Policy Archives - Page 3 of 4 - One Fish Foundation

Fish Mogul’s Arrest Raises Questions About Fisheries Policy

April 1, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

To hear Carlos Rafael tell it, the oceans are there to make a profit on. It’s up to those who have the most resources to make the most profit.

Or so you might think if you looked at the pending federal criminal charges he faces. Or the electronic bracelet around his ankle, which lets law enforcement know if he’s abiding by his curfew, and that he’s likely not trying to slip another fast one past authorities.

According to federal allegations, he’s slipped several million dollars worth of illegally harvested and labeled seafood through his Carlos Seafood operation in New Bedford, Mass. past authorities for decades. In court documents filed last month, investigators from the Internal Revenue Service claim Rafael, the largest seafood distributor in New England with more than 40 boats in his company’s name, intentionally defrauded the government by hiding his actual catch volumes and mislabeling fish. Prosecutors allege the mislabeling involved an intricate scheme whereby less abundant, more regulated and higher priced species like sole were labled as more abundant lower priced haddock arriving at port. Rafael allegedly misrepresented those species on federal catch quota forms he filed by mail or online. Then the species were sold at a higher price to a New York wholesaler who allegedly paid for the fish with bags of cash.

The brazenness with which he allegedly bragged about how he “did the dance,” as he described his activities, is astounding. “When the [inspector] disappears, that’s when we got a chance to make the fish disappear,” he allegedly told undercover agents posing as Russian mafia interested in buying his business, describing the ease of the deception when investigators did not meet his boats at dock. He boasted of netting $668,000 in less than six months, and that he smuggled some of the cash to bank accounts in Portugal, according to the affidavit.

Rafael is out on a million-dollar bond, wearing the ankle bracelet as a constant reminder of what went wrong after he allegedly tried to sell his business for $175 million, even though his books only reported $21 million in combined assets. The rest, he told undercover agents, was unreported profit, according to the affidavit filed in federal court.

As of last week, the court granted a prosecution request for an extension in seeking an indictment.

The news of Rafael’s arrest on Feb. 26 shook the industry from coast to coast. The aftershocks continue to send ripples throughout the entire supply chain and beyond.

Many commercial fishermen spoke out, pointing to Rafael as an example of how existing fisheries management policy has created an environment that breeds the kind of abuses Rafael is accused of. Specifically, they point to current catch share programs that allow deep-pocketed operations like Rafael’s to buy up the quota and essentially control fisheries. Not only do they gobble up quota and permits, they also snatch up processing facilities on shore, so that defrauding the management system, as prosecutors allege Rafael did, is easier. If you control the captains and crew on the water, the boat, the processor and the supply chain, mislabeling becomes a much easier process.

This schema has several negative impacts. First, it forces out smaller scale fishermen, many of whom are family operations in business for generations and just barely scraping by. If they don’t have the profit to pay for the ever-escalating quota costs, they can’t compete. Secondly, placing control over select fisheries into the hands of a few well-funded operations means there are fewer disparate voices on the water actually taking care of the resource. Put another way, there are fewer people self-policing the fishery to make sure peers aren’t cheating. Also, more eyes on the water can be a first alert to dramatic changes in the fishery, hopefully triggering a fast response to protect the resource.

But here’s another problem that arose in the wake of the news of Rafael’s arrest: Public image. It takes one or two people getting caught cheating the system on a grand scale to cast a long shadow on commercial fishermen. It’s the case of one bad apple taking out the whole bushel. The arrest of Rafael, who is a fleet owner and distributor, not a fisherman, has fueled questions about how rampant this kind of fraud is within the current quota system. Witness this blog from the Conservation Law Foundation. I’ve seen recreational fishing guides discussing this on social media.

The reality is that most commercial fishermen in the U.S. are just trying to make a living. Most know that if they don’t take care of the resource, they could put themselves out of business.

The U.S. has one of the most closely regulated fishing industries in the world. Any fraud or other illegal operations that occur here pale in comparison to what happens in Asia, for example. [Quick side note: It’s kind of frightening to think of what could happen if trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership are fully ratified. Domestic fishermen already fighting an uphill battle against foreign imports and large quota grabs will likely be pushed out even faster, as cheap, largely uninspected foreign seafood floods the market.]

The close scrutiny of U.S. investigators led to the charges against Rafael. Perhaps the fact he’s been convicted of tax evasion and making false statements on landing slips and was acquitted of price fixing charges in the past 30 years helped focus that scrutiny.

If there is a silver lining in this mess, it’s this: First, a significant operator was caught allegedly cheating the system on several boldface fronts. Second, those charges have elevated the discussion of how and why such alleged crimes occurred. Third, the discussion will continue to focus on the current quota system, and how it promotes an uneven system of the “haves” controlling fisheries at the expense of the “have nots.” Fourth, it will hopefully unify commercial fishermen to speak out against current catch share policy, and perhaps take a renewed approach to self-policing violations that could further damage the industry image.

