analysis of 4 suppositions in shark fisheries

I get ask a lot about the shark fishery and its issues by my non fishery friends, who they normally assume that if I work in fisheries then I should know…  and while I’m a generalist by nature I do have my specialities and Sharks isn’t one of them.  Is a bit like saying to a Civil engineer that make bridges about dams, he may know the basics, but hardly can give much advice.

Ecuador

On the other side… I always say that if I you don't know something, the next best thing is to know the person that knows about it. And when it comes to shark capture and trade, Shelley Clarke is the person (she actually is one of those rare individuals that knows a lot about a lot… and sharks is one of her many topics). At the present she is the Technical Coordinator-Sharks and Bycatch, Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Tuna Project, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

Last years she published an article in the SPC Fisheries Newsletter, where she analyses 4 commonly held suppositions, that the interested public has on shark fisheries, which I’ll quote in this post.

Am I eating shark?
Demand for this luxury product is one of the reasons why there are extensive and centuries-old trade networks linking China with far-off countries. Ironically, despite its venerated status, the Chinese refer to shark fin simply as yú chí (鱼翅, fish fin) rather than using the Chinese words for shark (shāyú, 鲨鱼). This may be the reason why some surveys report that consumers do not always know that the product is derived from sharks. 

The Chinese are not alone in failing to recognize sharks on their plates: sharks have long been used, often under other names, as the “fish” in fish and chips in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Therefore, while sharks have become conspicuous as entertainment since the 1970s, they have been important as commodities for centuries.

In September 2014, the implementation of multiple new listings for sharks and rays by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora (see below), underscored the need to re-kindle interest in using trade information to complement fisheries monitoring. 

These CITES listings are a spur to integrate international trade information with fishery management mechanisms in order to better regulate shark harvests and to anticipate future pressures and threats. To highlight both the importance and complexity of this integration, this article will explore four common suppositions about the relationship between shark fishing and trade and point to areas where further work is necessary.

Supposition #1: Banning finning will reduce shark mortality

Ecuador

Many conservation campaigns have attacked the shark fin trade on grounds of animal cruelty (live finning), unnecessary waste (discarding of shark carcasses at sea), being unsustainable (overexploitation), or a combination of these. As a result shark finning — the practice of removing a shark’s fins and discarding its carcass at sea — is banned in many fisheries. Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether all the different formulations of these bans are enforceable (e.g. the 5% fins-to – carcass ratio), it is important to note that even under perfect enforcement, finning bans may fail to reduce shark mortality. This is because finning bans do not regulate the number of sharks killed, only the way in which they are killed.

For fisheries that primarily want sharks for their fins, unless there are catch controls in place in addition to the finning controls, for example as in New Zealand’s Quota Management System, an unlimited number of sharks with valuable fins can be retained and landed, with the fins sold and the carcasses dumped. Alternatively, there may be high demand for shark meat and, therefore, no incentive to fin sharks and discard carcasses at sea. 

A recent analysis in the Pacific found that even before the finning ban, overfished oceanic whitetip and silky sharks were more likely to be retained than finned. With or without a demand for shark meat, as long as the fishery is able to accommodate the storage and transport of shark carcasses to port, a prohibition on finning sharks may make no difference to shark mortality rates. Bans on finning in the absence of catch controls also do not prevent fishermen from intentionally killing and discarding sharks; for example, to reduce bait loss on future sets.

There is growing recognition that shark management and conservation must look beyond simply regulating finning, but effective measures to control shark mortality within sustainable limits remain to be adopted and verified in most national and international waters. One benefit of an increasing demand for shark meat should be that it is easier to identify shark carcasses (as sharks, if not always to species) at transshipment, port and border inspection posts as compared to shark fins which can be dried and packed away with other cargo.

Supposition #2: Consumers are being influenced by shark conservation campaigns

Eucador

Some shark conservation campaigns have focused their efforts on Chinese consumers in the hope that increased awareness of threats to sharks would reduce their consumption of shark fin. A report in the New York Times in mid-2013 quoting both campaigners and traders, suggested that the trade had declined as much as 70% from 2011 to 2012. While there is no question that the shark fin trade in Hong Kong and China has contracted, both the scale of the contraction and its causes are debatable.

A forthcoming study of Hong Kong shark fin trade statistics — the most accurate proxy for global trends— documents that imports have been dropping since 2003 and that the media reported declines of 70% from 2011 to 2012 reduce to ~25% when calculated using the proper adjustments for water content and commodity codes changes. China’s trade statistics for shark fin are less reliable than Hong Kong’s due to commodity coding issues, but there are also media reports of a dip in demand in the northern capital, often attributed to new rules for government hospitality expenses announced in late 2012. Additional support for the effect of these rules, which restrict purchases of “shark fin, bird’s nest and other luxury dishes”, comes from reports of declining sales of other luxury seafoods such as abalone, sea cucumber, lobster and crab.

But are shark conservation campaigns having any effect on Chinese consumers? It seems impossible to answer this question definitively, but independent interviews of 20 Beijing-based restaurateurs conducted just before the new government hospitality rules were announced offer some insight. All respondents agreed that consumption was falling, but there were divergent views on whether the conservation campaigns were the reason.

Some stated that diners were shunning shark fin dishes because they are unhealthy, passé, or, most importantly, likely to be made from artificial materials given the threatened status of sharks and the expected shortage of real fins (. Without fully understanding the scale or cause, it still seems safe to conclude that the demand for shark fin in China is waning and that sounds like good news for sharks.

Less encouraging is the finding by the new Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) analysis that Thailand has surpassed Hong Kong as the world’s largest exporter, and its main trading partners — Japan and Malaysia — may be among the world’s top four importers, particularly of small, low value fins. Not only do these markets show no sign of slowing down, they are all among the world’s top shark fishing nations and, thus, the full scope of their shark fin markets may be even larger than trade-based estimates suggest. When we add to this the facts that most consumer-orientated conservation campaigns target shark fins rather than meat, and that shark meat consumption is both growing and often unrecognized as “shark”, it is clear that the campaigns have more work to do.

Supposition #3: The trade will collapse when shark stocks become overfished

Sri Lanka

A third thorny issue at the intersection of shark fishing and trade is the ability of shark populations to support the global fin and meat trades. While many argue that shark populations have already begun to collapse, how have the high trade volumes for fins and meat been maintained for this long?

FAO maintains the only ongoing worldwide compilation of shark, skate, ray and chimaera (chondrichthyan) catches, and if we tally their catches reported as “shark” and “unidentified sharks and rays” they are 20% lower in 2010 than they were in 2000. The amount of catch reported as “skates and rays” is 16% lower. The amount of catch reported specifically as “sharks” has increased but this could be due to greater species-specific reporting rather than a real increase in catch. A fallback to levels of ~11–23% less than the peak is also visible in the Hong Kong shark fin import data for 2004–2011. Despite the potential for the relationship between shark catch and trade to resemble the relationship between chicken and egg, it ahs been concluded that the decline in reported chondrichthyan catches is due to overfishing, not a result of decreases in fishing effort or market demand.

Given the reproductive rates of most shark species, it may be surprising that these observed declines in catch and trade statistics are not larger. One possible contributing factor is species substitution. As shown in a forthcoming analysis, the relatively productive and distinctive blue shark is becoming a larger component of reported shark catches compared to the less productive, but equally distinctive and more valuable, mako shark. Therefore, it is likely that the shark fin trade is even more dependent on blue shark than it was in 2000 when that species supported at least 17% of the market.

There are already some visible signs of overexploitation in catch and trade statistics, and these may be damped down by substitution of more productive species for those whose populations have already collapsed, for example the oceanic whitetip shark. While there are complications in the data that hamper definitive conclusions, better catch reporting must be encouraged and more focused shark catch and trade analysis is certainly warranted.

Supposition #4: Prohibiting shark catches will curtail trade and reduce pressure on shark populations

Ecuador

It is easy to assume that forbidding fishermen to catch sharks will lead to a suppression of the shark trade and a conservation benefit for shark populations. But here, too, the devil is in the detail: both the ability and desire of fishermen to avoid catching and killing sharks need to be strong for this supposition to hold.
In tuna and billfish fisheries, sharks are caught alongside these target species in large numbers. Methods to reduce unwanted shark catches are a topic of active research but solutions appear to vary by fishery and may have economic or operational consequences. Under two forms of catch prohibition — no-retention measures for certain species and area-specific prohibitions for all species (sometimes referred to as “sanctuaries”) — sharks, if caught, must be released with minimal harm.

However, studies in the Indian and Pacific Oceans have shown that 81–84% of sharks do not survive their encounter with purse-seine gear. In longline fisheries it is estimated that 12–59% of commonly caught shark species will die before reaching the vessel 10–30% of those that survive haulback will die through handling, and 5–19% of those that survive handling will die after release. 

