessarily – more energy-efficient and ecologically sustainable [3]. Rather than operating over a greater distance and following the migration patterns of targeted species, vessels could remain closer to their local fishing grounds, enhancing the socio-economic conditions of fishermen.

The issue is how do we promote such a major shift in our purchasing and eating habits?

“Seasonal” versions of consumer guides like OceanWise (http://www.oceanwisecanada.org/) and Seafood Watch (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/) would be a start. And the feasibility of a seasonal seafood campaign and its effectiveness in promoting sustainable fisheries certainly needs to be investigated more closely.

But maybe the best science is no science. Yes, those left brainers, right brainers, or as we jokingly refer to them, “no brainers” may offer a key part of the solution. Eating what’s in season is a concept that intrinsically appeals to people at an emotional level. And the message should not be “eat the fish that’s in season for the ecological benefit,” but rather “eat the fish that’s in season for the emotional benefit.” In other words, because it will make you feel good.

For example, where was the chestnut industry, before a songwriter wrote, “chestnuts roasting by an open fire”? We need to find some brave, bold artist to write a song praising “pilchards pickled on a picnic table.”

All jokes aside, it is time to re-introduce the seasonality of fish into the social conscience and into local diets. The consequences of standing by idly are too terrifying to contemplate. Going back to The Byrds, “I swear it’s not too late.”

References
[1] Swartz W, Sumaila UR, Watson R and Pauly D (2010) Sourcing seafood from the three major markets: the EU, Japan and the USA. Marine Policy 34: 1366-1373.
[2] Garcia SM, Kolding J, Rice J, Rochet M-J, Zhou S, Arimoto T, Beyer JE, Borges L, Bundy A, Dunn D, Fulton EA, Hall M, Heino M, Law R, Makino M, Rijnsdorp AD, Simard F, and Smith ADM (2012) Balanced harvesting: reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science 335: 1045-1047.
[3] Pauly, D (2006) Towards consilience in small-scale fisheries research. Maritime Studies 4: 7–22.

Lydia Teh – Post-Doc

Lydia completed her PhD at UBC’s Resource Management and Environmental Studies programme in 2011. Her thesis focused on fishers’ behaviour and spatial management of small-scale fisheries. Lydia joined the Sea Around Us in 2012 and has worked on marine fish catch reconstructions in Southeast Asia. Since 2014, she has been the Sea Around Us post-doc for the Ocean Health Index as part of our partnership with Conservation International.

See Lydia’s Fisheries Centre profile.

Check out our new website!

Fishing down marine food webs

A new website (www.fishingdown.org), hosted by the Sea Around Us Project, has been launched. This website helps clear up misconceptions about the concept of “fishing down” in marine ecosystems – whereby fisheries have a tendency to deplete longer lived, high-trophic level species first, causing a decline in the mean trophic level of catches from an ecosystem.

Since it was first published, the fishing down concept has been documented and adopted by a broad community of marine and freshwater scientists around the world. Thus, the website also aggregates many case studies illustrating the phenomenon in marine ecosystems all over world, from Argentina to the North Sea, from Greece to the Caribbean. In 2010, the fishing down concept was challenged in a publication in the journal Nature. The objections that were raised are based mainly on imputations and misunderstandings, and the Fishing Down website is dedicated to clearing up the misunderstandings behind much of the controversy. One apparent problem is that fishing down can be masked by extraneous factors, such as the taxonomic over-aggregation of catch statistics. The website is intended as a response to the voiced concerns and provides scientific references about the fishing down phenomenon, including a link to the original article, led by biologist Daniel Pauly and published in the journal Science in 1998, titled “Fishing down marine food webs.”

We welcome you to visit www.fishingdown.org.