Further reading

Here are two additional examples where operators have exploited weaknesses in current catch share policy … and got caught.

Arne Fuglvog: Alaska fisherman, turned policy maker, turned federal inmate, turned lobbyist.

American Seafood, one of the largest businesses in U.S. Seafood, controlling Pollock quota system, convicted of tampering with the scales used to weigh and report Pollock catches.

photo credit: PETER PEREIRA/THE STANDARD-TIMES/SCMG

All Blog Posts

Slow Fish Rises to the Challenge

March 22, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

To say Slow Fish 2016 (March 10-13) in New Orleans was a success is an understatement. Overcoming last-minute weather challenges that shut down the planned venue, moving several thousand pounds of food around and getting people to deliver and attend informative, compelling presentations at three different, distinct venues was a stroke of genius from the event organizers and their motivated team. Here is the blog I wrote about the experience.

It’s a surreal, if a bit funny experience to eat oysters surrounded by larger-than-life representations of male and female anatomy. Kind of a Harold-Robbins-meets-Jules-Verne aura.

How a bunch of fishermen, chefs, scientists and seafood activists from around the world ended up in a dilapidated warehouse surrounded by lewdly, yet very craftily decorated Mardi Gras floats for the Krewe du Vieux (pronounced “croo du voo” and which pulls no punches lambasting anything/anyone political or sexual) is a study in adaptation.

We had gathered for the Slow Fish 2016 event in New Orleans to discuss important fisheries issues, make connections and celebrate locally caught, fresh and delicious seafood. Naturally, intense Louisiana spring weather turned carefully planned scheduling on its head with impending violent thunderstorms and potential flooding. Not one hour into the 150-person event at the Old US Mint, the state called for emergency evacuations and closed our base of operations for the next three days.

Krewe du Vieux warehouse, where Slow Fish 2016 attendees got an eyeful in New Orleans. — Krewe du Vieux warehouse, where Slow Fish 2016 attendees got an eyeful.

So instead of celebrating the gathering on the grounds of a historic building, we found ourselves feasting on pompano and sea bass in the shadows of papier-mâché sex. Ironically, that kind of mandatory last-minute logistical two-step closely parallels the rapid fire challenges many family fishermen face, constantly having to adapt to ever-shifting polices, seafood markets, climate, etc. beyond their control. We banned together at Slow Fish to pull it off, perhaps serving as proof that collaboration and flexibility are critical to addressing broader policy and market challenges ahead. That was the first of several truly unique experiences at Slow Fish 2016.

The next was the following day at the quirky Broad Theater in Mid City, a neighborhood at the heart of New Orleans. There, fishermen ranging from Alaska to California, and from Louisiana to Maine shared stories about their watersheds, community-based fisheries traditions and the management policies changing the landscape of how, when and where they can fish.

Kevin Scribner highlights Salmon Safe's success. — Kevin Scribner highlights Salmon Safe’s success.

They discussed challenges such as privatization and resource allocation, biodiversity, policy impacts and ways to protect watersheds and fishing community heritage. Former Alaskan salmon fishermen and current Slow Fish board member Kevin Scribner described how the Salmon Safe program has worked with farmers, businesses and urban planners to reduce downstream impacts on native salmon habitat. This means the owners or tenants of more than 95,000 acres of agricultural and urban land (including the Nike campus, and several major farms) in three states and British Columbia have committed to reducing harmful nutrient and pollutant discharge into precious streams.

Kindra Arnesen spoke passionately about the challenges facing fishing families on the Mississippi River delta. She described her Herculean efforts to unite struggling fishermen after the BP oil disaster, first to get jobs helping with cleanup, then to challenge BP, the EPA, NOAA and other local, state and federal agencies on their methods of cleanup, cover-up and compensation. It was yet another story of adaptation and survival.

Happy Recirculating Farms Coalition catfish swimming in water filtered through lava rocks holding the lettuce in the background.

Other presenters discussed creating direct channels between fishermen, retailers and chefs to bring fresh seafood inland from the coast. Marianne Cufone, executive director of Recirculating Farms Coalition, showed the audience how a motivated team was able to start a clean, productive aquaponics operation right in a Central City neighborhood. Restaurants have already expressed interest in the fresh lettuce and catfish growing in recirculated water.

Set to the backdrop of compelling images, each story brought to life some of the common struggles many fishermen and coastal communities face, and some of the successful solutions to those challenges.

Alligator, shrimp and grits, down and dirty in New Orleans.