Without having read the studies where this figure come from, but based on my experience as a fisherman and observer on these fleets, I’ll say they are about right… besides it is really difficult to deal with a shark once it is on deck. When I was working in the trawlers in Argentina an Angel shark (squatina) bit my foot, thankfully I had a steel cup boot, but that beast bent it in a way that trapped my foot and did not let go. We had to kill it and behead it, as to release the jaws from my boot and then I had to put my foot in a vice to saw the boot out of my foot… is stayed away from sharks since then…

In any case, with such high potential mortality rates for released sharks, it is not clear whether no-retention and “sanctuary” measures can reduce overfishing to sustainable levels. Whenever discarding sharks is seen by fishermen to come at a cost — for example loss of saleable products or increasing the likelihood that the next set will catch the same unwanted shark — enforcement must be strong.

Small Island Developing States often struggle to find the resources to conduct intensive patrols at sea. Even if catch prohibitions in “sanctuaries” are strongly enforced, vessels that want to continue to catch and retain sharks, or to kill unwanted ones, may move to other jurisdictions with fewer rules and less monitoring (such as the high seas) and continue to fish the same stocks.

Trade data can help to highlight areas where existing fisheries controls may need to be strengthened. For example, the Marshall Islands declared itself a shark “sanctuary” in 2011 by prohibiting both catch and trade. Nevertheless, Hong Kong government records show imports of 7.2 t of dried unprocessed Marshallese shark fins in 2012 and 2.5 t in 2013. Similarly, United States trade records show 16 t of frozen shark exported to Palau in 2012 and 15 t in 2013. While Palau may not have banned the trade in sharks, these exports suggest that the demand exists, either nationally or for onward trade, and this demand could undermine Palau’s designation as a shark “sanctuary” in 2009. These examples provide further impetus for integrating fishery and trade monitoring programmes.

Sri Lanka

This article has highlighted a number of ways that management of both shark catch and trade data can be integrated for conservation benefit Relating the following issues with the respective recommendations (in Italics.)

Monitoring trade data can help interpret stock status and identify future threats, but it is dangerous to focus on single products and markets (e.g. shark fins in China) because trade patterns may shift while catches remain high (e.g. increase in demand for shark meat). Fisheries management and trade measures need to focus on effective control of shark mortality, whether or not it is due to finning.

Consumers are influenced by a number of factors, only some of which relate to conservation concerns. Even consumers with preferences may not always be able to identify unlabelled shark products. Conservation campaigns focused on shark fins need to recognize the growth in the shark meat trade.

Despite overfishing, trade levels can appear stable or to be increasing due to improvements over time in species-specific catch reporting and substitution of more abundant species when less productive populations crash. Better catch and trade data are key to identifying early warnings of shark overexploitation.

Prohibiting shark catches should be complemented by improvements in bycatch reduction, adequate enforcement and development of trade surveillance programmes. Fishery and trade data should be used in conjunction to monitor compliance with regulations and overall stock status.

El Nino to move tuna to central Pacific

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) says a strong El Nino event this year is likely to push tuna fisheries towards the central Pacific and away from fishing grounds of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Palau.

Self explanatory 

The SPC's Oceanic Fisheries Programme Manager, John Hampton, says this year's El Nino event is predicted to be the strongest since 1997. He says stocks will likely move towards the exclusive economic zones of Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tokelau and Nauru, as water temperatures change.

"We should see very strong fishing activity and catches over towards the central Pacific side of the region. If this event impacts the biology of the tuna resource in a similar fashion as it has in the past, we should possibly see a fairly strong recruitment particularly for Skipjack tuna next year, towards the end of next year."

John Hampton says this suggests the high catches being experienced at the moment will continue, and while that's good from a catching perspective, there is concern the current depressed price of Skipjack tuna in the marketplace will not be assisted by continuing strong supply.

First World Problems

A break off fisheries for one post... or kind off.

A lot of my work can be dismissed as First World Problems, Fisheries Compliance and Seafood Safety seems to matter more to the developed countries that actually collapsed their own fisheries or seems to be really fussy about their food... in many of the countries I work, the budget  for the authorities in charge of these issues is bigger than the one for Denge or Malaria...

So I get that cricism a lot... but the "first world" has its own deeper problems, and they are as well very good at neglecting.

My favourite communicator of philosophy, Alain de Botton put it very nicely in the following video... they may have a lot of "stuff" but they lack the wisdom that I have seen in the elders many of the smaller islands I work.

The more interesting parts (for me) come after the 1st  minute.

Harvest Strategies?

Fisheries management as any other field has "new" concepts that appear and propose new ways to see old and new problems. One of these is Harvest Strategies, the explanation  by the Pew Trust that I'm quoting here, is a good place to start.

Traditional fisheries management is a two-step process: First, scientists conduct stock assessments, and then fishery managers negotiate measures, such as quotas or time-area closures, to make sure that the resource-the targeted fish- is being used optimally and sustainably. While this seems simple enough, the current approach is anything but.

With imperfect knowledge about fish biology, incomplete fishery data, natural variability, and the inherent challenge in using models to count fish in a population, stock assessments are frequently fraught with uncertainty. That means the results can vary considerably from one assessment to the next. Scientists are asked to provide advice to managers based on these assessments, but given the uncertainties, the advice can be vague or include a wide range of management options.

Most tuna fishery management bodies have committed to following scientific advice and the precautionary approach, but without a clear framework for making management decisions, negotiations often become contentious, time-consuming, and expensive.

But an alternative approach, known as harvest strategies or management procedures, is emerging as the next innovation in fisheries management. Incorporating existing tools such as monitoring programs and reference points, harvest strategies bring all the pieces together and provide managers with an improved lens through which to determine the best path forward for the fish and the fishery.

What are harvest strategies?
Harvest strategies are pre-agreed upon frameworks for making fisheries management decisions, such as setting quotas. Although different forums define or describe the approach slightly differently, all include the same elements. Those components generally include a monitoring program, a stock assessment method, reference points (or other fishery indicators), and harvest control rules.

With many moving parts, the number of potential harvest strategies is limitless. Management strategy evaluation (MSE), a procedure based on a simulation tool, helps compare the likely performance of various strategies and in many ways guides the process of harvest strategy development.

The harvest strategy dictates the relationship among the four components and establishes a feedback loop. The data from the monitoring program are fed into the stock assessment method. Then, the assessment evaluates how the fishery is doing relative to established reference points.

The results of this evaluation activate the harvest control rule, which leads to modifications to the management measures to ensure that the predetermined management objectives are met. The cycle then begins again with the monitoring program recording the effects of the new measures, the stock assessment evaluating these effects, and so on.

The stock assessment method does not have to be based on the standard full and complex assessment model but can simply be one of the fishery’s catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) series, a method for estimating the catch rate for that fishery. Likewise, management measures need not be limited to catch limits. Harvest strategies can also include limits on fishing effort or time-area closures. They just have to prove their effectiveness in the management strategy evaluation process.

Advantages of Harvest Strategies Over Traditional Management
Effective harvest strategies can:

• Offset natural variability, scientific uncertainty, and political influence.
• Account for risk and allow for balancing of trade-offs.
• Avoid time-consuming and costly negotiations in response to each stock status update.
• Allow managers to act swiftly and efficiently to ensure the health of the resource and longterm profitability.
• Increase market stability and improve industry’s ability to plan because management decisions are predictable.
• Give all stakeholders a clear, long-term vision of a sustainable stock and fishery.
• Adhere to best practices of modern fisheries management, consistent with the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, the Food and Agricultural Organization Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the Marine Stewardship Council’s certification standards.
• Effectively implement the precautionary approach.

Components of harvest strategies

Management objectives
The stock assessment method does not have to be based on the standard full and complex assessment model Managers of tuna fisheries commonly approach their work with the general objective of maintaining the population at or above the level that can produce maximum sustainable (BMSY). In the context of harvest strategy development, however, management objectives take a slightly different form.

While still setting goals for the fishery, management objectives are more specific and measurable, and often there are more than one. For example, a single stock could be managed with multiple objectives to maximize catch, stability in year-to-year catch limits, profit, the speed of stock rebuilding, and the likelihood that the population is above BMSY (the biomass that will produce maximum sustainable yield) and fished below FMSY (i.e., in the green quadrant of the Kobe plot, a graphical representation of the status of a stock and fishery). In cases in which some objectives are deemed more important than others, managers could choose to weight them. For example, rebuilding the stock in a timely fashion might be the priority, even if that requires a lower catch in the short-term.

The stock assessment method does not have to be based on the standard full and complex assessment model Setting the management objectives is the critical first step in the development of a harvest strategy because all subsequent steps focus on achieving those objectives.

Reference points
Reference points are benchmarks used to compare the current status of a fishery management system to a desirable (or undesirable) state. When matched to the management objectives for a fishery, they can be used to assess progress toward meeting those objectives. There are two main types of reference points—limit reference points (LRPs, or Blim and Flim) and target reference points (TRPs, or BTARGET and FTARGET)—which are often based on fishing mortality rate (for example, FX%) or population abundance, such as BMSY.

Limit reference points define the danger zone, the point beyond which fishing is no longer sustainable. This zone should be avoided, but if it is inadvertently violated, immediate action should be taken to return the stock or fishing rate to the target level. Stock rebuilding programs should consider the LRPs the very minimum rebuilding target. Importantly, the LRPs should be based exclusively on the biology of the stock and its resilience to fishing pressure. Economic factors should not be considered.

Target reference points define the ideal fishery state, and management should be designed to keep the resource close to this state with high probability. Given all of the unknowns and uncertainty in stock assessments, as well as fisheries management in general, the TRP creates a buffer zone to ensure that the limit is not breached. The fishery is likely to fluctuate around the target but should not exceed that level on average. Unlike setting a limit reference point, the TRPs can be based on biology as well as ecological, social, and economic considerations.

Importantly, both target and limit reference points should be set more conservatively as uncertainty increases. If there is high uncertainty and/or a less comprehensive monitoring program, the TRP should also be set further from the LRP to create a bigger buffer and guard against violation of the limit.

What Is Uncertainty?
Fisheries science by its nature has varying levels of uncertainty. Managers aim to minimize this uncertainty where possible and to understand the potential impact of the amount that remains. Management systems then can be designed to protect against those effects.

Not all uncertainty is created equal. Fishery scientists typically consider four types:

• Model. A set of equations cannot perfectly explain a wild fish population. Which stock assessment model should be used? How should the model be structured?
• Observation. Even the measurable data used in a model are likely to have biases, causing sampling error. Are the catch data accurate? How has technology affected catchability, which is essentially a stock’s susceptibility to fishing?
• Process. Unknowns about the biology and population dynamics of the most studied fish stocks can have significant impacts on estimates of current and future stock status. When do the fish mature? Is the number of young born each year related to the number of adults in the population?
• Implementation. Although precautionary regulations may be in place, compliance and enforcement can be an issue. What is the difference between the catch limit and actual catch?

Greater uncertainty means greater risk of failure to meet the intended management goals. This in turn necessitates greater precaution in management decisions.

Harvest control rules
Also known as decision rules, harvest control rules (HCRs) are a pre-agreed upon set of management responses to various triggers, such as a change in the stock status or economic or environmental conditions. These triggers may or may not be related to the reference points themselves.

For example, target reference points are often set as the first trigger. By prescribing an automatic management response when the TRP is breached, the HCRs help to ensure that limit reference points are not violated. But in cases in which the harvest strategy’s assessment is simply a CPUE series, the trigger for the HCR may be a threshold value of the CPUE index itself, rather than a reference point. In addition, economic or other indicators may serve as triggers instead of, or in addition to, biological reference points.

Harvest control rules are selected and adopted by managers, but the decisions are based on strong scientific support and stakeholder input. Because these rules provide a clear framework for managing the fishery going forward, they increase the predictability and transparency of the management process. They also streamline the process to make it more efficient and more effective.

Management strategy evaluation
Management strategy evaluation is a process that uses a simulation tool to determine the “best” performing harvest strategy. The MSE assesses the uncertainties in the system to examine how likely the candidate harvest strategies are to achieve the chosen management objectives. In other words, it tests various possible frameworks to see what happens. In so doing, it can reveal the trade-offs among different decisions, often leading to a closer inspection of the weight given to the various management objectives and helping managers determine whether other weights may be more appropriate. The MSE is an essential part of the process of developing and agreeing to a harvest strategy.

The MSE uses a tool, or operating model, to simulate the entire fishery, factoring in management decisions, the implementation of those decisions, the monitoring program, and the impact of the fishery on the area’s ecosystem. Unlike current management approaches, the MSE also accounts for uncertainty by incorporating the full range of current hypotheses about the fish and fishery and weighting them according to which are deemed, through scientific analysis, to be more likely.

The MSE determines which of the uncertainties have the biggest influence on the results. The management strategy evaluation is therefore also a useful tool for setting research priorities because it identifies which knowledge gaps pose the greatest problems for management. Still, the primary function of the MSE process is to compare the likely ability of the candidate harvest strategies to fulfill the pre-agreed upon management objectives in a wide range of simulated scenarios. The comparison is based on simple performance indicators, for example, by looking at the number of years in the simulation that the resource has been below a specific reference point.

Undertaking an MSE requires a team of scientists, managers, and stakeholders. While the scientists do the modeling, managers must offer extensive input. For example, managers must determine management objectives and acceptable levels of risk. The acceptable risk quantifies the likelihood of a negative outcome in a fishery, such as breaching the LRP. It should be chosen based on a cost-benefit analysis and should be lower in cases of greater uncertainty.
Because of the many steps and the iterative process, communication among parties is critical for achieving buy-in on the results of the management strategy evaluation.

Conclusion
If designed correctly, harvest strategies benefit both the fish and fishermen. Recognizing the effectiveness of these tools, all international tuna management bodies are developing or implementing strategies appropriate for their fisheries. Each group can build on and complement the work of the others and benefit from the collective lessons learned along the way.

While undertaking an MSE to select a final harvest strategy requires significant time and effort, the evidence suggests that the initial investments quickly reward the stakeholders in those fisheries where these strategies are already being used. A precautionary harvest strategy, paired with an effective compliance regime, can ensure full recovery of depleted stocks and provide long-term, sustainable, and profitable fisheries.

Fishing for a Sustainable Future in the Pacific Islands (video)

The World Bank in Sydney has just published a video of a small seminar where a panel discusses the importance of fisheries to Pacific Island nations. They don't go to deep into many topics, but is quite interesting talk on many of the areas I work on daily basis.

Panelists include Transform Aqorau, CEO of the Parties of the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO), he is a friend... a very well read and clever man, I always listen a lot to what he has say, we share a love of reading, the believe on "thinking outside the box" and the believe that Fisheries Information Management Systems are the way to control the fishery.

The next panelist is Kate Barclay, Associate professor, University of Technology Sydney who I also meet before, she has done work for Greenpeace and other NGOs on Pole& Line.

The 3rd one is John Virdin, Director, Ocean & Coastal Policy; Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, whom I have not meet before.

Is a good discussion.

The effects of harvest regimes on ecosystem structure and function.

Back in the late 80s when I worked as an observer in the commercial fleet and then a science technician in fisheries research vessels, I did a lot of sampling. The usual job was measuring, sexing and extracting the otholites for later analysis, but then one of the subsamples was what we called “Trophic Ecology” (The study of the feeding relationships of organisms in communities and ecosystems - from the greek τροφὸς: to nurse/feed). The whole idea of this type of work is to understand who eats who in the ecosystem, and how a potential change in abundance at any trophic level could impact the rest.

So after butchering the fish to sex it and removing the otolithes from the cranium, we will get right into the guts, and analyse the stomach content for identification and weight of what ever was recognisable… (we got trained into identifying non digested features). 

Not the most charming job in fisheries biology, and particularly with bad weather. But the results where quite critical for the wider job and understanding of the “whole picture”.

So I was immediately drawn to a report published by SPC a few weeks ago based on results of  of around 12000 stomach analysed over the last decade.  I'll transcribe below some of its methodologies and conclusions.

Building the warm pool ecosystem model

SPC analysed  the over 12,000 predator stomachs  collected and analysed since the monitoring began. Results of these analyses have been incorporated into a trophic model that describes the warm pool ecosystem and allows forecasting the dynamic responses of the ecosystem to simulated changes in fishing effort through time (Ecopath with Ecosim).

Simplified view of the generalised food web supporting tuna and other large pelagic fish in the warm pool. Note that, at the bottom of the food web, both phytoplankton (microscopic plants) and ‘marine snow’ (phytoplankton and zooplankton remains decomposed by bacteria, also known as detritus) contribute trophic inputs.

The modelled simplified ecosystem was composed of 44 groups: fisheries discards (1 group), detritus (1), phytoplankton (2), zooplankton (2), forage/prey groups (epipelagic, mesopelagic, bathypelagic, migrating or not, fish, mollusc, crustaceans) (11), bycatch species (rainbow runner, pomfret, opah, lancetfish, escolar and oilfish, small tunas, dolphinfish, wahoo) (8), tuna (albacore, skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye of different size classes) (8), sharks (oceanic white-tip, silky, blue, mako and other sharks) (5), billfish (swordfish of two size classes, striped marlin, blue marlin and other billfishes) (5) and turtle (1).

Four fisheries (longline, pole-and-line, purse-seine unassociated schools, purse seine associated schools) were included in the model.

Nine scenarios of fishing effort were explored. They comprised measures designed to reduce/increase the catch of the bycatch community and measures designed to reduce/increase the harvest of tuna by (a) altering the amount of longline fishing and purse-seine fishing, both unassociated (free schools) and associated with fish aggregating devices (FADs), and (b) by simulating the implementation of bycatch mitigation measures. Results were projected for 2026 and 2046.

How does the warm pool ecosystem work and what are its key dynamics?

The warm pool ecosystem model is characterised by a large number of trophic links between groups and a diverse pool of prey on which a wide diversity of predators is feeding.

The majority (74%) of the ecosystem’s biomass is in phytoplankton and zooplankton (trophic levels TL 1 and 2), whereas the industrial fish catch (tuna and bycatch) are in TL 4 and 5 at the top of the food web, representing less than 8% of the total biomass of the pelagic ecosystem.

The most important keystone group in the warm pool ecosystem model is small yellowfin tuna, due to its high production and consumption values and its diverse diet. The next most important keystone groups are the prey organisms, which have high production values as predators, but are also important prey for a range of larger fish such as tuna and marlin.

Potential impacts of fishing strategies on the whole ecosystem

The modelled ecosystem was resistant to considerable disturbance from fishing. They suggest that this is related to the considerable diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey. Maintaining the diversity contributes importantly to the sustainability of the system.