The adaptation of the Slow Fish 2016 continued Saturday at the Dryades Market, whose previous life had been a public school in Central City, another neighborhood steeped in diversity. Groups of concerned fishermen spoke about adequately addressing quotas and fairness issues and ways to promote local fisheries management. One common theme that emerged, perhaps prophetically, was the issue of adaptation.

And of course crawfish. Deeper down, dirtier and delicious! — And of course, crawfish. Deeper down, dirtier and delicious!

Louisiana fishermen are constantly forced to adapt to changing ecosystem habitats, based on the chilling statistic that the coastline loses a football field of marsh every 45 minutes. Okanagan tribes have to adapt to the ebb and flow of wild sockeye migrating several hundred miles into incredibly diverse watersheds straddling the border between British Columbia and Washington state. Maine fishermen have to navigate the fluctuations in their fisheries due to the rapidly warming Gulf of Maine and the seemingly arbitrary nature of regional management.

Two of about three hundred dozen oysters brought to the event.

Perhaps it was divinely appropriate that Mother Nature decided to throw a curveball and forced organizers to scramble. Because it is that instinct to go into auto pilot in the face of adversity and figure out a solution that determines success. For a Pacific salmon, that instinct to swim several hundred miles to its natal waters to spawn, die and give sustenance to its young is pure survival. For fishermen, it’s the ability to chase different available species when Nature or policy forces their hands. It’s in banding together to work toward a common cause to bring communities closer to their seafood.

Through all of the rain and high wind and last-minute venue changes, the shuttling of food from here to there…and back again, the audio-visual challenges, the taxis, carpools and long walks through a noisy French Quarter, Slow Fish 2016 attendees made connections. They found common ground. They discussed ways to organize, set goals and pursue them. They made friends.

I learned some skills from Chef Zack Engel (chef de cuisine at Shaya Restaurant) and pit master Howard Conyers.

Perhaps the skies dawned on a warm,bluebird day on the tail end of the gathering at Docville Farm in Violet, La., a boucherie and seafood feast, as a reckoning of sorts. Adapt. Persevere. Hope. Something good will come out of it.

The memory of the food, the conversation, the energy and camaraderie will stay with all of us for a long time.

All Blog Posts

Changing Oceans, Changing Fishermen

March 6, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Should fishermen be the face of climate change?

This was one of the more compelling questions posed at the Maine Fishermen’s Forum in Rockland on March 4.

It’s an interesting posit with many implications. For anyone in and around the industry, the answer is pretty straightforward. Fishermen are on the frontlines of how climate change impacts fisheries around the world. Along with researchers, fishermen are the first to see changes in everything from migratory patterns to spawning success and recruitment and predator/prey relationships.

Just ask Linda Williams. She is former chair of the Western Rock Lobster Council in Western Australia. Her husband and son fish for western rock lobster. She told a crowd of 300-400 that fishery has undergone mammoth changes in the past decade. Ten years ago, the average annual haul was 10 million kilograms, brought in by 600 boats during a roughly nine-month season. Now it is 5-6 million kilograms, brought in by 250 boats year round. The interesting catch? They are now logging record profits and working less.

So how did this happen? In 2009, lobstermen and researchers noticed a significant drop in the number of late larval stage lobsters in normal locations. Females were releasing eggs earlier than ever, which affected migratory patterns of the lobsters as they grew from larvae. The end result would be fewer lobsters caught in season and a downward spiral. This coincided with a warming trend of about 1-3 degrees Celsius over long-term summer averages, which also coincided with changing currents along the Western Australia coast.

Seeing the potential for disaster, lobstermen, scientists and policy makers worked together to form a quota system based on predictive analyses of future harvests determined by current larval settlement (the numbers and location of late larval stage lobsters). The industry anticipates how changing water temperatures and shifting currents will affect harvest 3-4 years in advance. Now the fishery operates profitably, even as the oceans are warming around them.

That kind of adaptation was the theme from other commercial fishermen. John Mellor fishes for Dungeness crabs and sablefish (black cod) off California. He sensed trouble in the water a year ago, noticing a milky, bluish hue and seeing big schools of anchovies flopping around the surface gasping for air. The culprit was algal blooms sucking up too much oxygen and releasing high concentrations of domoic acid (a neurotoxin) along the West Coast. California’s witness to climate change has coincided with this year’s El Nino, which extended a three-year period of lower than average storm and wind activity that would otherwise mix up the currents and slow the progress of algal blooms and the resulting red tides.

Filter feeders like clams, mussels and worms absorb the neurotoxin, and the crabs eat them, posing a threat to human health. Mellor explained the devastation to the industry when shortly before this season was to begin, California shut down the fishery indefinitely. Crabs represent 2/3 of his income, and he said he was fortunate to have a sablefish permit just to keep operating. Many fishermen are facing foreclosure etc.