The structure of the ecosystem was most sensitive to changes in the biomass of prey groups (e.g. small pelagic fish, such as anchovy) because these mid-trophic level species are important prey for tuna, as well as being predators for lower trophic levels, such as zooplankton. Hence, variations in prey availability and quality in relation to changes in the climatic conditions will affect the whole ecosystem and the fisheries.

The simulations showed that groups comprising longlived, bycatch species with low productivity, such as sharks, opah and billfish, are most likely to be affected by changes in purse-seine and longline fishing effort.

Increases in purse-seine fishing on FADs results in greater mortality of sharks and decreases in the biomass of some species and size classes of tuna. This scenario had the most negative impact on the ecosystem. Conversely, reductions in purse-seine fishing on FADs increases the numbers of sharks, although such benefits are not as pronounced when purse-seine fishing effort on FADs is transferred to purse-seine fishing on free schools of tuna.

Increases in longline fishing result in greater mortality of sharks, opah and some billfish species. The negative impact on opah and billfish is also observed when longline fishing effort is unchanged but shark mortality is decreased by the implementation of shark mitigation measures. The simulations to date suggest that some species of the ecosystem will benefit from variations in fishing effort and others will lose; managers will have to define which groups of species are expected to benefit.

It is also apparent that no single indicator is able to provide a good representation of the responses of the ecosystem to changes in harvest. This reflects the complexity of the ecosystem. The use of a variety of indicators is likely to be required to detect the full range of impacts from alterations to harvest strategies.

As with tuna stock assessment models, use of the best available data is critical. Continued and expanded monitoring of catch and discards for bycatch species by observers (at sea or electronic) is critical for further model development and improvement. Similarly, expanding fisheries monitoring programmes to include prey species through predator stomach collection as a routine observer duty is necessary to spatially disaggregate the model.

Further reading
Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. 2015. Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia.
http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/publications/doc_details/1376-monitoring-the-pelagic-ecosystem-effects-final 

PNA to implement FAD initiative

The Parties to Nauru Agreement (PNA)  passed an initiative to trial a charge of US$1,000 on each Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) set in PNA waters.

Not for free anymore

In what was dubbed the "free school initiative," Ministers at the annual PNA ministerial meeting in Federated States of Micronesia's capital Palikir, decided that a US$1,000 fee paid on top of the Vessel Day Scheme fee would be good incentive "not to set FADs" on free schools of fish.

From January 2016 next year PNA member nations across the board will try out the new initiative to levy a fee of $1000 on each ship that sets FADs in a fishing day.

The decision in Pohnpei follows a PNA Ministerial endorsement to look into the possibility of such an initiative on FADs when they met in Tuvalu last year; something the host nation and Tokelau were particularly keen on. These are two of the smallest and most vulnerable members of the PNA and fishing in their waters is very dependant on the use of FADs.

Currently FADs are managed in the region at a WCPFC level with a four month closure of FAD fishing which is aimed at primarily reducing juvenile Bigeye, juvenile Yellowfin and other bycatches that are taken during FAD use.

Dr Aqorau said for Tokelau and Tuvalu and some other PNA members this is a crippling burden on them in terms of reduced revenue because it makes fishing in their waters much less attractive to the boats on which they depend for their revenue.

These two countries like other PNA members remain committed to Bigeye conservation but looking for a way to reduce FAD use that is less a burden on them.

The "free school incentive" would provide a positive incentive for vessels to fish on free schools while leaving them free to manage their operations in a way that would be most profitable for them.

At the same time it will still be aimed at reducing FAD use at a lower cost to the industry and therefore with less impact on PNA member countries especially those where fishing is more dependant on FADs

The ministerial decision means fishing vessels will pay US$1,000 per day for any fishing day in which sets are made on FADs.

The PNA member nations will first start the trial in 2016 to see the best way to implement it and then return to report their findings to the PNA ministerial meeting.

This week’s annual policy meeting will provide the venue for PNA ministers to continue to strengthen control and management of the PNA fishery, which accounts for 70-80% of the western and central Pacific tuna catch, and 30-40%of the global raw material for canning.

8 June - World Oceans Day

World Oceans Day has been unofficially celebrated every 8 June since its original proposal in 1992 by Canada at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was officially recognized by the United Nations in 2008.

I find the concept of "days" it a bit "cliche"... but then, they raise awareness (even if it is for only one day). The same "cliche" can be said perhaps about how I describe my relationship to the ocean. For me is a personal relationship, I somehow give the ocean a personality and a character... I go everyday I can into it, perhaps to say: thank you for feeding me, entertaining me and keeping me alive since I'm 17. Sorry for the abuse you get from some of me peers... I'm trying to change that... You have all my respect... or something like that. I know... a bit hippie or illogical... but I never claimed to above that. I see the ocean as a good friend.

So perhaps the best way I can honor that today is with this little piece from the SPC's (Secretariat of the Pacific Community - one of my favourite institutions in the world) latest newsletter, as it shows that big advances start with "humanly measured" steps. No change will come from things the base stakeholders do not understand, I like to think  that my job is to flatten the gap in between science and rules with people who is closer to the resource those rules and science are trying to regulate and understand.

Happy Word Oceans Day everyone!

Using body language to measure your fish

Marine animals – clams, crabs, fish, sea cucumbers, shrimps and turtles – all have to reach a certain size, different for each species, before they can spawn. It is important to leave them in the sea until they have reached that size and have therefore spawned at least once before catching them. Otherwise, there will be fewer parents for the next generation and eventually no more will be left. We also know that in fish species that grow to a large size, such as some groupers, parrotfish and trevallies, the biggest fish are the main producers of eggs and so they, too, should be protected. 

Fisheries officers put up notices and posters showing the minimum and maximum sizes for capture in markets and other public places. But these are often a long way from the fisher on the beach or in a boat, and by the time the catch reaches the market – if it goes to the market at all – the animals, other than turtles, are probably all dead. 

Most fishers across the Pacific sell their catch at a market or take it home and, with populations getting bigger, it is ever more important to follow the rules on the size of capture to avoid depleting the fisheries. Stiff penalties are sometimes handed out to those who break the rules.

The problem is, how to remember all those smallest and largest sizes and apply them when you are far from the market? Here are some suggestions, with diagrams to illustrate them.

GLOBAL SEAFOOD COMPANIES AS ‘KEYSTONE ACTORS’ IN THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY "ECOSYSTEM"

I knew about the Stockholm Resilience Institute, because a friend from FAO went working there, and they always seemed to me as a organization with “fresh” thinking. A recent paper they produced just reinforces that concept. I don’t know any of the authors, but hopefully they don’t mind I quote them and present their interesting publication.

They start with the ecology concept of “keystone species”, that are those …that have a profound and disproportionate effect on communities and ecosystems and determine their structure and function to a much larger degree than what would be expected from their abundance… And they adapt this concept to identify “seafood companies” that take a similar role in the global seafood industry “ecosystem”.

They recognise that globalization of seafood trade has led to industry consolidation, with large and vertically integrated transnational corporations operating across entire supply chains from production through to retail. These transnational seafood corporations play an important role in linking distant species and ecosystems to major markets and consumers. At the same time their activities may influence important species and the dynamics and resilience of the ecosystems on which their seafood harvesting and production ultimately depend.

Furthermore, the authors realize that the role of global actors like transnational corporations has received limited attention in studies of ecosystem management and in particular marine ecosystem management. Existing analyses of global fisheries operations have focused on the role of individual major countries, rather than transnational corporations.

Therefore, in their paper, they analyze whether or not a keystone pattern can be observed in the relationship between transnational corporations and marine ecosystems globally, from a combined ecological, economic and policy perspective. If such actors operate analogous to keystone species, they would not only have a disproportionate ability to steer the direction of the seafood industry but also to shape the world’s marine ecosystems and how they are managed. 

To do that this, they go trough and extensive bibliography and communicate with a very broad amount of people (many of them i do know) as to estimate the role of these largest companies in global fisheries catches, and they investigated their activities in relation to the largest and economically most important wild-capture stocks, representing whitefish, tuna, and small pelagic species. And then they a similar exercise with aquaculture species. 

Furthermore (and I find this really insightful), they studied participation in globally relevant institutions as a proxy for the potential of the companies to influence fisheries and aquaculture policy and management. They quantified the number of occasions that a company was registered as a participant during the meetings of the thirteen Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), using the most recent meeting documents from the main governing body of these RFMOs, including five tuna RFMOs. They also reviewed company-specific membership in global industry organisations present in several of these RFMOs, and  the role of the investigated companies in establishing, or the extent they were members in three international organizations identified as important industry initiatives for aquaculture management and certification (ecolabels).

Their results are quite staggering… They identify 13 companies (representing only 0.5% of 2250 registered fishing and aquaculture companies worldwide) that have a combined annual revenues corresponding to 18% of the global value of seafood production in 2012 (US$ 252 billion). 

They represent 11–16% of the total global marine catch, and control an estimated 19–40% of several of the world’s largest or most valuable capture fisheries, including three of the most important wild-caught stocks used for human consumption: Alaska pollock (the largest whitefish stock), skipjack and yellowfin tuna (the largest tuna stocks used for the canned tuna and sashimi markets).  

They produce 10% and 14% of global fishmeal and fish oil volumes respectively and 22% of global aqua feeds (including 68% of the salmon feeds and 35% of the shrimp feeds).

These “keystone companies” are:

These transnational corporations are catching, farming and handling more than 208 species from 974 subsidiaries and associates operating in 102 countries and territories (see in the figure below). They are each highly connected and act as key nodes in the global seafood production system.

Global networks of operations. Heat map illustrating the number of keystone actors operating in each country and the respective number of countries in which each company operates (blue circles) as well as the total number of subsidiaries of that company (purple circles). Company headquarters locations are indicated by the corresponding numbers on the map.

Their hold on the key seafood commodities is as well very well illustrated in this paper.

Regional fisheries of global relevance. Globally important wild fish stocks by volumes (grey circles with blue wedges), aquaculture production volumes (orange wedges), and global fishmeal, fish oil and aqua feeds (salmon, shrimp and whitefish feeds combined) volumes (purple wedges), and their corresponding economic value (green circles). The proportion of each stock controlled by the keystone actors is indicated by the size of the wedge. The number of companies active in each stock is shown within brackets.

They investigated as well, to what extent the globally connected actors participated in policy processes and found that three of the investigated companies were among the few (10%, n = 145) that were identified as active in more than one RFMO. They were active either as observers or as members of national delegations. The Korean company (Donwong) was the most active company overall, participating in six RFMOs. In addition to direct representation by the parent company and its subsidiaries, keystone actors are also indirectly participating in RFMOs through influential industry organisations. These companies also work directly with governments in a number of countries including small-island developing states in the Western Central Pacific, to secure access to the tuna resource.

The identification of keystone companies can have substantial implications for fisheries and aquaculture policy and management, as they play a central role in relation to global fisheries catch volumes and dominate several of the world’s largest wild capture fisheries.

The major wild caught species harvested by these companies are not only globally important resources for the seafood industry and consumers, but these species all individually play important roles in marine ecosystems (e.g. operating as predators or prey) and contribute to the structure, function and resilience of their respective ecosystems. Fishing for such species can have both direct and indirect effects on associated species and ecosystems, and as well impacts the production capacity of  predatory fish in aquaculture is directly connected to marine ecosystems through the inclusion of wild fish in feeds (primarily small pelagic species). Salmon and shrimp are major consumers of aqua feeds (18% and 20% of global production volumes respectively. 

Not only do these companies have the ability to shape ecosystems—they also actively participate in policy-making. The ability of non-state actors, such as transnational corporations, to influence policies can be directly correlated to their degree of participation in global (and local) governance.

Globally networked and vertically integrated companies, with an ability to influence policymaking, are resilient to disturbances that critically affect the survival of smaller companies, including financial system crises and instability, currency fluctuations, increasing fuel prices or changing fish stock dynamics.

The global connectivity of keystone actors provides them with a unique overview that enables them to know how, when, where, and with which company to strategically prioritize harvesting and sourcing activities. As keystone actors are critically dependent on a continuous supply of marine products, such global scanning ability ensures efficiency of production and consistency in resource supply. Keystone actors have historically increased their connectivity, analogous to the “rich-get richer” dynamics in other real world networks, through strategic mergers with major market or quota holders or via direct acquisitions.

As an example, Pescanova, the 7th largest company in 2012, went bankrupt in 2013, but was, due to the resilience resulting from its global connectivity and diversification of activities (active in wild capture fisheries worldwide as well as in aquaculture), able to maintain its operations and trading activities despite the bankruptcy.

What I find really “fresh” about this research is not the “naming” exersice… but the fact that we have always focus on nation states (either Flag, Coastal, Ports) as the key players which traditionally formed the basis for governance of fisheries resources and the majority of existing institutions are designed around this assumed reality, as are global fisheries statistics. 

This study reframes the responsibility for fishing in terms of transnational corporations, illustrating that 13 companies handled around 10 million tons of wild capture fish in 2012, whereas only 23 countries caught >1 million tons of wild fish that year. Several fishing companies are thus larger than most nations and at the same time take part in decision- making bodies for these resources.

Perhaps we should think how twitch a bit the governance models, and have NGOs focussing their pressure to engage them in sustainability on a concerted campaign with governments, consumers, employees, competitors, investors or financial institutions.

Again, click the link for the the original paper: Transnational Corporations as ‘Keystone Actors’ in Marine Ecosystems if interested.

Data, MCS and Catch Certification Schemes in the Pacific

I had a very “brainy” 10 days of work so far, that challenged my big picture thinking about the integration of Catch Certification, Fisheries Information Management Systems, Monitoring, Control and Surveillance, Port State Measures, and administrative burden.

The week started with a trip to Eureka, an aptly named area in the hills inland from Byron Bay in the north of NSW (Australia) at the farm that host the development and training “centre” (a.k.a. pukpuk haus) of the Integrated Fisheries Information Management System (iFIMS) crew. 

We have known each other for a while now, I remember the fist time I presented my “fish accountancy” vision, they got it instantly and their database was able to provide the results… so we been collaboration since then, but I have not been to the “iFIMS central” as yet.

It was great… as I got to understand some of the architecture of the system, besides contributing some “fish and regulatory" insides to their really incredible set up. Moreover, what was more interesting for me, was to get to know some of them at a “human” level and confirm that what I expected; they are “believers” in the data as transparency conduit. Is more than just a job that pays the bills for them.

Data does not lie…. And the tool they have developed is the best tool I know (and is my job to know!) that can guarantee transparency around fisheries. However (as any tool), it only helps the people that handles them… it does not replace them.

From there, we flew to Nadi in Fiji for the Pacific Islands Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) Catch Certification Schemes (CCS) Workshop, following up on a initial talk we had in PNG some months ago. It was a full house with all of the FFA and PNA member countries. 

Figure by Gilles

The idea is to move ahead with pacific wide CDS, hopefully under the umbrella of the WCPFC. We had the presence of my friend and colleague Gilles Hosch from the FAO/ABNJ programme that put his “vision” based on his year long work analysing all the present CCS and CDS (Catch Documentation Schemes) that exist.

The view of almost all of the present schemes is the one of a Fishery led scheme (from the fishery to the market), they represent a shared concern among fishing States (both flag and coastal) port States and market States to identify legal and authorised fish and provide market access only for such fish.

In a nutshell Gilles key views are:

• A CDS is a global traceability system
• A competent authority certifies a batch of legal catch by issuing a catch certificate (CC)
• The CDS traces the movement of this certified batch from unloading, through processing and trade, into the end market
• In essence, lots are traced by linking catch certificates to resulting trade certificate(s)
• CDS detects “non-originating” fish inside the system and nullifies its value

The ideal CDS work on mass balances for the fish that is traded in between countries. Each country in the chain takes care of what happens inside its borders, if the mass balance does not add up (more fish out than in), then the export is not authorised. The overall view for this system is as below:

Gilles masterplan

When I understood his “macro” view, I found that my work around the Fish Unloading Authorization Code and the “Fish Accountability” inside a country (which is actually possible by using a tool like the prior mentioned iFIMS), fitted nicely inside each the countries “black boxes”, as you see below:

If it only was soo easy :-)

The 1st step is to prove that the fish was caught legally, and my concept is based in the simple fact that “Fish does not become IUU during processing, but is either caught or landed illegally”, so it “mixes” two basic elements, the requirements of Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) and a Key Data Element (KDE) needed to follow a landing through the value chain.

No doubt all these CCS/CDS discussions where catalysed by the EU’s IUU regulation. And perhaps this is a good occasion to make my views clear in this regard: 6 years ago the concept of IUU was only known to people working on it, today the IUU issue is at the forefront of the public attention, all this is no small measure a result of the EU IUU regulation. 

My reservations and criticism has always been directed to the Catch Certification Scheme itself, and not to the aims of the regulation.

My views are about the practicalities arising from its design and the later implementation of the “weight in notes” in August 2010, making it a export certificate raised by the exporters instead of a catch certificate raised by the vessels (as it was originally intended).

The EU system is a market based system as you see on the left. It looks “backwards” to the vessel from the exporters to the authorities based 3 countries away in the value chain, for operations that happened months or years ago.

A big part of my work is to facilitate the understanding and implementation of the EU CCS system to non EU countries countries, so I know the complexities of the CCS from their perspectives. Therefore my views are always intended to make it more sustainable in the long term by twinning on its implementation (hence facilitating adoption) without diluting its objectives. 

As an example, I’m in a Pacific Island Country since yesterday, evaluating the implementation of the procedures they have generated to validate their Catch Certs for the EU, while we work on the implementation of a e-system under iFIMS that is being designed. I just went over a CC for product exported this week out of transhipments in port and landings done in February 2014. The paper trail is 38 pages long for 50 tons of product... dealing with this has a massive impact in terms of the administrative burden it puts on the fishery administration of this developing country, specially because is not web-based. 

We know that the EU is not going to change the implementation of system at all over the next years, so what we trying to do is to create our own internal system as to be able to limit the paper and time involvement by "coding" all the events from the catch onwards and have a “forwards” looking system. And when the product is going to the EU, we can trace back electronically all the events and “fish accountancy” as to print the paper certificate they request, until the day a e-system is in place (as the EU has on the sanitary side under TRACES) so then the e-certs can be “pushed” into their system.