“I see you enjoying your lobster fishery,” he said to the audience. “I suggest you keep an eye on the water. If you see it start to change a milky blue, be prepared.” He said fishermen need to adapt as quickly as the oceans are changing to survive.

Keith Colburn, who fishes Alaska king crab and has appeared on the TV show “The Deadliest Catch,” said in 30 years on the water, the most dramatic weather and water changes have occurred in the last 15 years, including the three coldest years and the three warmest years in Alaska. He said 20 years ago, they might have one storm that registers 50-knot winds per year. Now they may have 10-15 storms of that magnitude.

Noting the migration of the lobster fishery out of Long Island South and north of Cape Cod, he said somewhat jokingly, “If I was a Maine lobsterman, I’d be thinking about getting a Canadian passport soon. Each of you came out here to discuss a topic no one wants to think about. But we need to think about it.”

A fisherman from Point Judith, R.I. noted that their lobster fishery has been devastated by black sea bass (a mid-Atlantic species following warming waters north along the coast) and dogfish devouring larval lobsters. As regional waters warmed, more of these predators invaded the region and outnumbered the lobsters and other local species. The local fleet dropped from 150 boats 10 years ago to zero now, by his reckoning.

Scientists keep ringing the alarm bell

Scientists on the front edge of the latest climate research such as John Hare of NOAA and Andy Pershing of Gulf of Maine Research Institute highlighted just how much the water has warmed in the Gulf of Maine and how much that has impacted several native species.

Pershing noted how the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the oceans on the planet at a rate of .23 degrees C or .4 degrees F per year, almost four times faster than anywhere else. He said because of the record warmth of the past several months allowing to El Nino, normal current variability and the recent warming trend, lobstermen could expect this year’s shed (when lobsters shed their shells) to happen anywhere from two to three weeks before the usual timeframe of the first week in July. That kind of predictability helps lobstermen at least have some idea of when their season will be most productive and profitable and plan ahead.

John Hare discussed his recent research methodology, which helps scientists, fishermen and policy makers better predict how climate change will impact growth and migratory patterns of 82 Northeast species. He said 42% of those species have a very high potential vulnerability to climate change, while 50% are likely to change their distribution because of warming waters. (See chart below).

Overall climate vulnerability is denoted by color: low (green), moderate (yellow), high (orange), and very high (red). Certainty in score is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90–95%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66–90%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font). Source: Hare et al (2016)

“Warming oceans and acidification are posing a significant threat to fisheries,” Hare said. “I firmly believe we can only face these changes together.”

Which brings us back to the original question posed by chef and author Barton Seaver. He asked if fishermen could be the voice of social change at a time when politicians and scientists are often seen as bloviating by those who deny climate change exists. Perhaps fishermen, whose lives depend on the weather, could deliver a broad enough, “Everyman” appeal to spark a larger movement to minimize greenhouse gases, slow global warming and better manage the health of our oceans. Colburn, the Alaskan king crab fisherman responded, “Being that fishing is America’s oldest job, I think as fishermen we could ban together, we could start to change our patterns.”

But perhaps the question isn’t so much should fishermen be the face of climate change, but will they? As Colburn said, “A lot of fishermen want to believe that the environment is not changing.” So, getting them to sound an alarm may be a tough ask. But as the ranks of those fishermen pushed to the brink swell, like California’s Mellor, or those that found a way to adapt, like Western Australia’s Murray, perhaps there will be enough momentum for a unified voice, as Seaver suggested.

Forums like this one, uniting scientists and fishermen to understand how things are changing and how quickly they’re changing, and to work together to figure out how to adapt are significant starting blocks. And if you can get policy makers, such as John Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, to not only attend such meetings, but state publicly that we need to do something about climate change (as he did here), perhaps there is enough accountability and unity in place for us to do something to protect the climate collectively.

If we can get all of these stakeholders at the same table, working together, as John Hare suggested, we can do better adapting to how rapidly the oceans are changing, and maybe even limit the long-term damage. Doing so would help us better deliver on the Slow Food promise of good, clean, accessible and fair seafood for all.

As consumers grappling with the implications of global warming on the seafood we eat, we should understand that “eating within the ecosystem” is now more important than ever. That is, we should eat what is locally available, sustainably harvested and seasonal. Choosing “invasive” black sea bass here in Maine rather than big name species facing multiple stresses — including climate — is a step in the right direction.

Additional reading

Check out this column by Bren Smith, a commercial fisherman who adapted to the changing climate by embracing the “eating within the ecosystem” philosophy.