The Pacific has been talking about a WCPFC CDS for a few years now, but complexities on the understanding, the fear of disproportionate burden, the interference of some DWFN, plus the costs associated to the development of an electronic system had made advances very slow. 

But all that is changing, thanks to the advances provided by iFIMS and the stewardship of some island countries that actually own the fish that the markets need.

What the space!

Nett losses - a crude Economist videographics

The world's fish are in danger—as is everyone who depends on them. Says the Economist.

My TEDx Talk... fisheries compliance, fairness, and us

I have seen TED Talks on internet many times, and always liked the format of "directness" they have, and that the speakers seem to be a very eclectic mixture of people. So I was very happy to be asked to talk in the local TEDx Event last week.

As a speaker is quite a soul search not just to develop the "what" are you saying... but as well the "why" are you saying it.  I'm already wiser then when I started the process and that can only be a good thing!. My deepest "thank you!" to all the people putting their time on this.

Below is my script and images of each slide, as it may make it easier than just to see the video.

Slide 1

This young man next to me is Esau Bitiai, he is a crew member in the Solomon Endevour a local pole and line vessel that belong to NFD a local company based in Noro, in the western province of the Solomon Islands. The place that embodies what in my opinion fishing should be in the Pacific.

My talk is as much about Esau’s present and future as it is my one, as it is about a crucial aspect of fisheries... 

You see…  we both make a living of the act of catching fish, our job feed (literally) millions of people, allow us to raise and educate our kids, help our extend family, and hopefully to be better persons… I like to think that my work supports Esau’s aspirations in life, as much as his work supports mine.

I was very the lucky to have the chance to started fishing at a time where my earnings allowed me get an education… and then work on many of the issues that surrounds just catching fish…  the one I would like to talk today is the one of compliance.

 Slide 2

Fisheries in the cross paths of really different fields….  And all have rules

• Science is about structure in research
• Law and Enforcement… is a huge issue in fisheries… a Taiwanese flagged vessel is legally a piece of Taiwan, but when fishing in the Solomon Islands has to obey SI fisheries rules, even if the captain and crew are Indonesian, but when they unload in Fiji… Fiji port rules apply… and what legal structure applies to offences committed in “another country”… 
• Trade Rules of origin… I that fish Taiwanese, Solomonian, o Fijian? 
• Human Rights whose employment rules apply to the crew… who is responsible for their well-being and their safety at sea? 
• Diplomacy The presence of Distant Water Fishing Nations, in all seas of the world, is statement to that
• Public Policy Who “owns” that fish in terms of the benefits, particularly in case of migratory stocks.
• Economics how are these benefits distributed?, what is the role of subsidies?  
• Public Health, once fish is on the deck is not fish anymore… is food

And this is only limited to the legal side of fishing!…

 Slide 3

The key issue I’m involved presently trough my work is IUU fishing as an element of general compliance. 

In essence is a simple problem… if for each fish caught we could answer in a verifiable way all of the questions you see on the screen… then the fish is legally caught and in compliance. Simple problem… complicated solutions

Compliance is a challenging topic… I have always seen my self as an outsider, not one that did not really follow the rules. I grow up in a country with not much of culture of compliance, and while I felt that many of the rules were dumb; at least I expected they should have applied to everyone… and not just to some.

Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, et al. (2009) Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.

The equanimity of rule of law is a rare cultural privilege… In many ways should not be surprising that, as you can see in the graph above, there is a linear correlation in between the estimated amounts of illegal fishing and a index of transparency in governance among different countries.

The fisheries “crisis” is not a biological crisis, but one of politics and government transparency.

I emigrated partly because I did not foresee much of future in a society that was selective in terms of to whom compliance was expected from. So the fact that I am here (geographically and in terms of my job) today in function of my past, relates to my appreciation to the concept of fairness and equal opportunities… and not the one of enforcing rules. 

We as a society have experience in dealing with “compliance” trough enforcement of rules, Police, Inspectors, etc... but the success of enforcement is quite variable and directly related to the resources allocated to it and the capacities and values of the enforcers… 

I always believed that “fresh” thinking was needed… 

Out of a conversation with Esau about the first bank and ATM in the island… I explained that it wasn’t money what was moved around… was data.

When a payment is deposited into your account, you make extractions until you get to cero… then no more money comes out. Furthermore the system can identify when and where the money came from and where/when it came out. There are no interpretations here… is just accountancy and software.

So when back here, one day waiting for some waves in Palm Beach (yes we do have some surf here, you just have to be patient... and that gives you time to think).

I started to think that instead of catching fish to get data our of them… I also could use fish as data itself! Hence started to look at banking and logistics for inspiration (I can’t believe I’m saying this!) Could we not use the same system that banks have, but for fisheries? 

 So for the last few years I have been spending lots of time talking “fish” with database managers and IT guys, helping on the design and implementation of the "fish accountancy" side of what we call “Fisheries Information Management Systems”

Slide 4 

A good starting point is that Fish does not become illegal during processing… fish is caught illegally! We have now an increasing level of controls over the vessels activities, via remote sensing (Vessel Monitoring System - VMS) and increasingly e-reporting (real time reports from fisheries observers on board - that in the case of the Purseine Fleet in the pacific covers 100 of vessels), so we are in a much better position to assess the legality of the catch based on “who” that vessels is, “where” it has has been fishing, as well as “when” and “how”. 

Under the UN Port State Measures Agreement, fishing vessels need to notify port arrivals for fisheries related operations, And the Port has the capacity of denying services if the fish on boar is illegally caught. So if when a vessel is requesting permission to come to port to land or transship the fish (high seas transshipments are forbidden), cannot prove that the caught the fish along the requirements of it license… the local port have the option of refuse landing authorization. Or they allow them to come in but no operations start until the legality of the catch is proven.

That leave us with the “how much”, knowing this has 2 benefits… we know how much is being caught, which management importance, and then we can record those volumes as the “initial deposit”, and by this we avoid chances of “fish laundering” from any potential illegal landing (just as any financial systems deals with money laundering)

We use the volumes unloaded as the initial deposit from which extractions will be made from, and the different species unloaded become “different currencies” on a same deposit.

Then a traceability scheme in the system allow us to follow the “extractions” of different currencies trough time either by whole fish sales or processing. Furthermore, processing losses get dealt by the system like currency exchange (1kg of fish = 400g of fillets).

Finally, we “mass balance” each sale/export against that original “deposit” until the volume is exhausted, and no more fish can be attributed to that unload. If some one wants to export fish he “didn’t” land… then we know something is happening there and the inspectors can focus on them.

As you imagine, there is lot of developmental and technical complexity behind these systems… progress is slow… and we don’t have the money that a bank have! 

I been doing this work for the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, under a EU funded program, WWF has presented the idea to the US Presidential Task Force against IUU fishing, and recently the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is paying me to present for discussion a set of draft technical guidelines for a system among this lines. 

 So the concept is gaining momentum… but what I really like is that is understandable by proxy to the banking system and “fair”… as there are no “interpretations”… is just about balancing volumes… “fish in” vs. “fish out” 

Slide 5 

I like to think this “fairness” helps Esau and his people, who are after all the real owners of the resource… but then why are they and so many other Pacific islanders in the little boats, and not owning the big boats? 

And while I’m quite proud of my work and the systems I’m building… I can’t stop feeling a bit like a patronising neocolonialist … 

I live in this idyllic island (in green), in a stable, transparent and safe country… but my work places (in red) is not always like that…

The world I work is one of food for today more than aspirations for tomorrow… in the world I work:

•  20% of its population survives with less than 1 USD a day,
• 50% with less that 2 USD a day (this is the world my mother lived till her teenage days, and many of Esau’s people live),
• A staggering 80% live below 10USD a day (and this is the bracket where most of my hosts in the many vessels in the pacific I worked are… and is where I was until I came to NZ).

We here, are very small percentage of mankind, which can actually afford to think about the future.

Slide 6 

So... does Esau really need my work?

Or he needs a better present, before a sustainable fishing future… if we are not able or willing to deal with such a “management failure” as society and as a specie… what real hope does fishery has?

l like to leave you with that question. 

Thank you - Gracias

The Opah /Moonfish... the world’s first warm-blooded fish?

Anyone that spent time in a longliner in the pacific, knows Opah (moonfish) Lampris guttatus. As it normally comes as by catch. Is a quite a good looking fish, but not particularly fast or smart... but it looks like it keep a good secret up its fin!

NOAA Fisheries West Coast

One of the most basic biology facts we’re taught in school growing up: Birds and mammals are warm-blooded, while reptiles, amphibians and fish are cold-blooded.

In a recent paper published published in Science, Wegner et all, explain that

Endothermy (the metabolic production and retention of heat to warm body temperature above ambient) enhances physiological function, and whole-body endothermy generally sets mammals and birds apart from other animals. Here, we describe a whole-body form of endothermy in a fish, the opah (Lampris guttatus), that produces heat through the constant “flapping” of wing-like pectoral fins and minimizes heat loss through a series of counter-current heat exchangers within its gills. Unlike other fish, opah distribute warmed blood throughout the body, including to the heart, enhancing physiological performance and buffering internal organ function while foraging in the cold, nutrient-rich waters below the ocean thermocline.

The secret lies in a specially designed set of blood vessels in the fish’s gills, which allows the fish to circulate warm blood throughout its entire body.

Scientists already suspected the opah was special. Most fish who live where the opah does — that is, hundreds of feet deep, in some of the ocean’s darkest and coldest places — are sluggish, thanks to the low temperatures. At these depths, even predatory fish tend to be slow-moving, waiting patiently for prey to come by rather than actively chasing it down. But the opah, which spends all its time in these deep places, has many features usually associated with a quick-moving, active predator, such as a large heart, lots of muscle and big eyes. These characteristics made the opah “a curiosity”.

The opah’s secret first started to come out when NOAA researcher and lead author of the paper looked at a gill sample and noticed something intriguing.

All fish have two kinds of blood vessels in their gills: vessels carrying blood in from the body to pick up oxygen, and other vessels carrying oxygenated blood back out again. In the opah, the incoming blood is warm after circulating through the fish’s body. This is because the opah swims by quickly flapping its pectoral fins, rather than undulating its body like many other fish do, to propel itself through the water — a process that generates high heat. But outgoing blood, which has just been in contact with water in the gills, is cold. Wegner noticed that in the opah’s gills, the two sets of vessels are tightly bundled against each other, so that the incoming blood vessels can warm up the outgoing blood before it goes anywhere else. This set-up, known as “counter-current heat exchange,” allows warm blood to be delivered throughout the body.

Some other types of fish, such as tuna, have similarly designed blood vessels in certain parts of their bodies, allowing for “regional endothermy” — warm-bloodedness that’s limited to certain organs or muscles, such as the eyes, liver or swimming muscles. But the opah is the only fish scientists know of that has this design in its gills, where most fish lose the majority of their body heat to the surrounding cold water. By warming up the blood in the gills before it goes anywhere else, the opah achieves not just regional endothermy, but whole-body endothermy, according to the paper’s authors. Testing showed that the opah is able to maintain a core body temperature about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding water.

While only one species of opah is currently recognized — Lampris guttatus — scientists are starting to believe that they should actually divide the opah into several different species based on genetic variations in different populations around the world. The opah in this study were found off the West Coast of North America, so the next step will be to start sampling opah in other parts of the world to see if they all have the same specialized gills.

Down the road, future studies could also examine other related types of fish to try and figure out how and when those special gills evolved. And since a variety of different fish already exhibit regional endothermy, including tuna and certain types of sharks, it may be possible that this kind of physiological adaptation, has evolved numerous times in different lineages of fishes.

It’s possible that other deep-water species have similar adaptations as the Opah, although it’s unlikely scientists will ever discover a fish that’s truly warm-blooded, in the way whales or other marine mammals are warm-blooded.

In the meantime, Opah is an unlikely star!

Fisheries Information Management Systems (FIMS)

For the last 2 days I been in a room in Brisbane talking fish with data guys, which is not new for me and something I enjoy! For a while now I have been working aligning my usual operational work at wharf side and vessels with the collection an management of data.

In fact more and more I see the management of "fish" as no different to the management of data.  For example, when fish is landed, is like a deposit in a bank or minutes on a pre pay phone... every time you use the fish for processing , sales, etc. is like you making an extraction or you make a phone call... so that original "deposit" gets less and less until is exhausted... and you cannot make more extractions. 

Let me put it this way, is you landed legally 100, is no way you can "use" (process- export) 120 from that 100 landed...  those 20 either come form a different legal landing or they come come an ilegal landing. And here I see a huge tool to work against IUU fishing.

Because is not like some one takes the money to the bank or stuff it into your phone... is just data... Fish is actually real but the volumes and transactions can be made data! 

The concept of an FIMS is that it uses existing database systems, integrates and enhances them where required, and provides for the addition of new integrated systems to manage data not currently catered for.

At the top of the FIMS structure is a suite of reporting systems that will pull all of the information together and provide top-level reports (integrating all of the data sources into data summaries and charts), and allow “drilling down” to see more detail if required.

The types of data that may be incorporated into the system will include all tuna fisheries data, VMS (vessel monitoring systems) data, MCS (monitoring, control and surveillance) data, real time observer data, licensing data, trade data, and so on.  A good  FIMS can integrate relevant sets of information in real time, and make it available at the “press of a button”, obviously this FIMS will also does for electronic exchanges on a national and regional basis involving partner agencies and the fishing industry itself.

In the Pacific we are working in two fronts; the Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority (PNG/NFA) and the Office of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) are continuously developing with a consulting firm from Australia an integrated FIMS ( i-FIMS) that provides a hierarchical structure for these national and subregional organisations, but with additional components specific to PNG/NFA’s national database requirements. Work on this system is already well advanced and integrates with database systems developed and maintained by SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (TUFMAN, TUBS, TAGDAGER) for scientific purposes

The second initiative is working at a more general level with data from the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) integrating all data streams and in compatibility with the iFIMS.

The work of this guys is gold for me, as it allows for tracking and mass balance of fish movements, and this are the key for parallel areas of my work interest: Port State Measures, Catch Certification and IUU fisheries deterrence. 

2 of May: World Tuna Day!

I love Tuna, perhaps the most beautiful, powerful and resilient fish in the world.

Me and Noro's town tuna

And I will keep doing what ever I can, so scores of people in the Pacific keep earning their living out of tuna fisheries in a legal and sustainable (sus"tuna"ible :-) ) way, and so other millions of people world wide can eat them. 

I owe to Tuna my life for the last 20 years. Thanks to Tuna, I can feed my family, educate my children, help my friends, support my extended family, I gained qualifications that made a better professional and if that wasn't enough, got to know so many friends around the Pacific. 

So, my full love and respect to you, my brother Tuna!

My view on: Ecolabels

Lately, some of my opinions expressed on this blog have put me in hot water with people from various organisations, so I thought about explaining clearly my position in regards some topics, as I don't like to be misunderstood! 

With Fisheries Ecolabels, my view is the following: let me use a scenario to explain.

from a WWF - Accenture report

 In most countries of the world, to drive a car, you need to go trough a process of getting a driver's license run by an official institution in that country. Once you have that licence, you can legally get on the road and drive a car.  How good is that system, is depending on a varied number of reasons; like human resources, cultural values, rule of law, transparency, etc.

Obviously, there would be countries that are better than others at this. So let say that a country has a bad rate of accidents by licensed drivers, in comparison with other countries. So what you do? 

For me, the most logic, democratic and cost-effective solution is to set a program to strengthen the institution that is legally entitled to do that job in the country, standardise the licensing systems, exams and controls under auditable standards and reward conformance in some way.

What I would not do, is to create a privately owned parallel system on top of the already existing national system. Hence I, as a driver need to get trough the hurdles of the official systems, and then get in contact with this private companies ( working at least at cost recovery but most probably for profits) and go over a whole set of new exams and tests (at my cost) to prove people I don't know, that I know how to drive.

And that is what in my opinion Ecolabels do, create a parallel system. And is not that if I’m a good driver this extra private certificate will diminish my insurance cost or guarantee me a fare increase.

So that is my “problem” with Ecolabels. I would not mind their existence if they were based on a model pushed by consumers that want extra guarantees and are happy to pay for them… but is rather on a model for retailers offloading to a ”commercial brand” their decision-making capacity and expecting the producers to pay for the bill.

I do have the feeling (and I got this from data we collected working with Globefish) that we are being told that is a “consumer” requirements, when seems that is a retailer imposition to create a “firewall” around them by saying… we sell fish with ecolabels so it should be good!

Many governments have introduced at national, regional and international levels (with different degrees of success and capacity), and diverse policies and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. And I have seen that the better the performance of the organisation the easier the Eco-certification is… so it seems that the fisheries that are certified are the ones that needed it the less.

The idea of that a certified product may get a price premium is not a golden rule, furthermore the logic of that assumption is flawed, in NZ we have argued that the industry should not even expect a price premium for certification noting that: “No plausible case can be made for a premium for ‘sustainable seafood’. I anything, a well-managed fishery should also be a cheaper fishery to harvest as the fish should be more abundant and easier to catch!” as said by my friend Alastair MacFarlane

Furthermore, the “explosion” of fish-related labels and certification, has created what has been described as “eco-label noise”. Consumers may find the wealth of different messages confusing; they increasingly put their faith in trusted retailers to define the boundaries of their ethical purchasing decisions.

For example, The NZ Hoki fishery managed under an internationally peer review Quota Management System (QMS) has been certified by MSC since 2001, nevertheless, since 2010 Greenpeace added it to its seafood red list, as Greenpeace believes “the stocks of Hoki are now considered to be overfished”… so who you believe?

On top of that different certification schemes certify different things, have different standards, and use different assessment methodologies. There is significant variation between schemes in the scope of the assessments conducted. And after knowing some of the people behind them, I have seen people with very dubious moral standards taking moral high grounds on the goodness of their brand of Ecolabels in comparison to the others.

The Ecolabels session in most tuna conferences I have been, is always an embarrassing cat fight.