All Blog Posts

The Telltale Cod

February 26, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

This is a blog written by my good friend Chef Evan Mallett for the Slow Fish 2016 website. Slow Fish 2016 is an international gathering of fishermen, chefs, scientists, policy makers and other activists to discuss and share local fishing community challenges and solutions from around the country and the world. One Fish Foundation will be attending. Evan speaks with a clear, informed and passionate voice on why we should care about seafood sustainability.

By Evan Mallet

In 2012, I wrote a blog entitled “Grandpa, What’s a Cod?” The motive for writing that blog was a dramatic realization that my children’s children might someday ask me such a question. Perhaps, I projected, they will see an old menu or read an article, or visit the Cape that bears the name of a mystery fish.

Entire books have been written about cod—citing the fish’s dominion over our national heritage, how it inspired colonization and later, an inestimably rich global seafood trade. As our New World and its human population have expanded from the shores where codfishing boats first landed, cod has been there every step of the way. Until now.

Since I wrote the blog, assessments of the cod population in the Gulf of Maine (my backyard) have only brought more bad news. I am a chef, and I have grown up alongside the bounty of North Atlantic fisheries. In recent years, I have watched those fisheries, and the small family-owned boats that ply our local waters, dwindle to the point of near-extinction. It is clear that a revolutionary shift in mindset is the only solution to a problem we have created over decades of fishing a species to the brink.

Some experts point to changing water temperatures, locally and globally, that might explain a shift in breeding grounds for Atlantic cod and other coldwater species. And, whether as a result of this shift or a three-decade moratorium on cod fishing, there is evidence that Newfoundland—where annual cod harvests once numbered over a million metric tons—might be experiencing a cod comeback of sorts.

It’s not that I personally hold cod up as the all-seeing banner of virtue and supremacy that our founding fathers did when they marched a “sacred cod” wooden replica to the Massachusetts State House, where it still hangs today. The truth is, I definitely revere cod’s flavor, texture and utility. However, a simple reality check tells us that we have no choice but to consider other species as alternatives to our New England culture’s longtime staple fish. I am one of those few chefs who sells Pollock, Acadian redfish, even dogfish, on my menu, because I believe with all of my heart that we have no choice but to ignite a new awareness now, before the fish we grew up eating are gone.

When I attended Slow Food’s Terra Madre and Salone del Gusto in 2010, I heard a fisherman from Oceania talk about how his family could afford frozen farmed salmon from Northern Europe, purchased in his local supermarket, but could not afford to eat his own fresh, local catch, upon which his livelihood depended. That fisherman’s story started my trip down the undercurrent of insanity that is our global seafood distribution system.

I have yet to understand how the economics of food have so egregiously ignored the ecology of food for so long, and I don’t know if even radical change will come too late. But I do know that right now, every community on our planet needs to wake up to a seafood crisis. At stake is not only the human diet’s most nutritious animal protein, but also the trophic balance of all aquatic ecosystems.

Slow Fish is uniquely positioned to spread this gospel like no other organization, and I look forward to seeing talk of change lead to actions that will preserve both fisheries and fishermen.

Evan Mallett is chef/owner of Black Trumpet in Portsmouth, N.H. He also sits on the national Chef’s Collaborative Board of Overseers, the Slow Food Seacoast Board of Directors and the NOAA Seafood Marketing Steering Committee.

photo: Chef Evan Mallett showing Slow Food UNH students how to prepare dogfish.

SLOW FISH 2106 INFO

REGISTER for Slow Fish 2016.
JOIN our Facebook Event Page.
SUPPORT our Indiegogo fundraising campaign.
HOST a Fisher-Chef Alliance dinner.

All Blog Posts

Climate Change Could Threaten Several Northeast Fisheries New Study…

February 6, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Go ask Long Island lobstermen … if you can find any … what they think about climate change. Trouble is, there aren’t many left because there aren’t many lobsters left in Long Island Sound. Same thing with Atlantic cod fishermen. There aren’t nearly as many boats targeting cod compared to 25 years ago because there are fewer fish.

We can blame climate change to a degree. No, it would be shortsighted to blame all fisheries depletions on warming waters. Myriad factors including fishing pressure can conspire to harm stock health. But a new study from NOAA underscores a concern many scientists and fishermen share: ever warming waters will continue to dramatically impact fisheries.

Published in the journal PLOS ONE, the study relies on a new methodology to look at how 82 species in the Northeast region have been and will be affected by climate change. Specifically, the study measures which species will be most vulnerable to climate change effects, including ocean acidification, as well as which species’ migratory patterns will most likely change because of ocean warming. In a nutshell, species that live along the ocean floor such as cod, mussels and lobsters, and those like salmon and sturgeon that migrate between salt and fresh water are most at risk.

Some of the species’ responses we already know. As the Gulf of Maine warms faster than 99% of all ocean climates on earth (at a rate of a half a degree Fahrenheit increase per year for the past decade), several native species have reacted. Lobsters have moved north and east along the coast, leaving fisheries in Long Island and Cape Cod in succession. The Northern Shrimp fishery has collapsed in the past few years. Scientists speculate the combination of warming waters limiting spawning and reducing the amount of plankton the shrimp eat is largely to blame. Scientists also say these warming waters limit cod reproduction and health and survivability of juveniles.

Gulf of Maine temperature increases have opened the door to invasive species like black sea bass and scup, and have made bays and estuaries more hospitable to European green crabs, whose numbers have risen exponentially in the past few years. Green crabs wreak havoc on eelgrass flats as they burrow in to eat larval mussels, clams and oysters.

Jon Hare, a fisheries oceanographer at NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and lead study author, said the main purpose of this study is to give fisheries managers and other stakeholders tools to take climate change into account when devising management policy.

“We’re never going to have perfect information,” he said. “The ecosystem is going to change because of a combination of anthropogenic influence such as greenhouse gas and natural climate variability.” To keep up with the pace of that change, which has been dramatic in the past 10 years, Hare and his colleagues developed a methodology that incorporates already established research and factors in expert extrapolation. This methodology helps them predict things like how mussels will respond to warming waters or how they will react to increased acidity in their ecosystem in the next 10 years.

The scientists graded each of the 82 species’ vulnerabilities taking into account different variables, and set those grades to peer review. The result is a composite view of how likely a species may suffer reproductive pressures from increased temperatures or how likely a species may change migratory patterns.

Hare said other studies are beginning in the Bering Sea and off the coast of California, and the National Marine Fisheries Service wants to conduct these studies on all U.S. coasts.

No doubt much discussion will arise from this study and others like it. Some will question the study’s approach, efficacy or even need. Some fishermen may view the study as simply another tool for regulatory bodies like the New England Fisheries Management Council to further restrict fishing without real stakeholder permit. Others might ask why this hasn’t occurred before.

I see a couple of potential positive outcomes. First, the fact that NOAA is not only acknowledging climate change, but also actively trying to take steps to factor that into management decisions is significant. Like any federal agency, NOAA moves at a glacial pace (I wonder how long we’ll be able to use that descriptor…). But Hare and his colleagues eschewed the traditional approach to ecosystem-based management via species-specific analyses, which could take decades, to adopt a faster, potentially more efficient methodology for studying the issue. This is largely because climate change has been transforming ecosystems faster than we can study them.

Secondly, Hare says he hopes this tool becomes iterative — that in fact it will adapt as ecosystems change so scientists and researchers will have a chance to keep closer tabs of impacts than before. Some of fishermen’s frustrations with past NOAA research/policies is that that they are static, and don’t change dynamically with ecosystems. But Hare hopes the iterative process for this methodology will take into account fishermen input when considering which species may be affected by climate change. “Fishing communities will be impacted as well,” he said.

One impact is that some of these communities will start adapting to the changing marine ecosystems and harvest “locally abundant” species that were once considered invasive species. For example, black sea bass have started showing up in lobster traps in Maine because they’ve followed the warming trend north. Now they are an available seafood choice in local stores and restaurants.

I too hope this process becomes more collaborative. Because without that interactive participation in the science and policy making, the process will continue to be viewed by many as a set of unilateral decisions curtailing fisheries at the expense of small scale fishermen. As Hare said, even if we magically stopped all green house emissions now, the lingering effects of warming oceans would continue for decades.

Acting now, collaboratively, is the best chance at present for ensuring we effectively manage fisheries even as warming waters seek to change the dynamics. I attended a workshop a year ago in which scientists (including Hare), fishermen, and policy makers discussed how to better predict climate change impacts on fisheries and how to communicate that to fishermen.

Perhaps this is the first step.

Lobster photo credit: NOAA

All Blog Posts

Paris Accord Sets Global Climate Change Commitment

December 15, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Something happened in Paris on Friday that many thought wouldn’t.

Agreement.

Agreement by nearly 200 countries that climate change is a significant problem with short- and long-term global implications that we must address collectively. It was an uphill slog. Those countries signed a pact to reduce their carbon footprints and slow the pace of global warming in the coming century.

In a nutshell, after months and years of preparation, with weeks of hard back-and-forth negotiation culminating in two overnight sessions, nearly 200 countries agreed that:

Climate change exists and has the potential to do irreparable harm to the planet;
Global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases is critical to minimizing this harm;
Each country must commit to reducing carbon emissions, and revise those commitments to ever stricter standards every five years;
Each country must demonstrate what measures it has taken to cut emissions via a transparent process, every five years;
The goal is to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, if not 1.5 degrees;
Forest preservation is critical to offsetting carbon emissions, and countries should enact policies to limit logging and save intact forests; and
Developed countries like the U.S., France, England, etc. should take the lead in providing funds for programs to reduce global carbon emissions, including those in developing countries.