Personally, I think that if all the money behind those logos and labels that retailers in rich countries want (or say they want) was to be used to support and strengthen the organisations in the sourcing countries who’s job is to manage the sustainability of the fisheries, we would achieve much better results.

Otherwise, we seem to push towards a potential the scenario where the official organisations become irrelevant and we rely on the opinion of business and brands (which is what ecolabels are) to "run" fisheries management. 

Ecolabels have a space in the fisheries world, a space we gave them by not having a strong fisheries management systems and they took using consumers ethics as a reason… and like anyone else in the fishing business they want to make money.

Some people try to push them as a condition of market access (which is not!) in the best case scenario is a tool for market success, hence adhering to then should be approached as a business decision. 

Would you really get something from having label X or Z?. If the answer is yes, choose based on the market presence of the labels in the country you are targeting… and be ready to spend a lot of money.

Interestingly the one that I respect the most of those Ecolabels (MSC because they certify fisheries and no companies) has landed itself in problems with a russian based fishery as you see here

On Armenia, fisheries and acknowledging grievances

In 2004 I did one of the most strange missions of my career, I went to Armenia, a landlocked country in the crossroad of the Caucasus. 

It felt at the time like it was kind of the Atlantis (a place we all know about, but nobody knows really where it is). I really didn’t know anything about the country and besides finding in a map it exact location, learned about his geography and history.

I heard before about Armenia, as most people in the world, because its surviving diaspora of which a substantial part settled in Argentina and Uruguay after escaping Turkey in what was called the 1st genocide of the 20th century. (I’ll come back to that). 

Still, what doe s a fisheries guy does there? Over 5 % of the country’s surface is covered by Lake Sevan  and the lake host an active fishery of the very valuable narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus) that is  indigenous species of Armenia that initially inhabited freshwater habitats of Ararat Plain, but in the 1980s it was introduced into Lake Sevan, and fairly soon its population and distribution throughout the Lake started to grow. 

The northern European market had a strong affinity to this fresh water crayfish, as similar species used to abundant there in the past, but the local populations have decreased and a potential market was open, so my job was to create and strengthen the regulatory avenues for the country to be able to export their crays to the EU and in a completely unrelated fashion develop a (immediately doomed) fisheries management plan.

One part of the job really worked, the export volumes increased during the twelve-year period, 2000-2011 from 20 tons per year to 1120 tons per year. Not surprisingly, in comparison to 2004, when the industrial stock was estimated at 1800 tons, it decreased by 52% in 2011 to about 860 tons. At current, chances are that the population of crayfish may have declined to a level making self-reproduction nearly impossible. 

In any case, besides the challenges of work, the place itself was a revelation… not many places in the world have such a old, convoluted and complex history as Armenia. The wikipedia link above is illustrative enough.

The issue of the genocide still awkwardly diputed by Turkey (which at the time was the Ottoman empire). This weekend marked the 100th anniversary the initial actions that set up the events, on April 24th 1915, scores of Armenian intellectuals were rounded up in Istanbul and most were later murdered. But as the centenary approaches, what followed is still bitterly contested by the present Turkish government. To the point that in previous years Turkey has commemorated the allied landings at Gallipoli in 1915 on April 25th. This year it is shifting events to April 24th, some say to distract from the centenary of the Armenian massacres.

Scars of the event run so deep in the country that the genocide is integral part of the Armenian’s identity.

Turkey’s position is increasingly unattainable… recognising what happened is not going to debilitate its international “reputation” if anything it will enhance it. They are not alone in that club… any imperial power and colonizing country is guilty (i.e. is estimated that 90% of the original inhabitants of Central and South America died in the first 100 years of Spanish and Portuguese colonization, the atrocities of the UK extended over 5 continents – and I’m not including slavery)…. So no moral high ground there.

For most Armenians I know, just a formal recognition of their grievances would do, and allow them to move on into the next steps of their history. They have never used their tragedy as tool for subjugation of other races or as a turn around tool to claim those who criticise them are xenophobic. Even their conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh run among other lines (most of the time at least)

People sitting together and recognising each other grievances has amazing effects, is not about changing the past, of trying to convince you otherwise. Even at very simple level of conflict around work. The sitting of people with grievances about each other’s actions or writings can have amazing soothing consequences (I had such an event last Friday for example)

Surely no Turkish leader read this blog (however I was amazed how many people in the Brussels Seafood Show told me they do!)… but is time to just sit and acknowledge each other grievances with Armenia, is really the only way forward.

Until then my Armenian friends will keep holding to this event as the key unresolved issue in their existence as people, as country and a culture, which believe me is much richer that that. 

More expected yellows and unexpected greens by the EU

The European Commission has today put Thailand on formal notice for not taking sufficient measures in the international fight against illegal fishing (IUU). As a result of  series of discussions with Thai authorities since 2011, the Commission has denounced the country's shortcomings in its fisheries monitoring, control and sanctioning systems and concludes that Thailand is not doing enough.

Personally, I have to say that this was long time due. Good on the EU for taking finally that step, it was obvious to many of us in this game, that there was no way that there was enough tuna coming with catch certs from the WCP (Western Central Pacific) to supply the EU market, furthermore the practices on their ports have been dubious at best. From a very reliable source I know that one of the main companies there is cupboard with many of the supplying countries official stamps  to be used to forge EU CCs (since they are not electronic - even if that was contemplated in the EU IUU regulation and after 5 years has not happen yet)

So, Thailand was not a surprise [Taiwan and China next please :-)]. What really did surprised me was that Philippines and Korea were "green carded".

Philipines case was intricately related to the PNG one, most of the problems relate to the lack of controls on their massive fleet operating in PNG waters (and I'm a witness of that). I have been heavily involved with PNG in this particular issue for the last year, and PNG system is very thorough at this stage and i hoped it will be good enough to be out of the yellow.

When I was in Philippines last December, I did not see anything as developed as in PNG. And while I'm not discrediting any efforts that Philippines may or may have not done, I really expected both countries to be green lighted at once at least or PNG first and then Philippine later, but not the oposite. But then i'm just a guy on the ground helping people and I have not many insights (nor I want to have!) in the politics behind these decisions.

And in regards Korea... well... if finally having requested their vessels to have a VMS was the start, i imagined that the depth of changes was much deeper, again my knowledge is only based on my evaluation of the importance that compliance has on the Korean vessels I see in the ports of the Pacific.

Solomons has a system as good as the best i have seen worldwide, and domestic fleet of 7 vessels only. We actually print the certificates, because the EU has not yet a portal for us to send the data electronically. So I was also disappointed to not see them "green carded".

In any case, I'm always been of the idea that "the perfect should not be on the way of the good". And the fact that I may not understand the reasons or politics behind the decisions, does not demerit the fact that the IUU issue is being advanced at forefront of public awareness. 

Back at the Brussels Seafood Expo Global

I'm back at the Seafood Expo Global/Seafood Processing Global (formerly the European Seafood Exposition/Seafood Processing Europe) is the world’s largest seafood trade event. More than 25,800 buyers, suppliers, media, and other seafood professionals from 150 countries visit the exposition. It is the global place where the seafood industry marketing big players mingle... as you imagine, is not an environment where I strive.

I struggle with some of these people with their suits, ties and expensive watches that believe they are the ultimate genius in the fishing industry, but they would not last 5 minutes in a fishing boat. They are so far removed from the reality on the vessels and fishers and the struggles that both face, yet based their fake smiles and 2nd hand car salesman attitude you may think that the fishing world is flourishing and perfect. (As in every aspect of life, they are great exemptions to my cliche views)

I'm here since part of my work portfolio is with a Swiss Government organisation (SIPPO) whose innovative approach to assistance, is to by-pass governments and offer assistance directly to small and medium size producers in some development and transitional countries that pass some stringent criteria in regards sustainability, compliance and social responsibility.

The package that SIPPO offers this companies includes a stand at fair, extensive matchmaking services, a communication package, support during the preparation and follow-up phase, a preparation workshop in Brussels and hotel accommodation during the trade fair.

My work is to advice the organisation during the selection process and during the trade show offer them technical support around market access issues, eco-labelling and private certifications.

Furthermore with my friend Raul from - Freshfish - (Branding -Strategy - Design) we are contracted do the exhibitor brochure for the Expo, and in this occasion they are presenting a technical guide that I wrote and they published.

If you happen to be in Brussels come and say hello: SIPPO Pavilion - hall 7 | stand 7-1953, as you imagine (being from Switzerland) they are very organised and the free chocolates are excellent :-) 

Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels

The US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing regulatory changes to improve the administration of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act program and the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas.

The deep blue is no ones ocean

The proposed rule changes includes, all U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, adjustments to permitting and reporting procedures. It also includes requirements for the installation and operation of enhanced mobile transceiver units for vessel monitoring, carrying observers on vessels, reporting of transshipments taking place on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

All this requirements are standards for the vessels when fishing in RFMO waters, but the ABNJ (Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction) are just that! so is up to the Flag State to put the rules. In fact the lack of some of these controls out Fiji into a "yellow" card situation with the EU. So is interesting that that the US is now looking for comments before amending their act. (no pun intended)

Interestingly, they have included the South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishery

For the official page click here