Establishing a framework

To be sure, this is a first step. Conference organizers in Paris and elsewhere must have looked at this effort like herding cats. Coal gobbling countries like China, India and the U.S. have traditionally held different views on their responsibilities for and the extent of climate change. Smaller developing countries like the Marshall Islands, which are sounding the alarm bell that they’re losing ground…literally, have completely different views.

Such widespread agreement is monumental in the shadow of the failed 2009 climate agreement in Copenhagen. While the 2009 summit only suggested what to do, this accord is an almost Earth-wide acknowledgement that countries need to tackle this collectively, and a legally binding commitment to do so.

Will it stop global warming completely by on its own? No, say many scientists. The real tipping point would be to prevent the average global temperature increase from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists say that if global annual temperatures rise above 2 degrees, the planet will be past the point of repair, and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will melt, sea levels could rise 20 feet, etc.

But as written, this agreement will only limit global temperature rise by about 3 degrees Celsius if countries achieve their current emissions reductions commitments, according to some scientists. It’s far better than the status quo, which is on track to bring an increase of more than 4 degrees Celsius and potential catastrophe. Still, on the new path the oceans will continue to rise, and polar caps will continue to melt, only at a slower pace.

To meet the agreement’s goal of avoiding damaging climate change, the nations of the world must step up the ambition of their cuts over time. The pact is voluntary for countries to strive for that 2 degree goal. What is legally binding is that each country commits to some kind of carbon emissions reduction, that they commit to continuing to reduce emissions more significantly every five years, and that they demonstrate what they have done, again every five years.

One of the biggest reasons the Paris agreement does not specify benchmarks for each country is that the United States Congress would have to vote on such a measure. And the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would have nixed any such wording. Interestingly, the U.S. Republican party is the only political party in a study of nine developed countries that flat out denies “anthropogenic climate change.” More interestingly, the study suggests that opposition to addressing climate change is strongest in countries with large reserves of oil, natural gas, and/or coal (all of which the U.S. has in abundance).

Reason for optimism

Though it will not stop global warming, this binding agreement sets a precedent for global cooperation to combat climate change and hold each other accountable. Five years ago, this seemed like an impossible task. It also hopefully creates momentum to bring the discussion to the forefront of critical diplomatic and business discussions. It sends a signal that fossil fuels do more harm than good, and should stay where they are. It will force countries to start thinking harder about developing infrastructure for alternative energy, and create a path for industries and investors to spur innovation to scale up clean energy.

And perhaps it sets a framework for more aggressive action on a global scale if the scientific evidence shows our climate is changing faster than predicted.

I’m going to teach middle school students this week about how the warming Gulf of Maine has become home to some invasive species. The European Green Crab, for example, is a warm-water invader that has been showing up in increasing numbers for the past couple of decades. It eats larval shellfish like clams, mussels and oysters. It also destroys eelgrass habitats that are nurseries for many species.

Those kinds of invasive migrations are likely to continue for a while. But I look forward to capping off the classes with a ray of hope offered by the events in Paris last Friday.

Here’s some additional reading:

Science Alert: Here’s what you need to know about the new Paris climate deal

National Geographic: Paris Agreement Catalyzes Global Cooperation Toward a Low-Carbon Future

New York Times: Climate Accord Is a Healing Step, if Not a Cure

BBC: What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?

2012 Republican Party Platform

All Blog Posts

FDA Rubber Stamps Genetically Modified “Frankenfish”

November 23, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

You may well have heard last week the FDA cleared the path for genetically modified salmon to hit the market after a protracted five-year review. It was a landmark decision that could have long-lasting implications for other genetically engineered (GE) products such as livestock (pigs, cattle, chickens) as well as reinforcing industry opposition to labeling such products (as in produce).

In a nutshell, the FDA determined the AquAdvantage salmon created by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty is safe to eat, and does not require specific labeling to identify that the fish has been genetically modified.

The AquAdvantage salmon are grown from eggs developed in Prince Edward Island and raised in land-based pens in Panama. The industry selling point for GE salmon is that it grows twice as fast on about a quarter of the feed that traditionally farmed salmon require. So some advocates point to AquAdvantage as a more environmentally friendly method of aquaculture that could meet the huge demand for salmon without raping wild populations.

Sadly, this decision sets a very bad precedent that could really confuse consumers, not to mention raising all kinds of scary questions about what happens when we eat food that has been injected with growth hormones.

Let’s take a look at some of the more pressing concerns:

Hormone use – The fish are developed with a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and more genetic material from an ocean pout that help the salmon grow to market weight in less than 20 months, while traditional farming requires up to 36 months. While the FDA says this hormone is safe for the fish and for humans, there really hasn’t been enough detailed study about the long-term health effects on humans who ingest this kind of hormone.
No labeling – If it’s safe for consumers, why not label the product? It’s a simple question that has been raised about GE produce. Short of a credible answer, we’re left to suspect that there’s something AquaBounty or Monsanto don’t want us to know. The FDA says it can only compel GE manufacturers to claim the product has been genetically altered “… if there is a material difference – such as a different nutritional profile – between the GE product and its non-GE counterpart.” So what part of injecting a hormone combining material from two vastly different species to create a third isn’t “a material difference?”
FDA regulation: So this is interesting. The FDA wants to regulate GE salmon under the same framework as it regulates veterinary drugs because of the hormone involvement. The FDA says the hormone “meets the definition of a drug.” This suggests the FDA doesn’t have an effective framework for adequately reviewing and regulating GEsalmon. To wit, the FDA seems to be applying antiquated ideological governance to a very modern, technical challenge.
Geography: I can’t put my finger on it, but something seems strange about a Mass. company using eggs developed in Canada to “create” fish to be raised in Panama. Smacks a little too much like “Blade Runner” to me.

From a practical standpoint, the labeling issue is almost hypocritical. If food manufacturers are required to tell how much sugar, salt and fat grams go into a box of cereal, why shouldn’t salmon farmers have to tell the truth about genetically engineering the fish? If it’s about a potential stigma image, then create a better, more believable narrative, or just don’t genetically engineer the fish. Trying to mask it just raises more suspicion. The FDA’s one consolation to those clamoring for GE labeling? Voluntary labeling.

Yeah, that’s likely to happen.

I admit I’ve evolved a bit in my thinking on finfish aquaculture. I still have many questions and several concerns. But some operations using closed, re-circulating systems that minimize environmental and ecosystem impact and use more plant-based feed could meet a need. Any operation certified as having outright banned hormones or antibiotics and having eliminated the problem of farmed fish escapes is better than GE.

It will be at least two years before Frankenfish hits markets. And even then, it will likely be only a small fraction of globally available farmed salmon as AquaBounty’s infrastructure is still small. Whole Foods, Trade Joes, Safeway and Kroger have all pledged to not sell the fish. The Center for Food Safety has said it will sue the FDA over this decision.

Polls in the last five years by NPR and New York Times suggest overwhelming majorities of the public would not eat GE salmon.

Count me as one in those numbers. I fear this will open a door we shouldn’t open now, and once we step through, there won’t be any turning back.

All Blog Posts

Cultivating the American Seafood Narrative

October 7, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

We need to take back the 90%. That was the rallying cry of sorts at the East Coast Seafood Forum held yesterday at the National Aquarium.

That 90% represents the amount of seafood consumed in the U.S. that has been imported from other countries. Brett Veerhusen, executive director of Seafood Harvesters of America, underscored the point that everyone in attendance knew: Importing that much seafood with the resources available domestically is unacceptable. Read more “Cultivating the American Seafood Narrative” →

All Blog Posts

Fisheries Managers Open Door to Privatizing the Ocean

October 2, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

I’m too often reminded of why politics is pure frustration. Forget about presidential elections (go ahead, try), I’m talking about down-in-the-dirt politics — the process where elected officials discuss public policies ad nauseum. As a reporter, I used to marvel at how often those discussions and votes flew in the face of public consensus. Read more “Fisheries Managers Open Door to Privatizing the Ocean” →

All Blog Posts

NOAA Mandated Observer Costs a Bad Precedent

September 8, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Imagine two months after tax day you get a notice in the mail that the IRS wants to audit you. In order to prove that you did everything right, you also have to pay the IRS $700 for this unpleasant process.

I guess that’s why many fishermen along U.S. coasts are pretty ticked at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for demanding that fishermen now pay to have federally mandated observers on their boats. Many fear that the per-trip cost of $710 will cripple small fishermen already saddled with boat debt, fuel costs, shifting markets and insurance. Read more “NOAA Mandated Observer Costs a Bad Precedent” →

All Blog Posts

New Trade Deal Could Handcuff Local Seafood Systems

June 16, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Tell me if this is your definition of democracy: Ramming through a piece of legislation that Congress is not allowed to amend, that the public is not allowed to review and comment on, and that would ultimately surrender control over local seafood resources to foreign companies, while paving the way for cheaper, less regulated product to flood domestic markets.

Sound farfetched?

All Blog Posts

Presidential Task Force Sets Sights on Illegal Fishing, Seafood…

March 20, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

This week the Presidential Task Force on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud released its action plan to help ensure fair seafood markets around the world. The plan follows close on the heels of the report NOAA issued last month identifying the challenges and objectives in combating IUU.